Thread

EU Floats Canada Becoming the Bloc's First 'Associate Member'

83 points · 170 comments · helsinkiandrew

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

drgo · 1789546561 · focus · HN ↗
Thanks Trump
gizajob · 1789546655 · focus · HN ↗
“Europe and Canada believe in democracy,” von der Leyen will say.
But not democracy when electing/selecting her.
1. phoronixrly · 1789547077 · focus · HN ↗
  You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
  She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic... They get appointed by the democratically elected parliament.
  1. vrganj · 1789547115 · focus · HN ↗
    Or the President of the US, which is also appointed by the democratically elected Electoral College...
    phoronixrly · 1789547471 · focus · HN ↗
    LMAO, right, just as representative!
    Get this Brexit-era disinfo off my screen...
    gampleman · 1789548582 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector - this is actually pretty interesting.
  2. gizajob · 1789547150 · focus · HN ↗
    Her doublethink and doublespeak needs repeated illumination.
    She has never been part of any democratic process to put her in that role. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister is an elected minister who leads his or her party. Von der leyen is a technocrat. “Demos” means “the people” en masse.
    cromka · 1789547445 · focus · HN ↗
    Sounds like you're moving goalposts here
  3. lou1306 · 1789547639 · focus · HN ↗
    To be frank, it is a quite eccentric way to appoint an executive leader: imagine POTUS being chosen by state governors.
    > She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic
    Well I would say this is arguable. Sure, her power is ultimately resulting from a popular mandate. But, if your country elects the head of state directly (say, France) then there are two "hops" between a popular mandate and the head of the EC. Whereas, if you are in a parliamentary system, it's three "hops" (MPs -> head of State -> EC president).
  4. ExoticPearTree · 1789547730 · focus · HN ↗
    > You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
    It does not matter who elects the EU commission, there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. What we have today in EU is pure BS: every country gets a commissioner based on that country's influence within the bloc and every time a new country joins the EU, a new commissioner role just happens to be created.
    I want to be able to choose from a number of candidates who should run the EU, not the prime minister or the president of a member country.
    Everybody who holds even a little power in the EU construct needs to be voted by EU citizens, not appointed by who knows who.
    This second- or third-hand "democracy" is not a democracy at all.
    scrollaway · 1789548255 · focus · HN ↗
    > there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head.
    Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
    I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
    Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
    ExoticPearTree · 1789549788 · focus · HN ↗
    > Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
    No, I really believe everybody with a shred of power in an office needs to be elected, especially at the EU level where their decisions can affect hundreds of millions. Again, second- or third-hand democracy is not really democracy.
    > I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
    Well, maybe they should. And should also limit their mandates from life to maybe 4-8 years. And no, it does not mean that if I vote for someone I will trust that someone completely. They will, at some point, take some decisions that are contrary to my interest but in their own political interest. So they do not really have a desire to represent me fully, just enough.
    > Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
    No, they need to be voted in. This is how we get in situations where unelected officials, like the EU commission is, make decisions that affect my life without any consequences for them.
    The system needs to be tied to the people's wish at every corner, and if the people don't like someone, they should be able to vote them out on a recall vote just as easy as ordering pizza.
    I would like to see a system where confidence votes are cast every six months or so for everyone (parliament, president, prime-minister - you name it). And if they fail, they get booted out the next day and fresh elections are held in the next two-three weeks. And the cycle repeats. Either they work for the people to keep their jobs or not. Super simple.
    scrollaway · 1789551176 · focus · HN ↗
    Confidence votes are a very different type of vote than electoral votes. There’s an argument to make for them. There’s also an argument that it turns a professional job into a popularity contest.
    I know it sounds like the commission is full of buddy-buddy jobs but, living in Brussels and seeing the bubble from up close I can tell you that is seldom the case. I can’t say it never happens but the processes and scrutiny these people go through is extremely high.
    Don’t get me wrong, there’s often a lot of incompetence that ends up at the helm. But this isn’t something elections solve. Elections turned the leader of the free world into the leader of incompetence.
    Adding elections adds democracy, it does not add expertise. If your issue is with bad decisions being made, your issue is not with how the people got in the position to make those decisions, it’s with the systems that allowed bad decisions to be made.
    A bad plane pilot can crash your plane and kill you; the fix isn’t to elect your pilots.
    gizajob · 1789551933 · focus · HN ↗
    Correct. Which is why there’s no need for that leadership to come out and say “We believe in democracy” when they don’t have it or need it, which was the point I was making.
    gizajob · 1789550522 · focus · HN ↗
    Everyone in the EU has a smartphone in their pocket and nowadays an afternoon of vibe coding could push out a platform for electing the top EU officials to every single smartphone, for people to pick who they want to govern them.
    The solution is potentially as simple as that and still they prefer not to have actual properly-democratic elections.
    scrollaway · 1789550744 · focus · HN ↗
    Peak 2026 hn to think vibe coding a mobile app for elections is going to “solve” a problem they don’t understand. Do you even hear yourself?
    gizajob · 1789551492 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m saying it partly in jest but if you’re in tech then you know yourself that there are ways to conduct an election or at least a direct poll of everyone in Europe who cares if so motivated.
    But you’re correct in that it doesn’t need vibe coding or any other kind of solutions because the president of Europe is not and will not ever be democratically elected, so such potential solutions are moot.
    phoronixrly · 1789588262 · focus · HN ↗
    What a horrible day to have eyes...
    ben_w · 1789551991 · focus · HN ↗
    If this is your standard, that's fine.
    The US (electoral collage and 2 senator seats per state) and the UK (government ministers don't need to be MPs) also fail at this definition, and I would like them to be better in general too.
  5. CodesInChaos · 1789548176 · focus · HN ↗
    The appointment of the commission president is quite different from how the German chancellor is determined:
    1. The majority of representatives in Bundestag represents (up to rounding issues) the majority of voters.
    2. Parties advertise their chancellor candidate before the election, and voters take that into account when choosing which party to vote for.
