"Mr Hague said: ‘As David Cameron said when addressing the Canadian parliament last year, “We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values.”
‘We have stood shoulder to shoulder from the great wars of the last century to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and supporting Arab Spring nations like Libya and Syria.
‘We are first cousins.
So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada’s in places where that suits both countries. It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost.’
One British diplomat put it more bluntly: ‘For all the grandiose talk of European unity, we have so much more in common with many Commonwealth countries than the EU – and not just the English language. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207232/Hague-launch-worldwide-network-commonwealth-embassies-tackle-superpower-EU.html#ixzz27OrWHJzT
Unfortunately, these kinds of announcements bring out the Little Canada in anglophobes like former diplomat Paul Heinbecker: "We have an incompatible brand with the UK"
I am certainly overjoyed to hear this, and unlike the merger of the TSX with London it looks like this is certain to happen! I have to admit I can see where the "little Canaderers" are coming from, certainly all narratives of Canada's "coming of age" emphasize the development of a completely separate diplomatic corps - but this is merely a recognition of the fact that most of the great step-stones of Canada's "coming of age" were merely the expensive and pointless duplication of serves the British government was already providing. This would also be a wonderful excuse for revising the letters of credence back to their prior form of being in the name of the Queen of the United Kingdom and Canada and her other realms and territories.
ReplyDeletePersonally I can't see a down-side, provided that what the diplomats staffing any "combined embassy" follow the directions given for the respective governments - and why wouldn't they?
ReplyDeleteOf course the little Canadians/Brits/Aussies or Kiwis will always argue that there will be a competing national interests. And well there might be, but given that any such combined embassy is only ever going to operate in the most peripherial of nations, I would suggest that what ever national interests we may have is more than not likely to align rather well.
Moreover, personally I would be well pleased to know that as a Kiwi in the back of nowhere, I had access to professional, competent and fromally accredited consular service should they be required!
Regards,
Mac
This a nice move on the part of the British and Canadian governments.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty natural combination. I hope that it will bring us closer. Ultimately, Britain needs to make some better decisions about her policies to these countries (Canada, Oz and New Zealand).
I think that a move toward freer movement between these countries would be a very welcome move. There would be a net two-way movement in this day and age and imagine the benefits available to our respective citizens. It would be a great indicator of trust if we could agree on some civilised arrangement along these lines.
(Leacock: business relations follow their own motives. If TSX and LSE had merged, it would not signify anything special at all. They might choose to demerge at any time in favour of other options.)
Please excuse my illiteracy:
ReplyDelete"There would be a net two-way movement in this day and age"
All I mean is that movement between Britain and Canada would probably balance movement between Canada and Britain in the event that there were free movement between these two realms.
Fondest,
P