Thread

EU chief opens door for Canada to become 'associate member'

693 points · 905 comments · hackernj

noir_lord · 1789555669 · focus · HN ↗
Good, if the middle power democracies don't align/work together they are going to get torn apart in the struggle between the US and China.
1. nixass · 1789556028 · focus · HN ↗
  Non-aligned movement 2: electric boogaloo
  1. xyzsparetimexyz · 1789559962 · focus · HN ↗
    They're very clearly aligned
    gpvos · 1789560806 · focus · HN ↗
    Not really with the US anymore.
    Anyway, I think you missed this reference: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement
    debugnik · 1789563374 · focus · HN ↗
    Does it really count as non-aligned if the observer states are very much aligned?
    sheepjumpmoons · 1789563939 · focus · HN ↗
    The point was non alignment with the two superpowers.
    bryanlarsen · 1789564119 · focus · HN ↗
    Both Russia and China are observer states within the non-aligned movement.
    gpvos · 1789568950 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm pretty sure that is a more recent development, and that at least the Soviet Union and China weren't observers during the cold war. (But I haven't looked it up.)
    [deleted] · 1789564607 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    gpvos · 1789568895 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm pretty sure that is a more recent development, and that at least the Soviet Union and China weren't observers during the cold war. (But I haven't looked it up.)
    ndiddy · 1789568369 · focus · HN ↗
    There are over 30 US military bases in EU member states, so I would classify that as alignment with the US.
    mandeepj · 1789569591 · focus · HN ↗
    > There are over 30 US military bases in EU member states
    As of today, with current affairs and the unpredictable element in chief, you may never know how long.
    ndiddy · 1789571509 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree that if EU states start kicking out the US military, that would be compelling evidence of an actual shift in alignment.
    thih9 · 1789572310 · focus · HN ↗
    There is shift in alignment even if the source is different. A popular headline from earlier this year was "US pulling 5000 troops from Germany"[1].
    [1] <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-pulling-5000-troops-germany-rcna343147" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-adm...
    gpvos · 1790611509 · focus · HN ↗
    It is definitely being considered from the European side as well. Currently there's too much dependency, but this is being worked on, and not just because America wants us to contribute more to NATO.
2. 0xpgm · 1789556090 · focus · HN ↗
  One thing that is common about middle democracies is that prioritize a bureaucratic elite structure over an entrepreneurship culture, while both the US and China embrace entreprenuership wholeheartedly.
  If they changed that they'd perhaps become world powers themselves.
  1. _heimdall · 1789556285 · focus · HN ↗
    The CCP retains too much power over businesses and business leaders for me to consider them to "embrace entrepreneurship wholeheartedly."
    gmerc · 1789556667 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the US isn't exactly on the same path, right?
    _heimdall · 1789559120 · focus · HN ↗
    On the same path and on the same point of the path are two very different things.
  2. ohyoutravel · 1789556436 · focus · HN ↗
    Didn’t China force Meta to unwind Manus? In no way is China embracing entrepreneurs wholeheartedly.
    monideas · 1789556546 · focus · HN ↗
    The US has something called CFIUS. This is normal statecraft
    ohyoutravel · 1789556670 · focus · HN ↗
    I believe Manus was a Chinese company.
    monideas · 1789557099 · focus · HN ↗
    But Meta isn’t
    bogdan · 1789557127 · focus · HN ↗
    They are saying this is normal and that the US has a similar framework by posting to it.
  3. petesergeant · 1789556521 · focus · HN ↗
    The US _also_ embraces rent-seeking, regulatory capture, and the externalization of social and environmental costs as entrepreneurship.
  4. pyrale · 1789556652 · focus · HN ↗
    > One thing that is common about middle democracies is that prioritize a bureaucratic elite structure over an entrepreneurship culture
    No, that's just the 2010s propaganda fed to you by people who assert that not letting them do whatever they want is "bureaucratic". These very same people are completely fine lobbying legislature for more moat when they benefit from it.
    The difference between "middle democracies" or whatever that means and the US is just that politics aren't corrupted enough yet that they can buy whatever they want.
    mmrezaie · 1789557495 · focus · HN ↗
    I did some admin work for the startup around 5 years ago and I have to say EU countries specially mine Sweden is far more clear. In USA you are basically hopeless without a lawyer. but I did a search and for clarity of rule I searched and this came up using AI:
    World Bank’s broad “Regulatory Quality” measure supports that direction: Sweden scored 95.28/100 and the US 90.57/100 in its latest comparable 2023 data. I couldn't find EU wide score.
    I wanted to help someone to get work visa and I thought it is like Sweden and you just fill a small form, oh boy! We hired a lawyer for just filling the US side application.
    enaaem · 1789647800 · focus · HN ↗
    When it comes to innovation Sweden punches far above its weight.
    petesergeant · 1789559652 · focus · HN ↗
    Heavily country-dependent, in practice. The UK lets you set up a company online cheaply, quickly, and filing is easy. Insurance is plentiful and sensible, as are business bank accounts. The law is mostly straight-forward. Setting up a German limited-liability company OTOH involves putting down some ghastly large sum as a guarantee.