    Being chosen democratically isn't a black and white thing. It becomes gradually less democratic as you separate voter intent and outcome further. This isn't just a function of how the election process itself works, but also voters being informed.
    Practically no voter would have predicted von der Leyen becoming commission president when they cast their votes, making her appointment not very democratic.
  6. rbehrends · 1789550037 · focus · HN ↗
    This is incorrect. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, not the European Council. In fact, von der Leyen narrowly squeaked through in 2019, getting 383 votes with 374 votes required (to an extent attributed to her hawkish stance on Russia back then, which supposedly earned her additional Eastern European votes).
    The European Council does nominate the candidate and infamously in 2019 overrode the informally agreed on spitzenkandidaten process, by which the nominee of the political group (EU Parliament equivalent of parties) with the most seats should have gotten the nomination.
    That said, the EU Parliament is not bound by the nomination. It can very obviously reject any candidate it doesn't like, though of course the dynamics of candidate selection are heavily influenced by the European Council's nomination power.
2. DarkNova6 · 1789547198 · focus · HN ↗
  Believe it or not but the american system isn’t exact a blueprint for actual democracy. Many democratic systems don‘t make the election of the president a vote.
  1. Telemakhos · 1789547972 · focus · HN ↗
    In actual democracy, like ancient Athens, most offices are filled by sortition rather than election.
    Election is characteristic of oligarchy, where a few people make decisions for the many. Usually the few are supposed to be more qualified for or deserving of office, and election is a way of deciding which volunteer is most worthy.
    In democracies, everyone is assumed to be equally qualified, as governing requires no special knowledge beyond some basic morality. So, lists of volunteers for office are compiled and names drawn from those lists at random, and for every office something like nine names are drawn, so volunteers can split their time between public service and their private affairs. This random selection also prevents the creation of political parties: you can’t get randomly selected by spending more on a campaign.
    So, election of officers is oligarchic, rather than democratic. Democracies have votes instead on legislation, declarations of war snd peace, and jury trials.
  2. gizajob · 1789547974 · focus · HN ↗
    Well funnily enough, virtually all the constituent countries of the EU do put the election of their president to a democratic vote.
    freehorse · 1789548824 · focus · HN ↗
    Not really. In many of them the president is elected through the parliament (which is democratic in the indirect sense only). In quite a few of them they still have kings/queens instead of presidents.
    BUT in those countries the president (or royal) has mostly a more "decorative" type of role and not actual power. It is the government constituted by the parliamentary majority (or close to that) elected through general elections that holds the executive power. In EU there is no direct election of the president/commission, AND it holds most of the institutional executive power, which is what makes it undemocratic imo.
    gizajob · 1789549040 · focus · HN ↗
    Nevertheless, Von der Leyen is both unelected and non-decorative. Nobody else is speaking for the whole of Europe today.
3. cromka · 1789547339 · focus · HN ↗
  I love that argument now parroted all over the Internet. Love it because what these people actually eman is they want an elected president, which would legitimize EU even more, hopefully with its own constitution.
  1. gizajob · 1789547476 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be the next step but they seem to be getting on fine with an unelected president.
  2. bawolff · 1789547511 · focus · HN ↗
    EU already has a constitution (?)
    mattashii · 1789547801 · focus · HN ↗
    Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support, starting with NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 giving a solid "no".
    bawolff · 1789553328 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's current legal basis is a series of treaties
    But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common.
    The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
    mattashii · 1789559987 · focus · HN ↗
    That's fair criticism. The deeper reason why it's not a constitution is because it's not the cornerstone of legal, moral, and existential rights of the signatory constituent countries. These countries each have their own constitution that they are beholden to, with no higher authority to fall back to.
    The Treaty of Maastricht (and later, Lisbon) can't be guaranteed to have precedence when called upon if they conflict with the constituent countries' constitution(s), and all legislation covered under the treaties must be implemented separately and completely as locally applicable laws before going into effect. The EU regulations generally prescribe a deadline for implementing such regulations, but a country could (and sometimes does, see e.g. Hungary under Orban) break its obligations under the Treaty and ignore or never implement the agreed-upon regulations, and the EU would be unable to do much to enforce its regulations.
    gizajob · 1789569482 · focus · HN ↗
    But as it’s proven time and time again, when there’s democratic pushback and rejection of its ideas, it just ignores the democracy and continues with the ideas regardless. The Lisbon treaty being rejected has just led to all its aims being implemented piecemeal anyway. And nobody in Europe asked for or voted for having a president, yet here is Ursula speaking for everyone today, again.
    cromka · 1789547981 · focus · HN ↗
    As others said. Constitution and an elected president would pave way into a common military.
    freehorse · 1789548357 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, good to make it clear that militarization of europe is what is actually debated, not democracy.
    cromka · 1789549802 · focus · HN ↗
    Who said that?
  3. freehorse · 1789548148 · focus · HN ↗
    Not necessarily. One can eg want more power to the actually elected part of the EU structure and less power to the commission. Imo electing or not a president does not necessarily help with democracy, as the US example shows. And in europe most countries do not have a strong presidential system, except France and 2-3 others. So I doubt having "strong elected president" is what people actually have in mind for the EU.
    People bring this up they may consider EU to be historically a centralized power structure. Whether it can practically be actually democratized or not is a matter of debate. One can bring up the democratic deficit of EU without harbouring actual thoughts or hopes that it can be fixed.
    eclark183 · 1789550294 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
jjgreen · 1789546932 · focus · HN ↗
Bienvenue aux canucks
Chance-Device · 1789547044 · focus · HN ↗
Stranger than fiction.
