As a Liberal Democrat and someone deeply invested in international cooperation, I believe the concept of CANZUK—strengthening ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK—deserves serious consideration within our party. This isn’t just about nostalgia for a shared past; it’s about unlocking practical, forward-thinking opportunities that align with our values of internationalism, economic prosperity, and human rights.
I want to explore how a CANZUK alliance could benefit the UK and why the Liberal Democrats should be leading the conversation on this issue.
Economic Growth and Trade Expansion
One of the most compelling reasons for strengthening CANZUK ties is the economic potential. The combined GDP of these four countries exceeds $7.5 trillion, making them a formidable economic bloc. Unlike many existing trade agreements, a CANZUK trade partnership would be built on a foundation of mutual trust, shared legal systems, and compatible regulatory standards.
Post-Brexit, the UK needs to reimagine its place in global trade. While we should maintain strong ties with Europe, there is also an opportunity to build new economic relationships with countries that share our language, governance structures, and business culture. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand already have strong trade ties with one another, and deepening our involvement in this network could create fresh opportunities for UK businesses.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) would benefit the most from easier access to new markets. If we establish streamlined trade agreements with these nations, businesses could export their goods and services with fewer tariffs and bureaucratic hurdles. The Liberal Democrats have always championed policies that help small businesses thrive, and a CANZUK trade partnership would do just that.
Freedom of Movement and Talent Exchange
Another major pillar of the CANZUK proposal is the free movement of people between the four countries. This could be a transformative policy, allowing UK citizens to live, work, and study in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with fewer restrictions.
Immigration has always been a complex issue in the UK, but there is a case to be made for a controlled, reciprocal system between like-minded nations. The populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand overwhelmingly support the idea of free movement within the CANZUK region, and polling suggests that UK citizens would welcome it as well.
For young professionals, students, and skilled workers, a CANZUK mobility agreement could unlock new opportunities. The UK faces skills shortages in key sectors like healthcare, technology, and engineering. By allowing greater talent exchange between these four countries, we could address workforce gaps while giving UK professionals the chance to gain international experience in high-demand industries.
Additionally, for UK universities and research institutions, a CANZUK agreement could strengthen academic partnerships and knowledge sharing. The Liberal Democrats have always been strong supporters of international collaboration in education, and this initiative would provide new pathways for students and researchers to work across borders.
A Stronger Voice on the Global Stage
In an era of geopolitical uncertainty, alliances matter more than ever. The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand already collaborate on intelligence sharing (through the Five Eyes alliance), defence cooperation, and diplomatic initiatives. A formalized CANZUK alliance could enhance this cooperation and provide a stronger collective voice in global affairs.
Together, these four countries could advocate for democratic values, human rights, and environmental sustainability on the world stage. A CANZUK partnership wouldn’t replace other international commitments, but it would complement them by creating a reliable bloc of nations with shared interests.
For the UK, which has been navigating its post-Brexit foreign policy identity, CANZUK offers a chance to build strong international relationships based on trust and common values. While the Liberal Democrats have always supported close ties with Europe, we should also explore additional alliances that align with our principles.
Challenges and Considerations
Of course, no international agreement is without its challenges. One common critique of CANZUK is that it could be seen as an exclusive club, focusing on English-speaking nations while ignoring broader global partnerships. To address this, any CANZUK agreement should be designed in a way that strengthens—not replaces—our relationships with the EU, the Commonwealth, and other international partners.
There are also practical questions about implementation. Free movement policies, for example, would need to be structured carefully to ensure they are beneficial and manageable for all member countries. Immigration systems, social policies, and employment laws would require alignment to some degree.
Another concern is whether CANZUK countries would prioritize this alliance over other trade agreements. Canada, for instance, has strong ties to the US and EU, while Australia is heavily involved in Asia-Pacific trade agreements. The UK would need to approach CANZUK as one component of a larger international strategy rather than an alternative to existing partnerships.
Why the Liberal Democrats Should Lead on CANZUK
Despite these challenges, I believe the Liberal Democrats should be at the forefront of the CANZUK conversation. Our party has always stood for open, internationalist policies that promote economic growth, freedom of movement, and global cooperation.
A CANZUK alliance would embody these principles, providing new opportunities for trade, education, and mobility while strengthening our influence on the world stage. Unlike the isolationist rhetoric that has characterized some Brexit discussions, CANZUK is about building bridges—not burning them.
The Conservative Party has occasionally flirted with CANZUK ideas, but their approach to international partnerships has often been inconsistent. Meanwhile, Labour has largely ignored the discussion. This leaves a space for the Liberal Democrats to lead—to shape a CANZUK policy that aligns with liberal values and ensures that any agreements are progressive, inclusive, and beneficial for all involved.
If there isn’t already a Liberal Democrat Friends of CANZUK group, I believe we should start one. If one does exist, we should rally behind it and push for meaningful discussions within the party. We should engage with policymakers, experts, and grassroots members to develop a CANZUK vision that works in the real world—not just on paper.