    But yes, Americans are told they have the freest speech and the freest markets, and don't seem to question either.
    mitxela · 1789562060 · focus · HN ↗
    I live in one, it's definitely true. It doesn't mean entrepreneurship doesn't exist, but there is a lot of bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is iron law. They will go to any extreme to make reality align with the bureaucracy. For example if you build a building without permission, the police will come by with a bulldozer, demolish your building, dispose of the remains, and then bill you for it. Even if the building is hosting the world's first AGI, or whatever extremely important thing you can think of - there is no excuse for not complying with the bureaucracy. Whereas the US would allow you to keep it and maybe pay a fine.
    pyrale · 1789567208 · focus · HN ↗
    > but there is a lot of bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is iron law.
    Yeah, an organized and powerful administration is the basis of rule-of-law system. The opposite isn't entrepreneurship, it's a state of widespread corruption where laws are toothless.
    It doesn't benefit upstarts who want a fair environment to start a business, it benefits megacorps with their own militia of lawyers to bend the rules, and pockets deep enough to lobby for the removal of rules that can't be bent.
    mitxela · 1789567551 · focus · HN ↗
    The optimal amount of crime is not zero. If someone does an illegal thing but it turns out to be good for society, it should be permitted, then legalized.
    pasc1878 · 1789727177 · focus · HN ↗
    And I prefer to live iun a place that does that.
    Do you want your house blocked of by someone elses' wall. Do you want to be kept up all night by load industrial noises next to you?
    AlexandrB · 1789566481 · focus · HN ↗
    You clearly don't pay attention to Canadian politics. Canada basically let McKinsey run their immigration policy[1][2] for 10 years and has now appointed the former CEO of McKinsey[3] to a business development role in government. I wouldn't say that Canada is just a satellite office of McKinsey, but it's getting closer.
    Canada is corrupt as hell, just no one cares so it doesn't make international news.
    Edit:
    Oh yeah, forgot about the SNC-Lavalin debacle, where the ruling government tried to make the legal problems of their corporate buddies go away[4] by sneaking a new "slap on the wrist" law into an annual budget bill and then pressuring the prosecutor to apply it.
    [1] <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mckinsey-immigration-consulting-contracts-trudeau-1.6703626" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mckinsey-immigration-consul...
    [2] <a href="https://thewalrus.ca/shadow-government/" rel="nofollow">https://thewalrus.ca/shadow-government/
    [3] <a href="https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-minister-carney-announces-appointments-new-chair-board-and-ceo" rel="nofollow">https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/31/prime-...
    [4] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin_affair
    pyrale · 1789567346 · focus · HN ↗
    > Canada is corrupt as hell, just no one cares so it doesn't make international news.
    So is Europe. It's just not at the point the US reached, yet.
    llm_nerd · 1789568289 · focus · HN ↗
    It's pretty clear the echo chamber you emerge from (protip - move to the US. I am 100% serious), but this is comical.
    When your examples of Canada being "corrupt as hell" is such chickenshit nonsense, it betrays that you're just a partisan zealot that has literally zero sense of scale or reason.
    McKinsey, a massive consulting firm, had a whole $32M contract? Holy shit, basically the deep state!
    The SNC thing was embarrassing, but it was over its behaviour overseas (Libya, to be precise), and the government was concerned about a massive, major Canadian firm being crippled by domestic hand wringing.
    When that is what you have to offer up for Canada being "corrupt as hell", in comparison to criminal shitholes like the US (which you think is much better, and again you should move there), wow. Back to shitty subreddits where your tiny group of laughable farces have your discussions about how dire things are.
  5. InsideOutSanta · 1789556794 · focus · HN ↗
    It's interesting to me that people generally see Europe's regulations as interfering with entrepreneurship, while they see American decisions that give more power to multinational corporations at the expense of smaller companies as a normal part of a free market.
    hilbert42 · 1789558518 · focus · HN ↗
    "…as a normal part of a free market."
    That's unfettered capitalism at work—"free" implies no bounds. Multinational corporations have never been more powerful now than at anytime in history.
    mcv · 1789559764 · focus · HN ↗
    And that hurts the free market. A free market should be transparent, have low barriers to entry, and not be dominated by monopolies or cartels. There's nothing free about American capitalism.
    InsideOutSanta · 1789566001 · focus · HN ↗
    > "free" implies no bounds
    No bounds for whom?
    Your implied premise is that private companies cannot impede others' freedom, which isn't true. In unfettered capitalism, only the largest corporations have the power and money to be free.
    anhner · 1789558528 · focus · HN ↗
    well you see, maybe one day they'll be the CEO of that multi-trillion dollar company, so it's better to err on the side of capitalism. /s
    roncesvalles · 1789560032 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't you see that the same bureaucracy that adds friction to entrepreneurship also serves the purpose of protecting the incumbents?
    It is odious to start a company in the EU. There are many accounts of this on HN itself.
    mitxela · 1789562160 · focus · HN ↗
    Starting a company is not the hard part of staring a company in any country. Many many companies do exist in the EU. It might be annoying but it's obviously hardly insurmountable.
    InsideOutSanta · 1789566091 · focus · HN ↗
    > It is odious to start a company in the EU.
    This is false.
    > There are many accounts of this on HN itself.