1. andy_ppp · 1789547753 · focus · HN ↗
  Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
  1. ExoticPearTree · 1789547809 · focus · HN ↗
    They will join the EU if they want to commit economic suicide and need a mentor on how to do it very effectively.
    nolok · 1789547957 · focus · HN ↗
    Even ignoring your point that I massively disagree with ... It's not about joining the EU at all so what are you talking about
    trolleski · 1789548463 · focus · HN ↗
    EU did commit a suicide, absolute disaster in terms of investment for decades, and a very 'aristocratic' climate policies. Oh, not to mention the immigration 'policies' which were written with crayons, and resulted in a very low social cohesion. But it might still be better than being absorbed by the US!
    nolok · 1789549193 · focus · HN ↗
    I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.
    And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already.
    I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.
    trolleski · 1789631498 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you talked to the US, China or India about the climate? You also have not provided any actual content, sorry. 20% of people in the EU are at risk of poverty or exclusion, but sure let's mown down the economy. And as for the lack of investments you can see what is happening to the automotive industry. Go ask for any amount of money in the EU vs the US and come back to me. I'm not against green tech but very much against the austerity pushed on us by the ruling bureaucracy.
    nutjob2 · 1789548507 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have anything at all to contribute besides mindless EU hate?
    The mentally enfeebled only seem to be able to parrot hateful things they don't understand that they read on some social media cesspit.
    ExoticPearTree · 1789549100 · focus · HN ↗
    Try living here and talk to some older people, you will understand how the standard of living keeps going down.
    And thank you for insulting me, it really changed my mind about the EU.
    vrganj · 1789550249 · focus · HN ↗
    I live here. I talk to older people. They tell me about the horrors of WW2 and how glad they are the EU succeeded as a peace project. Before the EU, we had centuries of cruelties between what are now members of the same block.
    It might be good to expand your perspective a little. Standard of living isn't just the economy.
    nutjob2 · 1789561165 · focus · HN ↗
    (Intended as a reply to parent post, which is now dead)
    I live in the EU, and its nothing like you describe. In my country life has improved sharply since it joined the EU. It's improved things in a way that would never of happened otherwise. It's gone from nearly a third world country to an advanced economy in a very short period. And I've enjoyed the ability to live work and travel around the EU freely. Europe is an incredible place.
    ExoticPearTree · 1789592100 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it was nice in the 99s snd 2000s when they were building a better EU. And then it devolved into regulation after regulation, strings attached to everything and so on.
    Now we’re in 2026 where I can’t buy a platic fork and knife, I have to drink everything with a paper straw and so on.
    The dream was nice but it was hijacked along the way.
  2. ra · 1789548477 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  3. Chance-Device · 1789549729 · focus · HN ↗
    If I’d said to you last year “Hey! I bet Canada is going to join the EU! No, of course not as charter-violating full member, as a newly invented ‘associate member’!” You’d probably have said “That’s both crazy and oddly specific, the chances of that have to be approaching zero”.
    That’s why.
    ben_w · 1789552232 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes but also "associate member" is, despite specificity, less surprising than full membership would have been.
    Same as economic gravity meant that Brexit didn't disconnect UK from EU it only made trade harder, neither this kind of deal nor full membership can be much more than a band-aid for Trump's BS, it won't fully compensate for the harm he and his administration are doing to Canada.
    david-gpu · 1789557286 · focus · HN ↗
    Further cooperation between the EU and Canada has been talked about for a decade or so. Just because it is news to you, it doesn't mean it is news.
  4. skeledrew · 1789557170 · focus · HN ↗
    I doubt Japan can join (on their own). They're essentially a US colony in all but name, so they'll need to be allowed by the fatherland.
2. ben_w · 1789548111 · focus · HN ↗
  Reality doesn't need to be plausible; we're all characters in each other's first-person narratives, with no access to the voice of an omniscient narrator.
3. nolok · 1789548199 · focus · HN ↗
  I mean, it's only what the US is doing that's strange.
  It's a country with tons of raw resources and a large consumer market, they're the "dream partner" for the large blocks (USA/China/EU, and Japan/India a bit behind). You buy their resources, they make a lot of money from it, you turn it into a final product and you make a lot of money from the value added, everyone is happy.
  It's really weird that the US is suddenly not happy about this arrangement, and for resource-starved EU it's a golden opportunity; of course we will happily buy if the US doesn't want to anymore. That's why there is so little friction showing up (there will be more later, of course, but relatively little), why Canada can get so many deal quickly with everyone during this turnaround, it's that obvious of a win for everyone involved.
  (as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, even more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
  1. tick_tock_tick · 1789548642 · focus · HN ↗
    > (as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, eve more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
    I mean food/dairy/autos (which is also a major EU issue) have been 90% of the issues with Canada/USA trade for decades too so I have my doubts of them figuring it out any better.
    I guess Canada is way more motivated then ever before as rapid souring of the relationship with the USA from this point would be a near economic collapse for them.
    nolok · 1789548994 · focus · HN ↗
    CETA (the existing EU/CA one) is also being bogged down in some country including my own (France) because of some food issues, so I think everyone involved knows.
    And while you're correct about Canada being extra motivated at the moment; so is the EU. It's such an absurd situation that we know the "urgent pivot need" might slow down a lot if adult come back in charge in the US. Same reason why so many want to sign so quickly, it's like gold on a platter AND Canada win too, you don't spit on that offer.
  2. bryanlarsen · 1789559772 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump knows it too, which is why he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He wants to decrease the trade deficit with Canada, but he wants to increase imports of oil and critical minerals and other raw resources. That's the majority of American imports from Canada, thus the source of the deficit.
bawolff · 1789547179 · focus · HN ↗
Canadian government seems to be denying this.
1. cromka · 1789547215 · focus · HN ↗
  Carney himself used these exact words couple days ago. This is coordinated.
