In what will be a shattering development, the UK Independence Party (the only major political party in Britain which favours British withdrawal from the European Union) looks sure to capture at least 20% of the vote in the elections for the European Parliament on June 10th. They may well even place either first or second in the race. At this point, if everything breaks just right, it’s also possible that Canada will soon have a Conservative government committed to closer ties with the United States and Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, will be re-elected. In other words, the time is right for a fresh idea to be proposed.

What I propose is this, in the near future, representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand should be invited to Washington (or London, or Ottawa, or Canberra, or Wellington) to develop and sign a treaty which provides for a formal Alliance between these countries and creates a common market for all. All tariffs and virtually all labour mobility restrictions between citizens of these nations would cease to exist.

A formal structure for military cooperation would be devised. Each nation would retain its right to undertake independent military action and no other nation would be bound to join (though all would be bound to join in the event of an attack on the soil of another member). However, the terms of the treaty would deny any signatory the right to actively oppose action taken by another or to deny another the use of any bases set aside by the treaty for such action. Thus would the theoretical “Anglosphere” become a sort of combination of NATO and the old European Economic Community. To avoid the pitfalls of the European experience the terms of the treaty would explicitly forbid any trans-national meddling in the affairs of any member of the Alliance by any other member.

Out of necessity, the Alliance would be restricted only to the five nations I’ve named above or, in other words, to Britain, the United States, and what were called the “white” Dominions. The reasons for this are obvious: these five nations are the only five in the entire world which share sufficient commonalities to allow for the creation of such a close alliance without much trouble. Americans who are understandably alarmed at the prospect of tens of millions of Third Worlders streaming over the borders in the event of the creation of an economic union spanning the Americans are unlikely to be particularly menaced by the prospect of the transfer of a few million Britons to America (and a few million Americans to Britain) or any of the other scenarios which would develop in such a situation. In order to avoid the problem of having refugees enter the nation with the easiest standards (probably Canada or the UK) and then moving on to nations which are harder to immigrate to (the United States and Australia) only citizens of each nation would be granted this freedom. Additionally, each nation would retain the explicit right to exclude any individual it wishes for security reasons and to bar citizens originally from a third country.

Moreover, since all of these nations share a roughly equal level of economic development the problems inherent in other free trade deals (whether or not the benefits which come with the acceptance of those problems are worthy compensation) are unlikely to develop here. If anything, the relatively higher-taxed and more heavily-regulated economies of Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are likely to be forced to liberalize further in order to compete with the United States. Of course, for these four members, the hardships of bringing their economies into line are likely to be swiftly ameliorated by the strong economic growth they would then experience.

I’m not sure what to call this alliance. The “League of Good Nations” was one that quickly came to mind before being discarded. That probably isn’t really the point, in any case.

People who reject the present international order are often tarred by their opponents are “isolationists” or “Little Englanders”, as though the European Union and the United Nations were created by divine writ and made eternal by the will of the Lord. Most people who oppose the UN or the EU don’t object to alliances or trade agreements, they just object to the ones that exist, both on the grounds that the present agreements work poorly and that they soil the good names of our nations by forcing us to bind ourselves to the unworthy: the French or the Chinese, for example.

We are for internationalism. It’s just that we’re for good internationalism. We know who our friends our and we will defend them to the uttermost. Of those nations whose association with us promises greater security and prosperity, we welcome a close and just alliance. What we object to is the exercise of pretending that anyone should give a damn what Somalia thinks about the world or that we should take into consideration the views of Bangladesh when formulating our foreign policy.

To me, at least, it seems utterly sensible that we ought to solemnly affirm our glorious Anglo-American heritage and find a new use for it in this century. It’s quite clear that one of the trends of the coming years will be the consolidation of regional power. However, given the political culture of the rest of the Americas (and the economic status of the same), it would be foolishness to attempt to bind our fate to theirs. Either we will spend the next decades constantly bailing our supposed “partners” or our gift of access to the American market will allow them to develop and demand a real say in the world. Neither development would be in the American national interest.

Better then, I think, to create a global power bloc based not upon proximity but upon blood, honour, and heritage. Our nations have stood together in some of the worst moments in the history of humanity: and we have prevailed. Together, in the new and hostile world we face today, we can prevail once again.

Other nations might later be allowed to join in the defense alliance and the free trade aspects of the deal but, absent the consent of all five signatories, the internal mobility of persons would be restricted to the original signers (though, perhaps, if they leave the EU as well the Irish might be allowed to join with equal standing to the original members).

Frankly, beyond the superstitions of a few addled anti-Americans (and a few hard-core xenophobes in the United States) I see no reason why this proposal shouldn’t be acted upon without delay. After all: what wrong can come from allowing the free movement of American goods and people into Australia and the reciprocal movement of Australians and Australian goods into the United States?

The creation of such an alliance would mark a realignment of the power in the world. An increasingly-European United Kingdom would be returned to its roots, as would an Australia which increasingly sees its future in Asia. Additionally, the probable prosperity of an American-allied Britain might well prove to be fatal blow to the project for European unity. Imagine being a German or a Pole twenty years hence and seeing your nation stuck with massive social services bills, millions of Third World Migrants, an anaemic growth rate, and unemployment over 10% while your British neighbours enjoy twice the growth and half the unemployment in their low-tax, deregulated jurisdiction.

Now is the time for new thinking. The events of the past several years have given us a real chance to throw off the shackles of the old power structure which have gripped us ever since the end of the Second World War. We must seize the moment and bring about the realignment of the world.