    Yes, I saw one just recently where the poster made obviously false statements about starting a company in Germany.
    jgwil2 · 1789569131 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  6. NuclearPM · 1789557294 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just wrong. The US prioritizes billionaires over entrepreneurs.
  7. [deleted] · 1789557575 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  8. [deleted] · 1789557767 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  9. hilbert42 · 1789557952 · focus · HN ↗
    "If they changed that they'd perhaps become world powers themselves."
    If they were to change some within the citizenry would stand to gain at the expense of others. Inequality would increase.
    Seems—for now—middle democracies aren't prepared to pay the high price of social upheaval such a policy would create.
    noir_lord · 1789578400 · focus · HN ↗
    Some of us are citizens of what where previously world powers, even then it wasn't great for the average person living there (understating it wildly).
    When people go on about a Golden Age, I'm the awkward one who asks "Golden for who exactly?"
  10. throwaway283737 · 1789564450 · focus · HN ↗
    You're getting downvoted now, but it's the Europeans who are running out of money for healthcare and public services (and voting for neo-fascist parties promising fixes that will never come).
    European sentiment is totally out of touch with European reality. They'll post gleefully online about how much better their life is and then go back to their sardine flat where they can't afford to pay for heating, and it never ever occurs to them to reconsider any priors. They'll huff copium on Reddit about how bad American healthcare is, while waiting for years for desperately needed surgeries, paying far more for healthcare by way of taxes than any American does.
    Are their ideas out of touch? No, it's reality that's wrong.
    bryanlarsen · 1789564859 · focus · HN ↗
    American government deficits are far larger than European or Canadian deficits. It's not the Europeans who are running out of money.
    jgwil2 · 1789569320 · focus · HN ↗
    > paying far more for healthcare by way of taxes than any American does
    This is blatantly false. Americans spend 18% of GDP on healthcare, while most European countries are around 10%.
3. dosisking · 1789556534 · focus · HN ↗
  There is no struggle, China has already won.
  1. baxtr · 1789556569 · focus · HN ↗
    In what way has "China already won"?
    dosisking · 1789556959 · focus · HN ↗
    > In what way has "China already won"?
    The US has depleted their missile stockpile and can no longer defend anybody. Countries in the Middle East are moving away from the US and forming their own alliances. Taiwan knows that the US cannot do anything to help them. South Korea also knows. The US has weaponized the US Dollar, forcing countries out of the SWIFT system if they don't do what they are told. As a result, the CHIPS system has become the alternative. China understands better how the economy works, with the Belt and Road Initiative. The US government doesn't understand how the economy works, and is run by a bunch of complete m orons.
    cbg0 · 1789557481 · focus · HN ↗
    You've said a bunch of things that don't really equate to "China already won".
    spacedcowboy · 1789558112 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure I agree with “already won”, that’s an extreme position, but there are consequences to all the things s/he says. It may be a death of 1000 cuts, or it may hit a tipping point, but the us is certainly walking blindly down the “let China win” road.
    As a joint us/uk citizen, even I would prefer to deal with China than the USA these days. Predictability is really useful in business, and narcissistic man child presidents aren’t predictable.
    dosisking · 1789558237 · focus · HN ↗
    > You've said a bunch of things that don't really equate to "China already won".
    There is no path for victory for the US, where it remains the world's reserve currency. China will become the world's reserve currency by 2032.
    You are simply in denial. Everything that I wrote points to China winning.
    haldujai · 1789558654 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    charlieyu1 · 1789559323 · focus · HN ↗
    This has to be the funniest thing I’ve read for a while. China still has two exchange rates.
    mitxela · 1789561914 · focus · HN ↗
    So did the US (into gold), once, at a time when it was already the world reserve currency.
    roncesvalles · 1789559436 · focus · HN ↗
    Reserve currency status entirely depends on whether the issuing authority has the ability to drop a munition over anyone who dares to counterfeit the currency.
    China's military is good but until it gets that good, no it won't.
    Because, imagine the scenario where the US simply counterfeits the renminbi. What is China's recourse?
    kakacik · 1789559472 · focus · HN ↗
    Folks can keep their heads in the sand for pretty long, as long as they look just at progressively smaller circle around them and ignore rest of reality.
    The momentum China already gained, and gaining more every day is well beyond anything in the west. Plus if you consider the position they are rising from, its properly meteoric. Nobody knows future, but its rather easy to continue projection with current, or even a bit slower pace and within 1 or 2 decades, situation will be pretty clear from any objective perspective.
    Above is purely technological/process progress. Add US making enemy of whole world in one brilliant move, something that is practically irreversible in upcoming decades, and situation is clear. Military (without ammo) alone won't give you much negotiating power. LLMs can be replicated elsewhere with rather little cost, and soon some small bleeding edge advantage will be largely meaningless for most practical tasks.