  1. bawolff · 1789547461 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have a citation for that? What was the exact quote?
    cromka · 1789547546 · focus · HN ↗
    BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com Carney eyes 'unique alliance' with EU as trade war with US intensifies
    WSJ <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-276f1778" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2... Mark Carney's Audacious Bid to Make Canada an 'Associate Member' of the EU
    That's the coordination here. Which may have misfired, too:
    <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908b85?syn-25a6b1a6=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908...
    bawolff · 1789553605 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
    frm88 · 1789555010 · focus · HN ↗
    Not exactly misfired, the title is somewhat clickbaity, 5 diplomats pointed to several aspects of difficulties with Ceta - nobody really "rebuffed" anything. The article is also somewhat hostile to the EU in general, is that a common notion on the FT?
    Anyways here's an archived link <a href="https://archive.is/RtfFb" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/RtfFb
    Mashimo · 1789547587 · focus · HN ↗
    What I found:
    >>> "We're not looking to become a member of the European Union," Carney said Sunday evening on the red carpet of the Toronto International Film Festival. He attended the festival shortly after giving a speech to kick off the two-day Canada Investment Summit, which begins Monday.
    >>> "What we are looking — and will begin discussions for — [is] a unique alliance with the European Union. We share the same values, we have the same priorities and we have very complementary strengths."
    <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-european-union-eu-membership-poilievre-trump-tariffs-usa-9.7342604" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-european-union-eu-me...
    bawolff · 1789553419 · focus · HN ↗
    Which is kind of my point. A unique alliance is not the same as becoming an associate member.
    ginko · 1789554027 · focus · HN ↗
    Being the EU's first associate member is by definition unique.
    tencentshill · 1789565311 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you define "associate member" as? Your definition is as good as Carneys.
    bawolff · 1789593506 · focus · HN ↗
    If the people in charge call it that, then its that. If the people in charge aren't using that terminology, then it isn't that.
2. beloch · 1789548311 · focus · HN ↗
  Carney has said Canada is not looking to become a "member" of the EU. Meanwhile, "associate member" is an entirely new thing that has yet to be defined. These aren't incompatible statements.
  It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.
  I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.
  _________
  *NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.
nutjob2 · 1789548225 · focus · HN ↗
Between the US and China, the EU is the future, but they need to federalize then leverage that to implement a top notch military and economy.
Carney can see this and wants a piece of the action. The question is if the EU can escape its parochial myopia and see it.
Hopefully Russia will do something even stupider and precipitate the existential crisis that the EU desperately needs to get off its ass.
1. tick_tock_tick · 1789548285 · focus · HN ↗
  > but they need to federalize
  That's not happening or if it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
  1. preisschild · 1789548469 · focus · HN ↗
    > If it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
    As a federalist, that would be fine for me. Make a two speed europe. EU stays primarily a trade block that the "federal EU" is in.
  2. nutjob2 · 1789548570 · focus · HN ↗
    Go ahead, make my day.
2. iLoveOncall · 1789548582 · focus · HN ↗
  > they need to federalize
  "Shit Americans say"
  The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah.
  It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.
  1. gizajob · 1789549390 · focus · HN ↗
    Nevertheless that exact plan is in the minds of every higher-up running the EU. Individual counties are an anachronism that will eventually be got rid of if the EU is to continue.
    arethuza · 1789549803 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK is a "country of countries" - with fairly significant differences between some of the component parts - maybe the EU could become something like that?
    gizajob · 1789550117 · focus · HN ↗
    You realise how many wars and how much bloodshed over how many centuries it took for that to happen in the UK?
    arethuza · 1789551010 · focus · HN ↗
    The political union of England and Scotland was achieved without bloodshed and largely because folks in Scotland wanted a financial bailout to cover the utterly disastrous Scottish colonial efforts in Darien.
    gizajob · 1789551725 · focus · HN ↗
    How about Northern Ireland?
    arethuza · 1789553006 · focus · HN ↗
    Personally I expect NI to peacefully unify with the Republic of Ireland at some point in the next 20 years? Or maybe not - all depends on how people vote rather than fighting?
    gizajob · 1789553521 · focus · HN ↗
    I feel like you might not know much about the peace process in NI. If you’d like to see a return to things getting blown up and catholics being gunned down by loyalists, then suggest conducting a vote on joining Ireland and leaving the UK.
    ben_w · 1789631896 · focus · HN ↗
    Repeating that part would be unnecessarily detrimental, especially given that right now this would require majority support from everyone to even get started.
    Also, the general area was basically at war most of the time from the Etruscan era to the formation of the EU, and the EU is (amongst other things) an attempt to be at peace.
    nutjob2 · 1789565401 · focus · HN ↗
    It also reflects how Europeans increasingly feel about the EU, especially young people who don't see or live within national borders and very much enjoy those freedoms. They are the future and what the EU will eventually become.
    gizajob · 1789582489 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, an English-speaking mess.
    nutjob2 · 1789582731 · focus · HN ↗
    English is indeed the de facto common language of the EU, spoken by almost all young people. It's a great thing, English is the global language. Don't know why you think it would be a mess, but your comments seem to be fairly negative towards the EU.
    gizajob · 1789584086 · focus · HN ↗
    Because I’m in an unfortunate and arbitrary situation having been born in the EU and believing in the project and spending 35 years of my life fine with being an EU citizen, to then find that I’m not one any more and as an organisation it actually has zero interest in having me as one or allowing me the rights and freedoms that I had as a member. Yet randomly, millions of people in my homeland get to enjoy all the rights that come with citizenship while also retaining all their rights as EU citizens because they randomly or accidentally have a parent or ancestor with an EU passport. And even further afield, I have a Finnish friend who is an Australian citizen and her son who has never been to the EU and is fully Australian has a right to live and work anywhere in the EU. And now it seems that Canadians are going to have the opportunity for that too.
    It’s also the fact that the EU has some fairly significant structural failings, but it’s like some kind of Teflon organisation - if there’s something seriously wrong it can’t be pinned down or critiqued and issues become national issues out of its purview. Yet it gets to take all the credit (while having none of the pushback) when things go well. Any government which has created that kind of state of affairs needs treating with an extreme degree of scepticism.
