Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
#2
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
#4
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
I reckon they would prefer that to the other options.
Always reckoned they should be the 7th and 8th states the North and South Island personally. Although maybe they should only qualify as territory status like the ACT and NT
Not sure that Canada NZ and Aus would garner enough benefit from this free movement to be honest.
Always reckoned they should be the 7th and 8th states the North and South Island personally. Although maybe they should only qualify as territory status like the ACT and NT
Not sure that Canada NZ and Aus would garner enough benefit from this free movement to be honest.
#6
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2017
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 261
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
Canada has close relationship with US and has shared history.
I can't see the value to Canada of free movement of people between the three other countries (Australia, UK and New Zealand). If Canadian want some sunshine in the winter they go to Florida or Cuba and not Australia. Remember Canada has french speaking Quebec which would block any such move between the English speaking countries.
Not going to happen.
I can't see the value to Canada of free movement of people between the three other countries (Australia, UK and New Zealand). If Canadian want some sunshine in the winter they go to Florida or Cuba and not Australia. Remember Canada has french speaking Quebec which would block any such move between the English speaking countries.
Not going to happen.
Last edited by geoff52; May 19th 2017 at 2:49 am.
#7
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
UK Population : 65m
AU Population : 24m
CA Population : 36m
NZ Population : 5m
However, an English commonwealth++ trade block and semi free movement area would make quite a lot of sense in big picture terms, particularly since the legal systems tend to already be compatible. Just I doubt the different perceptions of the importance of each would allow it to work.
#8
Victorian Evangelist
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, by the beach, living the dream.
Posts: 7,704
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
New Zealand can actually already join the Australian federation with no change in the constitution of either country as it was named when the federation was first set up.
Given its population relative to some of the Australian states, it would actually have quite a high % of parliament.
Given its population relative to some of the Australian states, it would actually have quite a high % of parliament.
#9
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
No benefit to Australia.
Sometimes with these discussions people forget that we are not talking about making access easier for holidaymakers, who already enjoy visa-free access. We are talking about jobs.
Australia (and Canada) have higher net incomes than the UK and NZ. Australia would see a far higher level of migration from the UK and its 65 million people, at a time when the country is in a soft or transitioning economy with uncertain employment prospects for a large number of people.
For what benefit to Australian Citizens? So a far smaller number of Australians can leave here to go earn less money in the UK?
Free Movement does not work unless the economies of the countries involved are more or less equal. Otherwise you get an extremely lopsided movement from one side to another side. Australia, the UK, Canada, and NZ are all first-world countries but they do not have equal economies or incomes.
This arrangement would lead to lopsided movement from the UK and NZ to Australia and Canada.
NZ and Australia have (more or less) free movement and it is one-sided - but NZ's population is so small that Australia can handle it.
So, no thank you.
By the way, New Zealand cannot just rock up and join Australia without the current consent of the Australian Government, just because of the rushed wording of the constitution 100+ years ago. Does that also mean Western Australia isn't actually part of Australia, since WA is not mentioned in the Constitution but NZ is?
Sometimes with these discussions people forget that we are not talking about making access easier for holidaymakers, who already enjoy visa-free access. We are talking about jobs.
Australia (and Canada) have higher net incomes than the UK and NZ. Australia would see a far higher level of migration from the UK and its 65 million people, at a time when the country is in a soft or transitioning economy with uncertain employment prospects for a large number of people.
For what benefit to Australian Citizens? So a far smaller number of Australians can leave here to go earn less money in the UK?
Free Movement does not work unless the economies of the countries involved are more or less equal. Otherwise you get an extremely lopsided movement from one side to another side. Australia, the UK, Canada, and NZ are all first-world countries but they do not have equal economies or incomes.
This arrangement would lead to lopsided movement from the UK and NZ to Australia and Canada.
NZ and Australia have (more or less) free movement and it is one-sided - but NZ's population is so small that Australia can handle it.
So, no thank you.
By the way, New Zealand cannot just rock up and join Australia without the current consent of the Australian Government, just because of the rushed wording of the constitution 100+ years ago. Does that also mean Western Australia isn't actually part of Australia, since WA is not mentioned in the Constitution but NZ is?
#10
Victorian Evangelist
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, by the beach, living the dream.
Posts: 7,704
Re: Want free movement between the 4 eyes?
By the way, New Zealand cannot just rock up and join Australia without the current consent of the Australian Government, just because of the rushed wording of the constitution 100+ years ago. Does that also mean Western Australia isn't actually part of Australia, since WA is not mentioned in the Constitution but NZ is?
"The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State. Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment."
So I guess Western Australia was not one of the "Original states".
My point was that NZ was mentioned in the constitution, and while I am sure a proposal to unite the countries would require debate in both parliaments, it does not require a change in the Australian constitution.
Aboriginal people were also excluded from the Commonwealth as part of the constitution. This was repealed as late as 1967.