    It doesn't even matter what near future brings, this is settled and no amount of denial from US or self-patting is changing that.
    layer8 · 1789558729 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s meant in the sense of “omae wa mou shindeiru", i.e. that defeat will be unavoidable.
    roncesvalles · 1789559169 · focus · HN ↗
    Every single point you've made is either straight up untrue or comes with caveats. I hate to quote Trump but, in light of Brandolini's law: "Wrong."
    weatherlite · 1789559683 · focus · HN ↗
    > China understands better how the economy works,
    Many people avoid Chinese stocks like the plague because the system is still half communist and as a foreign investor you get some paper in a company on Cayman Island instead of real direct ownership. That keeps me from buying their stocks and I'm not the only one.
    mitxela · 1789561975 · focus · HN ↗
    China understanding the economy appears to include them understanding that an economy consists of producing and trading goods and services, not a cancerous stock market. You can't invest in their stocks because that would be bad for their economy.
    Escapado · 1789557082 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not OP and obviously "winning" reduces too many dimensions into one. But I will say that from my recent two visits to the country that I was pretty astonished by the speed at which they are building things. Cars, Buildings, Tech Hubs, Factories. You blink twice and a new tech company plops up somewhere making high end drones or humanoid robots or CNC machines or innovative 3d printers. It feels like there is an absolute abundance of electrical and mechanical engineers in that country and funding to match. I am not making any comments on the politics of it all, but I have not seen this anywhere else in the world - perhaps it exists but I am not aware of it.
    Arkhaine_kupo · 1789558486 · focus · HN ↗
    For some of us, it mimics late 19th century europe where the rate of innovation perhaps was only matched by the lack of regard for cost, safety or need.
    I think we are closer to seeing the Chinese Hindenburg than Arpanet or Moon voyage or some other bewildering humanity joining initiative.
    Its inarguable that the industrial revolution brought tons of wealth quickly to the UK. But one, having past it all, has to wonder if the child work force, insanely cramped victorian houses, constant deaths due to smog, polluted water etc could not have been entirely avoided by reducing "innovation" speed.
    Is the existing suffering of the Chinese system worth the economic growth? For its own middle class, the answer is probably yes. But systemic conditions like limiting the universities places to top 30% students, means you have a permanent underclass that cannot join the white collar jobs.
    Is that required to have a cheap, hardworking manufacturing and construction industries? Maybe. But reinventing a class system that has a few steps removed from slavery as an "economic miracle" and "neck breaking speed innovation" feels a bit icky when they could take 5 years longer and treat people better.
    We are arguably close to post scarcity, and instead of building post-capitalism instruments (like libraries could be imagined as), we are just perfecting the economic conditions of capitalism which require an inordinate amount of cheap labour and state violence.
    Billionaires are building bunkers instead of museums, they can see the end game of this system they benefit from and its not a good one. Like I can't understand whats the point of winning "the economy" if we end up in a post nuclear hellscape of ecological collapse, but number must go up I have been told.
    graemep · 1789559098 · focus · HN ↗
    I do not think it was necessary for the industrial revolution. Possibly displacing agricultural workers through the agricultural revolution and enclosures was?
    It is certainly not necessary for economic development now. You probably cannot give people in less developed economies the same pay and working conditions, but you can provide the basics and relatively decent treatment.
    vehemenz · 1789559799 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed, but on other dimensions China is still 150 years behind the West. It’s important to keep this progress in perspective.
    input_sh · 1789560475 · focus · HN ↗
    Go on, on which dimensions is China 150 years behind the West?
    method_capital · 1789561317 · focus · HN ↗
    Creativity, innovation, freedom? 10 guys in a room can't compete for long against hundreds of millions or billions pursuing their own separate interests. Sure, they can steal, but they can't create to the same degree if at all.
    mitxela · 1789561861 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is all the newest and best technology from China, outside a few specific fields?
    RunSet · 1789563208 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is there still demand for Chinese student visas at universities in the USA?
    mitxela · 1789637135 · focus · HN ↗
    Many reasons that have nothing to do with creativity, innovation, or freedom.
    vehemenz · 1789914205 · focus · HN ↗
    While we’re asking rhetorical questions, why is China’s cultural development behind tiny, poor European countries?
    bryanlarsen · 1789563860 · focus · HN ↗
    I recently read a survey of 14 promising new technologies: AI, EV's, drones, robots, batteries, et cetera. China was leading in 13/14, and is only 4 months behind on the 14th, AI.
    vehemenz · 1789913588 · focus · HN ↗
    History, philosophy, literature, journalism, art, education. The list goes on.
    arethuza · 1789557283 · focus · HN ↗
    Because, unlike the other superpower, they don't seem to be losing?
    9dev · 1789557388 · focus · HN ↗
    The USA is repeatedly punching itself in the face over and over though, so it's not a fair fight.
    philipallstar · 1789557355 · focus · HN ↗
    Their culture prioritises economic outputs not entitlements.
    prmoustache · 1789557424 · focus · HN ↗
    Look around and visit any country, you'll see chinese made and sold goods inundating everymarket, build infrastructures.
    It used to be chinese made goods sold by local or western companies. Nowadays bar a few exceptions these are chinese goods sold directly by chinese brands/companies.
    fidotron · 1789558545 · focus · HN ↗
    And many of those products are not only good they're becoming good in ways nowhere else can do.
    weatherlite · 1789559252 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. dguest · 1789558222 · focus · HN ↗
    We should keep open to the option that they might both loose.
  3. wewewedxfgdf · 1789558460 · focus · HN ↗
    Go do some research on China - it's economy is in the toilet and its leadership has destroyed much of it's success, foreign capital and companies have fled to India, Vietnam, Mexico, Indonesia.