    We know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, yet the EU seems to avoid the proper kind of scrutiny, and indeed, is now above and beyond any kind of scrutiny. What started as a trading block to ease transactions is a full-blown government with a president and multiple parliaments and a single-speed direction towards more and more power and integration, never less or for its job to be complete. This seems like a bizarre state of affairs, and one that trades on “well you enjoy the benefits, so do not see or critique the issues” and it seems to get away with that in the minds of pretty well everyone in Europe. And I was one of those people until I felt like I switched from being a welcome citizen to a barely-welcome visitor through no major fault of my own, and now have to be fingerprinted and scanned and computerised in exchange for visiting the Schengen area, as if I’m a potential criminal. Hence I think it’s actually a much darker organisation than it purports to be, and it trades on its lack of scrutiny, democracy, and transparency. It pinned the entirety of the issues around Brexit on Britain rather than ever seeing that many of the causes were due to its own failings and structural weaknesses, including the failings of most in Brussels who it seemed could not grasp ideologically that some in Britain were serious and genuine about leaving, preferring to laugh and condescend at them. This quest to rationalise everything about the European political system is that it cannot admit or handle anything that it deems as irrational. Yet we’re in an era of irrationality, not an era advancing dialectically where organisations can admit and absorb contradiction without changing direction or policy which is how the EU functions.
    Finally, Von der Leyen is the kind of unelected aryan Übermensch who would have given Hitler a wet dream. I don’t like my government enough to believe that it would have needed a government with her as the president in making decisions for it. So I think there was actually some kind of intelligence of the UK crowd in pulling back, in hindsight. I think the EU needed the UK just as much as the UK needed it. Without the UK’s sobering “bad cop” influence to take the heat for vetoing the poor decisions, now there will be few limits to integrate and integrate and integrate until people realise that they’ve no nations left or no local control over anything and the fighting will begin again. Seems almost destined at this point.
  2. jurgenburgen · 1789549775 · focus · HN ↗
    “A single country” is pretty vague. For some definitions the EU already that, for other definitions the EU can never be one.
    What we do need is doing more things on the EU level. E.g. there’s no point in all member states building a nuclear umbrella or a space program. Some taxes also work better on an EU level because capital flows freely in the union and makes taxation hard for individual members.
  3. nutjob2 · 1789565111 · focus · HN ↗
    You've obviously not a (patriotic) European. You also don't understand that Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to the rest of the world. Ask one how many views they share with Americans, Asians or Africans.
    I am European first and foremost, I have an ethnic nationality which is secondary and almost irrelevant. In my mind Euorpe is actual a large collection of regions, which hold more meaning for inhabitants than nation states. But we all love our European brethren no matter who they are.
    iLoveOncall · 1789575532 · focus · HN ↗
    This is complete nonsense and absolutely no European considers themself European first and their own country's nationality second. You're neither European, nor American, nor Asian or African or anything else, you're clearly a bot.
    bryanlarsen · 1789576018 · focus · HN ↗
    Somebody with the username "nutjob2" probably chose the username because he has opinions outside the Overton window.
    But in my experience there definitely are Europeans with that view. WW2 left some deep impressions about the dangers of nationalism, especially in Germany. That led some to consider themselves Europeans first.
3. dkga · 1789573871 · focus · HN ↗
  I would even suspect Carney would want to eventually be the head of the EU (he also has European citizenship)
rapnie · 1789548419 · focus · HN ↗
The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.
1. hardbass · 1789548644 · focus · HN ↗
  Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anit aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like ot is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
  1. ocd · 1789549411 · focus · HN ↗
    This seems to be what Canada and Europe want from each other. Both have interests in repelling other powers that need their economic and military capabilities weakened, and both seem to be able to help each other on expanding economic base, energy security, food supply, and resource availability andmanufacturing capability with existing intellectual and trade property that will distance them from the US MIC.
2. WinstonSmith84 · 1789548729 · focus · HN ↗
  The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it.
  Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen.
  Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
  1. rapnie · 1789549956 · focus · HN ↗
    > Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
    Trade wars and sanctions can get very nasty too. I don't know about Canada, but most of the EU runs on US Big Tech to name just one sensitive sector.
    nolok · 1789550262 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a two way street; sanction on big tech is also the big weapon the EU has against the US if need be and that we kept threatening but never activating.
    Which doesn't mean it's easy or won't hurt like hell, but this is a continent that just cut most of the gas cord lines in record times despite massive pain and cost, if it came down to it we would simply because if it comes down to this and we don't then we're done.
    Short time it would damage us pretty hard, but long term it would be another net loss for the US.
    Tomte · 1789550406 · focus · HN ↗
    America is a big importer of toilet paper from Canada. :-)
    jjgreen · 1789555103 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK could sell them Izal instead, they'll fold in months ...
    <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2we30p661o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2we30p661o
    Lio · 1789562801 · focus · HN ↗
    How? They stopped making that stuff years ago.
    They whole point of that article that it's a weird, curious thing from the past that doesn't exist any more.
    Lio · 1789562481 · focus · HN ↗
    > I don't know about Canada, but most of the EU runs on US Big Tech to name just one sensitive sector.
    That's true, right now. The way things are going though the EU is spurred to finally cut cord with US Big Tech because of the security risk.
    It didn't used to be like that before Trump got into power. Trump is bad for business because he's an unreliable partner that's turning on his allies.
  2. nolok · 1789550110 · focus · HN ↗
    From what I read about what they wanted Canada to sign (the "new deal" Canada walked out of), they want to give them strict conditions and no abilities to make new deals with someone else to make them fully dependant. So the goal was not really military conquest but economic stranglehold. All the while apparently asking to tone down their minorities including the french one.
    There is an alternate timeline where Canada signed that, and it looks much bleaker for them down the road.