* Mo Waqas is Chair of the Lib Dem’s Stockton branch and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1339
Kemi Badenoch vs the Conservative Party: how the polling compares - The Week in Polls
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Zachary Adam Barker
tom arms
Neil Hickman
Joe Bourke
11 Comments
The UK needs to look to its own interests and alliances. With Canada having to revisit its International trading relationhips under a Trump administration and the North-West passage becoming a commercially viable trans-oceanic sea route this may be an opportune time to further develop UK trade and strategic relatiionships with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in addition to those with the EU https://www.canzukinternational.com/
Might any grouping which distances us from the now obviously toxic empire of the U S A be well worth joining/creating?
Might a united Europe beyond the predatory policies of the U S A be a worthwhile possibility?
Oh, please, have the LDs stooped so low that members are now recycling this Brexiter nonsense – even though ardent Brexiters have long since given up on the idea as none of the other countries concerned have shown the slightest interest in rushing to do any such deal?
We do far more trade with each one of our immediate EU neighbouring countries (ie as a standalone) than we do with the combined total of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (ie as a bloc) – which should set the “importance” of the three countries concerned into context.
A simple request to Mr Waqas. Could he please tell us why the Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith Liberal Governments were opposed to the Joe Chamberlain/Max Aitken scheme for so called Empire Free Trade over 100 years ago ?
It was all gone into and rejected way back then…….. but it didn’t stop my Dad flying an RAF Typhoon over Juno Beach in support of Canadian troops (including Mum’s first cousin) landing on 6 June 1944 (D-Day) in Normandy.
This is an interesting idea. Personally I’d prefer to see a grouping like that as being based not just on trade but on stable democratic countries with shared values who wish to cooperate and promote democracy and freedom across the World – and accordingly, I’d consider also including Japan and South Korea (which I know rather ruins the CANZUK name). Ultimately I could imagine a grouping like that not only helping the prosperity of its members, but also providing a new and helpful democratic/progressive bloc in the World, as a counterweight to the (progressive but very closed and bureaucratic) EU and the (somewhat democratically flawed) USA.
I’d be wary of Freedom of Movement proposals though. EU FoM is fundamentally flawed because it gives no ability for each member country to control how many or which people move in to live there. The last thing we want to do is replicate all the EU’s mistakes. I think an agreement that makes it much easier for people in one CANZUK country to obtain residency rights in another country would be very welcome, but it needs to be done in a way that still gives each country the final say in its own immigration policies.
I don’t see freedom of movement working, despite CANZUK International originally being called the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, probably changing its name after its founders discovered that there’s more to the Commonwealth than the ‘Old’ (read: ‘White’) countries.
The Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand makes socioeconomic and geopolitical sense, much as the Common Travel Area one between the UK and Ireland does, but adding Canada and the UK into the equation would make it less so – for a start, many immigrants to Canada are nominated by a particular province, meaning that’s the only one they can live and work in for a certain length of time, which may not be the most glamorous one. Quebec does its own thing, and il faut qu’on parle français.
In addition, the large population of the UK in relation to the CANZ countries means that they would also be wary of Limeys, Poms, Brits, let them call us what they will, moving to them in large numbers.
However, Australia placed restrictions on New Zealanders having access to public funds, making them wait two years, so similar rules could be imposed on us, while the UK already bases university student status on residence rather than citizenship, requiring them to have lived in the UK for at least three years prior to applying to qualify for home student status.
It is in countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand that British pensioners suffer most because their state pensions are frozen at the rate they received when they retired and not uprated annually. This policy affects approximately 450,000 British pensioners living overseas, with over half of them residing in Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand. A fair deal for pensioners must be a pre-requisite in any deal with these countries.
@Laurence Cox
Agreed, this is one of the things the British Overseas Voters Forum campaigns on – https://bovf.org.uk/frozen-pensions/
The case of people living in Australia, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand while in receipt of British pensions is an example of an legacy policy which should have been revised many decades ago. We had a family member who was medically discharged from the RAF in the 1950s and emigrated to South Africa because he had family there and he believed that the climate would be better for his health. His RAF pension was frozen for about half a century. But that would not have applied if he had emigrated to the USA or to another European country.
It is good to see younger members bringing forward conversations that are challenging. There is no doubt that we are internationalists, progressive and practical about the national interest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The success across many constituencies at the last election was in part a reflection that we are “adults in the room” prepared to tackle tough issues like carers, the environment, our armed forces and foreign policy. Having a respectful discourse is what party members and Lib Dem Voice do well. More coffee and chats at Harrogate conference beckon.
It’s a good article thanks Mo. In these highly unstable times the Liberal Democrats can’t stand still with our own distinctive offer, and considering internationalist approaches such as CANZUK help to expand our own Overton Window which is great. I agree with you and with Simon in the comments that there are lots of other potential alliances around the world with whom we might be aligned socially, economically, and ideological, at least in terms of shared values. CANZUK is one example of the kind of international offer we could make distinctively and it is worth us considering as a party what will Liberal Democrat internationalism mean in terms of tangible proposals over the coming decades.