    Your lament of "Oh no China is the best in the world and only getting better!!!" is long long out of date.
    lnsru · 1789559866 · focus · HN ↗
    With 2 billion people you’re absolute power. Internal market with middle class size of whole United States. No need for wallstreet and American style financial engineering. Producer of 80% goods for Europe. I mean buying something mainstream not made in China is barely possible. Technically there are some challenges like plane engines or lithography. But they’ll nail it. Trust me.
    jgwil2 · 1789569062 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  4. fidotron · 1789558472 · focus · HN ↗
    This is being heavily downvoted, but it's dangerously close to true.
    In ten years the downvoters will not only agree with this, but have moved on to "and that's a good thing".
    lkbm · 1789569427 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean..."close to true" is another way of saying "false". It could easily have been phrased in a way that was actually true and gotten plenty of upvotes instead.
  5. triceratops · 1789568134 · focus · HN ↗
    Imagine if China said that about the US in 1950.
    MetroWind · 1789662916 · focus · HN ↗
    You are comparing the US today with China 1950. That's already pretty telling. It's not a 1:1 comparison but close in some aspects.
    triceratops · 1789671191 · focus · HN ↗
    That's my point. China was so far behind and caught up. Even if we accept the premise that the US is behind today (debatable) "it's over they won" is an inaccurate statement.
4. krona · 1789556716 · focus · HN ↗
  70% of Canadian exports are to the US. 6% to the EU. Why would e.g. Poland want to enter a trade war with the US on Canada's behalf?
  1. pasc1878 · 1789556816 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Trump is trade warring everyone.
    The middle democracies will do better fighting together and not deal with US individually.
  2. consp · 1789556821 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't the point that there already is one?
  3. NuclearPM · 1789557173 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the US is likely to ally with Russia over Poland.
  4. 9dev · 1789557286 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the US is going to throw Poland under the bus without even considering once if it yields a short-term benefit.
    walthamstow · 1789557555 · focus · HN ↗
    Under the bus again, I might add
    gustavus · 1789558124 · focus · HN ↗
    That's rich considering it was France and the UK that threw Poland under the bus despite having a signed defense pact. The US just came in to clean up the mess.
    post-it · 1789558278 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think they're talking about WWII.
    ajuc · 1789558367 · focus · HN ↗
    WW2 ended with Yalta conference where Roosevelt agreed to Stalin's proposition of giving Poland to USSR's sphere of influence, making Poland (and rest of EE) their puppet state.
    Churchil wanted to pressure Stalin to leave Poland (and at least parts of EE) independent and even considered "Operation Unthinkable".
    At least that's what I think the guy above referenced.
    hilbert42 · 1789561056 · focus · HN ↗
    That's pretty much what happened. Trouble was the stakes were already high, if Starlin didn't yield to a bluff (had one been pursued) it would have been an embarrassing backdown and a show of weakness on part of the allies.
    "Bluff" because no one other than perhaps Stalin would have followed through—to essentially extend WWII (this time between former allies).
    So pragmatism was the order of the day, thus Poland and EE were sacrificed.
    UpsideDownRide · 1789559329 · focus · HN ↗
    If Stewie punched me, It doesn't mean Quagmire didnt.
    awruko · 1789559923 · focus · HN ↗
    I am under impression that some other nation was involved in cleaning up. If you can even call it cleaning up.
    ifwinterco · 1789560306 · focus · HN ↗
    Well we started an enormous war that basically destroyed Europe over poland, so I guess at least we tried?
  5. Komte · 1789557406 · focus · HN ↗
    So the assumption is trading with Canada = trade war with US? Canada is abused pretty hard it seems...
  6. invaliduser · 1789557481 · focus · HN ↗
    If "70% of Canadian exports are to the US", that's probably why the US has so much leverage, and I can see why the Canadian government would like a change. Hence the need for a rebalancing of trade partnerships.
    arethuza · 1789557573 · focus · HN ↗
    Wouldn't being strongly aligned with the EU give Canada a lot more leverage in trade discussions with the US?
    gizajob · 1789560204 · focus · HN ↗
    No
    microtonal · 1789560705 · focus · HN ↗
    Imagine they were in the EU. The EU could leverage the trade bazooka in the current tariff war.
    Even if Canada doesn't join the EU, there is a lot of mutual benefit from an economic and military defense pact (beyond NATO, which is nearly dead).
    gizajob · 1789562761 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure what the EU has to trade, except Volkswagens and BMWs which are 10% car and 90% pension costs.
    microtonal · 1789564212 · focus · HN ↗
    You know that the EU has a large trade surplus of goods with the US?
    ericmay · 1789565396 · focus · HN ↗
    Right… so why do you think the US imposed tariffs? Germany is already seeing gigantic problems via declining exports because of China. Are they going to stop exports to the United States too?
    The EU can’t add any more “trade bazooka” than it already has. Canada doesn’t change anything in that dynamic.
    mcv · 1789559570 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd like to take a closer look at what exactly Canada is exporting to the US, and what exactly the EU is importing from elsewhere, to see if there's a match. I'd rather buy from Canada than from Russia. Or China. Or the US.
    microtonal · 1789560604 · focus · HN ↗
    I bought a dbrand case from Canada last week. Even the packaging is funnier (in a comical way) than US products.