3. gizajob · 1789548852 · focus · HN ↗
  This “at the stroke of the pen” idea is fantastical. Actual Canadians would have next to no interest in this. Whole provinces of Canada don’t even want to be part of Canada so their appetite for having the EU parliament and Commission anywhere near them would be slim to none. Having 250million Europeans eligible to migrate to Canada would similarly be dead in the water even if a few people in Toronto and Quebec might warm to the idea of going the other way.
  1. ocd · 1789548964 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not really true. It's an extreme fringe minority in Canada that is massively misrepresented in US media, and largely propagated by AI bots.
    gizajob · 1789549120 · focus · HN ↗
    Totally agree that it’s fringe. But joining the EU even as an associate member was on the lips of literally nobody in Canada until today.
    defrost · 1789549529 · focus · HN ↗
    It was the same way with Australia becoming eligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, .. and yet here we are today with that thoroughly normalised.
    gizajob · 1789550017 · focus · HN ↗
    A televised song and dance show once a year enjoyed by British expats in Australia is one thing. Putting it to Australians that they join the EU would be a very clear and obvious “fuck nah mate” from virtually all of them.
    Tomte · 1789549690 · focus · HN ↗
    Months ago: <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadians-support-becoming-member-european-union-nanos-poll/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadians-s...
  2. rapnie · 1789549575 · focus · HN ↗
    The context in the podcast was that EU was too picky in their reform criteria for inclusion for current candidates on the European continent, but that Canada as a modern country would sail past and pass the exam. The ease with which these experts concluded it would make sense for Canada to join struck me, because impact on geopolitical relationship with US was imho too easily overlooked. It is a sentiment I hear more often now, in the news.
4. nutjob2 · 1789549778 · focus · HN ↗
  > But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it.
  That would be the icing on the cake.
38388484 · 1789548506 · focus · HN ↗
union of butthurts and irrelevants
ocd · 1789548510 · focus · HN ↗
As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.
1. gizajob · 1789548702 · focus · HN ↗
  It certainly does not make sense seeing as Canada is not in Europe.
  1. ocd · 1789548795 · focus · HN ↗
    Mostly a semantic concern in the name given the shared interests and concerns both have in a number of things including the Arctic. It's more a "North Atlantic" group of nations view both sides seem to be taking, but you know, without the US.
    gizajob · 1789548972 · focus · HN ↗
    And a fairly serious geographical one.
  2. dcminter · 1789548882 · focus · HN ↗
    The Eurovision song contest includes Australia in its member nations. Mindblowing I know, but it's possible for a thing to transcend its name.
  3. vrganj · 1789549468 · focus · HN ↗
    One could argue that it is European by founding and history though.
    Founded by Europeans, still mostly populated by people of European ancestry, with laws written by Europeans and based on European ideas.
    European isn't just a geographic descriptor :-)
    ocd · 1789549801 · focus · HN ↗
    I suppose. America is a much more mixed bag, while Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French. Enough cities have a certain sterile and organized appearance more common in Europe than the US. Not sure how else I'd describe it, but maybe Canada is a bit more "monolithic"?
    david-gpu · 1789557168 · focus · HN ↗
    > Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French
    Have you been to Canada any time in the past few decades? Around half of the population of Toronto, Canada's largest city, is foreign-born. And I promise you it is not predominantly British or French people.
    ocd · 1789559836 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I'm from here. Toronto is not a reflection of an entire country, and I would not compare Manhattan or a foreign military base as representative of the rest of another country either.
    david-gpu · 1789563497 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, I see. An "old stock Canadian" who struggles to see where things stand today.
    Here are two quotes from Statistics Canada, to provide some food for thought.
    "In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the population, were, or had ever been, a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada. [...] Just under 6.4 million people born in Canada had at least one foreign-born parent in 2021, representing 17.6% of the total population" [0]
    "In 2024, more than two in five newborns (42.3%) in Canada had a foreign-born mother (i.e., a mother who was born outside Canada), a proportion that has nearly doubled in just over a quarter of a century (22.5% in 1997)." [1]
    "According to Statistics Canada's recent population projections, immigrants could represent from 29.1% to 34.0% of the total population by 2041." [0]
    [0] <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221026a-eng.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/221026/dq221...
    [1] <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2025004-eng.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2025004...
    Lio · 1789562161 · focus · HN ↗
    > British, Scottish,
    You do realise that British implies Scottish don't you? On which island do you think Scotland is located?
    gizajob · 1789550254 · focus · HN ↗
    You could argue even more effectively that it was British by founding and a British colony, with a big influence from the French. And we know what happened with Britain and the EU.
    vrganj · 1789558865 · focus · HN ↗
    Britain, too, is European. They were even a part of the EU at one point ;)
  4. croon · 1789556651 · focus · HN ↗
    20 NATO members share no border with the Atlantic, and 5 are entirely landlocked.
  5. david-gpu · 1789558012 · focus · HN ↗
    Portugal is not part of the Benelux. Poland is not part of the Western Union. Ireland is an island. Yet here we are, because we have enough in common that we would rather cooperate than compete.
  6. s_dev · 1789559229 · focus · HN ↗
    French Guiana is a fully integrated member of the European Union and is in South America.
    gizajob · 1789569208 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it’s a fully integrated part of France.
  7. joquarky · 1789579647 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a big company named after a fruit that doesn't sell any fruit at all.
  8. DemocracyFTW2 · 1789626135 · focus · HN ↗
    1) what everyone else replied; but also 2) where do you think Europe is? You're probably wrong, cf. <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa#/media/Datei:Mitglieder_in_Europaeischen_Organisationen.svg" rel="nofollow">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa#/media/Datei:Mitglieder...
2. nutjob2 · 1789549065 · focus · HN ↗
  I think there is a lot of value there for other advanced economies in Asia, namely Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Aus/NZ.
  With the US self-destructing these countries need a new plan. They are routinely being pushed around by China and need a counterweight.