    Sorry, my brain is fried by a cold :).
    enoint · 1789565583 · focus · HN ↗
    The important categories are oil and potash. Consumer actions might not influence those much.
    mcv · 1789566411 · focus · HN ↗
    How much oil is Europe still importing from Russia? I'd rather have Canadian.
    enoint · 1789566807 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m sure China would, too. I wonder what’s harder: diverting that oil to the northwest passage, or diverting Persian Gulf oil around the strait of Hormuz?
    WarmWash · 1789568341 · focus · HN ↗
    You know how despite climate change being very real, in day to day discussions with other level headed people, they still very regularly say stuff like
    "We ran the numbers for an EV, and right now gas is still cheaper, so we are holding off on the switch until it makes financial sense"
    Canadian oil would need to be shipped halfway around the world. It would be more expensive. Price is always the top factor for everyone.
    mcv · 1789569187 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair point. What we really need of course is more renewables, and that is happening, but not fast enough, so we still need oil. And I'd rather get our oil in a way that doesn't fuel the Russian war machine, even if it does cost a bit more.
    enoint · 1789605572 · focus · HN ↗
    The politically-important Alberta oil mostly goes to the mountain states down here. Coincidentally, those same states rely heaviest on coal for electricity. So, the choice is recharge an EV on coal (think arsenic and mercury accumulating somewhere nearby) or good ol gasoline (which is piped from Canada).
    bryanlarsen · 1789649760 · focus · HN ↗
    The heavy oil refineries are generally near the Gulf and in the Midwest, so that's where the Canadian oil goes.
    enoint · 1789719051 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s proportionally true. Utah and Wyoming depend on Alberta because of elevation. I’m confused by the change at Seaway.
    mcv · 1789661718 · focus · HN ↗
    Mountain states? Can't they use hydro power?
    enoint · 1789719682 · focus · HN ↗
    I think what you’re wondering is: can residential electricity schedules promote off-peak rates for EV charging. I’ve seen that and I think it takes the edge off.
    But we’re in a drought right now. I think hydro is down at least 20%. Wyoming wind power alone totally makes up for that.
  7. gbalduzzi · 1789557575 · focus · HN ↗
    Deals right now are intended to increase the trades between Canada and reducing those with the US, in little improvement steps.
    If in 10 years the ratio moves from 70/6 to 50/26, the situation will be vastly different.
    The options are not black and white
  8. Lio · 1789557614 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not that they want to enter a trade war with Trump, it's that there's large room for growth in trade between Canada and Poland (your example).
    Since Trump is hostile to trade with both parties there's an opportunity to replace lost US trade that's probably not coming back.
    Trump has weakened himself and his allies where as mutual trade between Canada and the EU makes both stronger.
  9. ajuc · 1789557927 · focus · HN ↗
    Polish export to US is about 3% of its total export and import - about 5% of Poland's total import. Not much to lose, honestly. We trade more with Czech Republic.
    Polish export to EU is 74% of its total export and import is about 60% of its total import.
    Economically - whatever's good for EU is good for Poland and US barely matters.
    graemep · 1789559246 · focus · HN ↗
    What about the importance of that trade. The US exports a lot of critical things that cannot be supplied from elsewhere. Everyone is heavily reliant on American technology.
    krzyk · 1789559863 · focus · HN ↗
    Like what specifically?
    graemep · 1789560128 · focus · HN ↗
    The hardware is produced in Asia but American controlled. its still a dependency on being supplied by American companies.
    "Only services" covers a lot of critically important things. Just AWS could turn off a huge chunk of European economies.
    krzyk · 1789560457 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, but services are easier to replace than hardware. And control is something you have, and then you don't have if the country in which you operate decides otherwise (or US presidents throws another tantrum).
    Companies use AWS because it is there and others used it, so they got ball rolling. It doesn't mean one couldn't replace it with another service, most probably more pricey one. If there would be some kind of war, then one doesn't need to have servers in US, and European ones are right there.
    You can't easily replace e.g. lithium or other metals.
    microtonal · 1789561224 · focus · HN ↗
    After decades of globalization, everyone is just extremely dependent on everyone.
    I think hardware is a bit complicated by the way. A lot of hardware is also not US controlled. For instance ARM Holdings is British, Japanese, or global depending on how you look at it and quite a lot of vendors rely on ARM's reference designs. Europe also has a lot of important chip designers, but they are more focused on embedded systems and support chips, like NXP and ST Microelectronics.
    "Only services" covers a lot of critically important things. Clouds services and payment systems, for example. Even just one American company like AWS could turn off a huge chunk of European economies.
    Why European governments and increasingly companies are trying to move away to European alternatives. It all starts small, but e.g. a bunch of governments are already disentangling from Office. The sale of the maintainer of the Dutch DigiD infrastructure to a US company has been blocked (would have happened without any blockers a few years ago).
    It's like turning a mammoth tanker, but it is slowly happening.
    Let's just hope we have critical mass before the right-wing populists take over, big tech has been intensively lobbying them in recent years [1]. So much 'for the people', like they always proclaim.
    [1] <a href="https://www.brusselstimes.com/1916422/us-tech-giants-allying-with-european-far-right-to-strip-back-eu-rules" rel="nofollow">https://www.brusselstimes.com/1916422/us-tech-giants-allying...
    graemep · 1789562264 · focus · HN ↗
    Arm is important, but for R & D. The impact of not having Arm will take a long time to be felt. The same for a lot of the others you mention. Not having a supply or Intel and AMD CPUs would be felt much faster and would be harder to find replacements for.
    > It's like turning a mammoth tanker, but it is slowly happening.
    Is it really happening? As has been mentioned on HN multiple times the EU's age verification app will only run on American controlled devices. Some countries are moving some things away from US suppliers, buts its very much one step forward then two steps back.
    > Let's just hope we have critical mass before the right-wing populists take over, big tech has been intensively lobbying them in recent years
    Unfortunately, not only them. As the article says the existing European Commission is already going in the direction big tech want, just not as far. The current British government (a historically left wing party) has also been cosying up to big tech. One of the organisations mentioned in your link has a lot of info on EU lobbying in general: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/index%2Ephp/en/lobbying-the-eu" rel="nofollow">https://corporateeurope.org/index%2Ephp/en/lobbying-the-eu
    microtonal · 1789564166 · focus · HN ↗
    Arm is important, but for R & D. The impact of not having Arm will take a long time to be felt. The same for a lot of the others you mention. Not having a supply or Intel and AMD CPUs would be felt much faster and would be harder to find replacements for.
    ARM doesn't just do R&D, they design full CPU cores. Until recently, Qualcomm's cores were ARM's reference design with their own extensions on top. It's only since Oryon that their CPUs are more dependent (the tech was acquired through their Nuvia acquisition).
    graemep · 1789564366 · focus · HN ↗
    > ARM doesn't just do R&D, they design full CPU cores
    How is design not R & D? it is literally what the D in R & D stands for!
    pyrale · 1789629835 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the kind of discussion where people end up saying "Oh okay, but we can FIRE ZE MISSILES".
    AWS will never willingly stop serving the EU, and oil corps will (unfortunately) never willingly stop selling oil. The US govt could force it, but that would be the end of US-EU relations, economic or otherwise.
    subscribed · 1789593831 · focus · HN ↗
    Remember International Criminal Court sanctioned for investigating Israeli and American role in the crimes being committed on the Palestinian territory?
    <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvnl0elz47o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvnl0elz47o
    On top of more than 10 already.
    Or sanctioned Francesca Albanese, a UN Special Rapporteur, for her work related to human rights abuses in the Palestine.
    She can't have bank account (or other financial product), own a property or work in many sectors in countries holding meaningful bilateral relationships with the USA.
    So what services do you have in mind? :)
    data-ottawa · 1789560823 · focus · HN ↗
    So the implication is continue doing that?
    I’ve always been told don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, and the journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.
    The lesson here is that you can’t rely on the US anymore. Not for military protection, not for defence procurement, and not for trade or supply chain. That legacy has ended entirely by choice of the United States.
    The problem has moved beyond monetary trade value and into existential risk.
    pyrale · 1789628676 · focus · HN ↗
    That reliance is increasingly seen as a bomb about to explode rather than a boon.
  10. raverbashing · 1789558457 · focus · HN ↗
    Funny, to justify Brexit numbers like these were meaningless
    subscribed · 1789593928 · focus · HN ↗
    Putler invested a lot in that. Cheap price for the impact we still see.
  11. LeBit · 1789561264 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the US is wreaking havoc world wide. The US cannot be trusted anymore.
    Better remove the bandaid now then wait until you are screwed.
    People now see China as the reliable partner. This will be a multigenerational change.
  12. epistasis · 1789566918 · focus · HN ↗
    Exports are really easy to move and replace, as has been proven again and again in the past two years. Turns out that imports can be far trickier and pose larger problems to an economy.
  13. rsynnott · 1789569351 · focus · HN ↗
    In 1960, 75% of Ireland's exports went to the UK, and 50% of its imports came from there. By 2000, it was 35% imports, 25% exports. Today it is 20% imports, 8% exports. There are a few things going on here, but a lot of it was EU membership giving Ireland options beyond its 'natural' trade partner (and then the big drop from 2000 to now was mostly Brexit).
    Being in a situation where 70% of your exports go to one country is arguably pretty unhealthy; that is something that Canada would do well to work towards reducing, even _if_ the US administration wasn't openly hostile.
5. wewewedxfgdf · 1789558357 · focus · HN ↗
  Errrrr...... this has nothing to do with the struggle between USA and China.
  It is 100% about Trump.
  1. noir_lord · 1789558937 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump is a symptom not the disease, when he's gone the people who supported him and voted for him still exist and another Trump-like figure is almost inevitable given they've basically ploughed and planted that field to grow the next one and who's to say NeoTrump isn't going to be smarter.
    The other democracies can no longer count on the US as a stable ally the way we have in the past (whether that trust was misplaced is a matter of perspective).
    Simply put, you did it twice, We can't rely on them not doing it again.