  1. vrganj · 1789549515 · focus · HN ↗
    Who knows, maybe after all the doom and gloom the EU might just win by default because the other world powers have become so unattractive the rest of the world rallies around them?
    nolok · 1789568147 · focus · HN ↗
    When everyone goes crazy, a boring place that respect the law and fair exchanges feels much more welcoming.
3. nolok · 1789550458 · focus · HN ↗
  And it's not even "novel" in the sense that this group already exist, except so far it was gravitating around the US, and it might just reorient to gravitate around someone else.
[deleted] · 1789549013 · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
zyphr · 1789549063 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
gizajob · 1789549234 · focus · HN ↗
Would it not make sense to perhaps invite the UK to be an associate member first? We’re right on the doorstep.
1. Tomte · 1789549488 · focus · HN ↗
  You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults.
  Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that).
  The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.
  1. gizajob · 1789549916 · focus · HN ↗
    The way you paint it sounds like the EU is a hardline communist state where dissent and even insult must be punished.
    Why does Canada get a free pass to pleasantries just because the Canadians haven’t had a chance to insult the EU and its federalist technocrats yet?
    hardbass · 1789550155 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem extremely confused. Why do you want your ex partner to treat you nicely when you yourself stated you hate them? Do you want to force a relationship again deapite the other party not wanting you or even you yourself wanting it? You seem completely incoherent and absurd. Make up your mind whether you want to join a voluntary membership organization or not.
    gizajob · 1789550636 · focus · HN ↗
    The main confusion here is your use of unsuitable metaphor - people choosing that a political bloc is not behaving in a way that they believe represents their interests is in no way analogous to an abusive partner beating his/her significant other, and it is pretty addled to even make that comparison. Yet paradoxically sensible, because it demonstrates why the political process stalled as that framing really is what is in the minds of the EU bureaucrats towards the UK now. You’re also overlooking that 49% of the voters in the UK voted to stay in the EU.
    hardbass · 1789551492 · focus · HN ↗
    Your country chose to divorce of its own will, the EU didn't kick you out. It is not a forcible organization like being a citizen in a country, its completely voluntary. So why the hell are you whining about the EU ignoring you when you yourself divorced from it. Nobody is stopping you from insulting or hating anyone you want. What is absurd to then also want to force them to interact with you and then this absurd heisen stuff of leaving them and then complaining they don't want you in when there is nothing stopping you from making the request to be let in. You should make up your mind, why should the EU have to give you an invite when you were the one who left it and now you want to join/not-join. I think if the EU sent a request and the mood in your populace was anti eu then it would worsen not improve relations for example. The homework is on the UK to measure if it's population wants to join the EU or not before making any requests. If you want to join, say it clearly and put a vote in the UK, or if you don't want to join then make it clear, otherwise it doesn't make sense t be complaining about the EU not wishing to entertain your unstated requests.
    user43928 · 1789552859 · focus · HN ↗
    I find your tone inappropriate for this website.
    I suggest you don't participate if you cannot discuss calmly the opinion that the EU should be more inviting towards the UK, even if you find the opinion absurd.
    hardbass · 1789553256 · focus · HN ↗
    The EU doesn't have to do anything, I think they are quite open to the UK or anyone else in the continent joining. I just find it absurd a British person is complaining without the UK first doing the homework and showing joining EU is something tenable from their side.
    gizajob · 1789555568 · focus · HN ↗
    I could go into exhaustive details, but the EU made absolutely no case to the British people why they should be part of the EU, and that case is still unmade. Brexit was an EU political issue happening inside the EU yet it and the British people were treated with ignorance and condescension, like it was a wholly British minor political issue and the very thought of leaving was laughable (openly laughable because Nigel Farage got laughed at in the EU parliament when he put it to them that he was going to make Britain leave, which he succeeded in doing). That case for the benefits of joining has still never been made, rather assumed as self-evident. There has been no publicity at all towards the British people that they could rejoin and it would be beneficial, which is the step the EU would reasonably take yet refuses to do. Hence the British people similarly have no interest in begging to be part of this organisation, the mechanics and political organisation of which is very poorly understood.
    ginko · 1789555929 · focus · HN ↗
    The EU didn't participate in the Brexit campaign because that would have rightfully been seen as undue meddling in internal politics of the UK.
    In any case I don't understand what you want us to do? Should the EU grovel before the UK and beg it to return? That won't happen. You guys voted to leave. You can come back if you want but don't expect any red carpets.
    It's telling that ten years on it's mainly you Brits still kvetching about this.
    hardbass · 1789556111 · focus · HN ↗
    I really don't understand this heisenberg nonsense at all. If he wants to join he should say (and prove) that, if he doesn't want to join then directly say that.
    gizajob · 1789558650 · focus · HN ↗
    My main point in this thread was about Ursula proposing that the EU is democratic while she benefits from it not being democratic. I’m more just stirring the pot rather than kvetching. The more distance we get from Brexit it becomes easier to see the defects inherent within the EU project.
    hardbass · 1789556042 · focus · HN ↗
    Whats wrong in laughing at farage? You left, if you eant to rejoin then you have to make the case and proge younare ready for it. The EU can't read your brain, why should it invite when you left. It should not even invite unlesss you did a poll and proved you want to join.
    gizajob · 1789558520 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree that he’s a laughable character but they were laughing at the very idea he might do what he was saying he was going to do, rather than taking him seriously. If they’d have taken it seriously, the UK might still be part of the EU. Shows how open and liberal their thinking is to any ideas that don’t fit their paradigm.
    hardbass · 1789559515 · focus · HN ↗
    The far right wing stupidity needs to run its course. There's nothing outside forces could have done to prevent it, it would only have led to accusations of "EU interference" and casued a stronger Brexit. A few millions dead and total destruction of QoL would generally be the usual for far right wing to run its course like in the last world wars. Immunity only develops after a dose of the disease. I am not saying I like this, it's just how it is.