    LeBit · 1789561117 · focus · HN ↗
    That and nobody believes that if the Democrats get back in the driver’s seat that they will correct all the disgusting things Trump did.
    Americans voted for that clown regime twice.
    They cannot and should not be trusted anymore.
    mettamage · 1789561403 · focus · HN ↗
    IMO it’s the 2 party system in the US that make it more vulnerable for things like this to happen
    pvaldes · 1789578678 · focus · HN ↗
    US biggest existential crisis is the fact that the opposition is always a monopoly.
    So either you have a massive win, or a party will block the other forever out of spite, nothing can be accomplished and no mistake can be fixed. With more opposition groups the situation would change for good ("You don't want to make a deal with me, I will ask the third and fourth parties. The first team doing a reasonable move gets the prize").
    sethammons · 1789597892 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm in favor of Rank Choice Voting for this reason. Our system makes 3rd party votes hard or impossible, so instead of voting for who you like, you have to vote for who you dislike the least.
    Let people vote for who they like the most without fear of their vote bolstering a candidate they really don't like. We should start exposing kids to RCV in schools. Now. It needs to not be "weird" or "hard" or propagandized as "not fair." Not fair is not being able to vote for your favorite person.
    petilon · 1789562749 · focus · HN ↗
    When Hitler was removed did another Hitler variant take control of Germany? No, Germany recovered from that dark period. The same will happen in the US. We will recover from this dark period. The comparison to Hitler is not baseless, btw. His own vice president once called Trump America's Hitler.
    b112 · 1789563460 · focus · HN ↗
    If you mean after facing bitter defeat, being broken into two nations, being controlled directly by foreign powers for years (and on one side decades), paying reparations, its upper political class and collaborators seized, jailed, trialed, and the free side being afraid of annexation by Russia, having nazism and any artifacts outlawed, then yes.
    Yes, after all and more, no future Hitler has yet emerged.
    Unless you see these things happening soon, then not really a good comparison.
    pjc50 · 1789564984 · focus · HN ↗
    > The same will happen in the US
    I don't think even the most hardened bsky communist seriously expects the outgoing administration to be literally taken out and shot.
    enoint · 1789565980 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada was able to convict Peter Nygard, and Trump might not have completed the Epstein coverup yet.
    Toynbeeidea · 1789569096 · focus · HN ↗
    No, because he was removed at gunpoint (no, not the one he pointed at himself). Unless and until that happens to a US President, you can expect more of the same.
    calf · 1789579010 · focus · HN ↗
    Such a simplistic historical comparison tells on yourself, it is precisely this mentality that larger sociopolitical forces exploit and reproduce new fascisms and the like. In other words your very argument demonstrates the falsity of the claim.
    dfxm12 · 1789564153 · focus · HN ↗
    It doesn't need to be a trump like figure. I would temper expectations that anything for Europe or Canada goes back to some status quo. It's more likely for Canada, but the US has changes domestically and with regards to other foreign nations in ways that necessitate different foreign relations even with close allies.
    We can look at Biden. He's not a trump like figure by any stretch. He decided to continue some of Trump's foreign policy.
  2. ChrisRR · 1789559843 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump is absolutely a malicious imbecile, but the US is a country that willingly voted him in twice.
    Removing Trump doesn't remove fundamental issues with the US
  3. padjo · 1789561522 · focus · HN ↗
    This has been brewing since George W Bush. Obama made a valiant attempt at normalising relations with Europe but I don't think any future US president has any hope of reversing this now.
    mschuster91 · 1789562461 · focus · HN ↗
    Europe was skeptical ever since 'nam and at the latest Bush Sr's Iraq adventure.
    NeutralCrane · 1789564854 · focus · HN ↗
    Since the wars in Iraq, sure. Vietnam was the US inheriting Europe’s mess.
    braho · 1789622356 · focus · HN ↗
    US shifting accountability of their choices on account of some mess of others. ‘We had no other choice because you can’t take care of it yourself’
    Thats exactly the narrative the rest of the world doesnt take anymore.
    mschuster91 · 1789628022 · focus · HN ↗
    They do have a point though. Libya, Syria, Lebanon, that's our doorstep, not the US'. And we in fact did not do a good job keeping house there.
    NeutralCrane · 1790162730 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not shifting accountability. After WWII, France demanded that its colonial holdings, including French Indochina, be returned to it as a requirement for it joining NATO. The Vietnamese were not interested in returning to French colonial rule. This kicked off a decade-long war between the two that the French lost. The US had advisors to the southern Vietnamese during that time, and rather than fully pulling out, increased their presence as they tried to manage the void left by the French. This spiraled into the Vietnam War.
    The US is on the hook for its decisions. But Europe doesn’t get off the hook for its own.
    padjo · 1789579975 · focus · HN ↗
    Nah, Europe was a happy participant in Iraq 1. The trend from that to Iraq 2 to whatever the hell they're doing in Iran now is really clear.
    RunSet · 1789563012 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qdvm6h8WKg
  4. Waterluvian · 1789563399 · focus · HN ↗
    We don’t do trade with Trump. We don’t get attacked by Trump.
  5. drawfloat · 1789565650 · focus · HN ↗
    It has very little to do with Trump. When he leaves, this shift isn't going away.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.