    gizajob · 1789585395 · focus · HN ↗
    It is taking its course, which is why parties such as AfD are winning elections in Germany.
    hardbass · 1789587198 · focus · HN ↗
    These parties dislike the EU anyways. So what would be the point in trying to woo them to a cause they don't believe in? Some lessons are best learned from europeans again returning to killing each other en masse. Unfortunately.
    hardbass · 1789551864 · focus · HN ↗
    Elsewhere you are saying you disagree with the way the EU is structured, which makes it even more absurd why you want to join it. Don't like it, leave it. Like it, put a vote to join. Like some aspects, dislike others, then state specifics and come to a discussion.
    gizajob · 1789552911 · focus · HN ↗
    Some of the benefits of being in the EU are very nice but the way it is now structured politically and financially and even ideologically mean that it is not an entity which any sensible country with anything to lose could willingly join. And the main thing lost is the right to have any impact on its decision making process. Hence why Switzerland, Norway and more recently Iceland aren’t members, and it lost the UK.
    hardbass · 1789553167 · focus · HN ↗
    Then why are you complaining they didn't invite your country?
    pibaker · 1789558474 · focus · HN ↗
    If you have a kid who ask you for a toy and you give him, and then he throws a tantrum and smashes the toy on the floor, you don't just pretend nothing happened and buy him the same toy again.
    Why? Because what you are teaching him is he can throw as many tantrums he wants and face no consequences. It gets worse if you have other kids — if he can throw a tantrum and get away with it, why not me too?
    He can have that toy again, but not before he learns the lesson and knows his place.
    Not communism, just cold hard game theory. Sorry your feelings got hurt.
    gizajob · 1789558911 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re projecting about my feelings. It seems a strange paradox that associate membership is on the table for Canada when it was a hard no to any idea like that where it came to the UK. As hard as the Brexit was, the EU refused to budge and the UK offered to be either in or out. Now Canada is offered to be half in.
    hardbass · 1789559975 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada starts neutral. UK starts anti. Very easy.
    optionalsquid · 1789560660 · focus · HN ↗
    Putting aside whether or not being an "associate member" counts as being "half in" the EU, of which there were already examples during Brexit, it should not be forgotten that the UK did not want to be "half in" the EU. The people who wanted to remain in the EU probably did want to stay "half in", but they did not set the agenda, so what the UK got was a hard exit
    Mashimo · 1789561131 · focus · HN ↗
    What is communist about it?
    gizajob · 1789561693 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok, Soviet.
    Mashimo · 1789564072 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't get it.
2. hardbass · 1789549560 · focus · HN ↗
  If your country initiated a divorce, it makes no sense for the other party to invite you again. You should have to request first and show to them eg with a vote you won't again flake out in a few years.
3. ben_w · 1789552573 · focus · HN ↗
  The UK will likely be welcome back right after everyone's confident Leave (be that Tory, Farage, or whoever the even worse party that Musk now supports are) definitely won't win a general election for at least another generation.
  1. gizajob · 1789553234 · focus · HN ↗
    Well the issue there then is that Farage’s Reform party seem likely to win that election. The current ostensibly-left-wing Labour government also have absolutely no appetite for rejoining either. Even the coalition of anti-growth eco-warriors and islamists which is the contemporary Green Party don’t say much which is a real surprise because it seems like such an easy vote-winner for them. Finally, it seems strange that the EU should pretty-well require the governments of its potential members to be left-wing or centrist, especially as this demand is now causing constituents of the EU to start to swing to the hard right too.
    hardbass · 1789556681 · focus · HN ↗
    Far right wing and nationalism caused two world wars in european soil. May or may not be related. And right wing parties themselves generally hate the EU, so nobody is asking for it anyways.
    gizajob · 1789558687 · focus · HN ↗
    So it seems likely that the EU will be the cause of the third one.
    hardbass · 1789559331 · focus · HN ↗
    How will a voluntary organization with no military force cause a world war,.while actual physical war is being waged by Russia right in its neighborhood?
    Tell me immediately and bluntly in full the mechanism of EU causing a world war right now, otherwise back off that absurd statement.
    gizajob · 1789561432 · focus · HN ↗
    An internal war as it falls apart, not an external war.
    hardbass · 1789562613 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes but how do you think it will lead to a war? Explain the sequence of events.
    ben_w · 1789570589 · focus · HN ↗
    Then it's not a "world" war, is it?
    gizajob · 1789582594 · focus · HN ↗
    WW1 wasn’t a world war by that metric then.
    ben_w · 1789587816 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Belligerents_map_for_ww1.png" rel="nofollow">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Improved_Belligerent...
    hardbass · 1789824004 · focus · HN ↗
    Still waiting for your proposed timeline and sequence of events.
david-gpu · 1789557557 · focus · HN ↗
I think it is telling that the Europeans and Canadians tend to approve of these conversations, while the Americans explain to us why it is impossible.
1. Tomte · 1789569232 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
2. dang · 1789570470 · focus · HN ↗
  Please keep nationalistic flamebait off HN, regardless of how provocative the topic is or you feel it is.
  From <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
  "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
  1. david-gpu · 1789573974 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree with your moderation in general, but this time I need some help to understand what did I say that was nationalistic. People from different nationalities are broadly approaching this subject of international cooperation according to their country of origin. And that is flamebait?
    dang · 1789598739 · focus · HN ↗
    Generalizations about people from countries A, B, C are almost certain to end in flamewar. Opinion is certain to be split in every country, and you can't know where all the commenters are from, even if a few people happen to say so.
    I'd also say that "I think it is telling" (without saying what the tell is) and "while Americans explain to us" have flamebait overtones that point in a polarized, if not hostile direction. This is not the curious conversation we're trying for here.
    david-gpu · 1789643739 · focus · HN ↗
    I wrote a post linking to some recent polls, but deleted it in favor of this:
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.