Thread

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

693 points · 905 comments · hackernj

neom · 1789557380 · focus · HN ↗
No idea what this actually means, if it means easier trade, I'm all for anything that reduces our dependency on the yanks, as long as we don't need to be involved in their regulatory or legal regimes. The Americans are no longer our friends, Salut, mes amis Européens. :)
1. FabCH · 1789557897 · focus · HN ↗
  Carney was asking for freedom of movement of goods, people and services, but without full monetary and legislative integration.
  So, easier to sell stuff, easier to buy stuff, free to just travel to/from Canada/EU and work there with no extra paperwork, free to buy and sell service from Canada to EU and vice versa.
  No Euro, no vote in EU, no ECJ, no payments into each others budget.
  Tighter integration than UK, not as tight as Norway/Switzerland/Iceland.
  Common defense was already agreed anyhow.
  I can tell you this enjoys broad support in the EU public. Although, no joke, a lot of peoples first reaction is: "They need to compete in Eurovision first. Otherwise they should wait for Australia to join first."
  1. post-it · 1789558150 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada will be competing in Eurovision 2027 in May. :)
    SyneRyder · 1789559599 · focus · HN ↗
    Also, being a European Broadcasting Union (EBU) "Associate Member" is the name for the mechanism that allowed Australia, Canada and other countries to be admitted into Eurovision.
    If you've been around the ESC scene, you know there's a lot of embassy involvement (parties in embassies are a thing), the scene is catnip for those interested in politics, the politically active, and to some extent politicians. Eurovision is also one mechanism for discussions of economic development. Hosting the contest is usually an excuse for upgrades to public infrastructure.
    And there's Eurovision Asia starting in November. South Korea is an Associate Member of the EBU, for example.
    <a href="https://www.ebu.ch/news/2026/03/bangkok-to-host-first-ever-eurovision-song-contest-asia-in-2026" rel="nofollow">https://www.ebu.ch/news/2026/03/bangkok-to-host-first-ever-e...
    fidotron · 1789560490 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you've been around the ESC scene
    This is a euphemism on par with attending parties in parts of the SFO AI community.
    embedding-shape · 1789560634 · focus · HN ↗
    Having been around both, the ESC isn't nearly as drug-fueled as the other, for better or worse.
    pantalaimon · 1789562769 · focus · HN ↗
    Only if you don't count alcohol
    SyneRyder · 1789567845 · focus · HN ↗
    Ahh, that one time the Belarussian delegation tried importing so much alcohol into [host country] to give away for free to everyone at the artist party, that it was all seized at the [host country] border and caused a minor diplomatic incident. The free chocolate branded with the artist's face made it in though. Fun times.
    And that wasn't the year that Belarus sent "I Love Belarus" as their Eurovision song.
    SyneRyder · 1789568269 · focus · HN ↗
    lol, this took longer to land with me than it should have, being the token "not in the target demographic" guy. And now I know more than I wanted to know about the AI scene ;)
    rsynnott · 1789564871 · focus · HN ↗
    > Eurovision Asia
    _Terrible_ naming.
    SyneRyder · 1789567334 · focus · HN ↗
    You'd think so, and I intuitively agree.
    But the concept has floated around for over a decade under several different project names - Asiavision, Our Sound, ABU Song Contest. Somehow "Eurovision Asia" is the one that got countries to sign on and participate. There's a stronger political statement in Asian countries participating in "Eurovision" than in "Our Sound". It surprises me, but 2026 has brought a lot of global cultural & political shifts.
    The American version was "The American Song Contest", hosted by Snoop Dogg & Kelly Clarkson, with US states competing against each other. Most Americans don't even know it ever happened.
    Russia has its own rival "Intervision Song Contest", which the US participates in. Something something global cultural shifts.
    guiriduro · 1789560257 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mitxela · 1789561222 · focus · HN ↗
    So no France, Germany, Australia, or UK
    isgb · 1789561394 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  2. wewewedxfgdf · 1789558250 · focus · HN ↗
    Freedom of movement with the EU and no border with the USA hm....
  3. paganel · 1789558330 · focus · HN ↗
    > and legislative integration
    Does Canada's agricultural output follow EU's (quite strict) norms? Not sure if this falls under "legislative integration" but I'd say that it would be quite important to have settled. The same goes when it comes to Canada's work-related laws.
    throw0101c · 1789558577 · focus · HN ↗
    > Does Canada's agricultural output follow EU's (quite strict) norms?
    Which output specifically? To take one example, the Dijon mustard coming out of France is mostly from Canadian mustard seeds:
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijon_mustard#2022_shortage_in_France" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijon_mustard#2022_shortage_in...
    b112 · 1789562429 · focus · HN ↗
    I want to know the person who grows the celery seeds.
    I bought a box 37 years ago, a tiny little box, and I've been using it to season soups, almost weekly that whole time.
    There can't be more than one guy that grows those seeds, for the entire planet! So my questions are, first who is this guy, and second is the in the EU?
    Also, has anybody else noticed this?
    noir_lord · 1789559239 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not an insurmountable problem if they don't have compatibility on standards
    It'll just take time to reach an agreement both sides can accept and it's in some ways simpler than something like the EU-Mercosur agreement since one "side" is a unified country rather that been two trading bloc's negotiating.
    It's fascinating watching the world re-align so quickly (by diplomatic/negotiation standards).
    justincormack · 1789560308 · focus · HN ↗
    EU signed a free trade agreement with Canada but its never been ratified
    rsynnott · 1789571105 · focus · HN ↗
    It's provisionally in force, though (fairly standard for EU trade agreements, which take _forever_ to fully ratify).
    embedding-shape · 1789560914 · focus · HN ↗
    > Does Canada's agricultural output follow EU's (quite strict) norms?
    It might not be as strict anymore, as the EU-Mercosur Agreement seemingly ended up relaxing a bit on the strict norms and regulations. Many farmers were/are protesting this agreement exactly because the farmers in South America would compete against local farmers who are more strictly regulated.
    So, seems we're a bit flexible on that front, when push comes to shove :)
    Sharlin · 1789561439 · focus · HN ↗
    It has become pretty clear that even the mainstream right wingers of the EU appear to be ready and willing to drop or loosen all kinds of annoying ethical, environmental, and consumer protection regulations at a moment's notice if it helps large corporations make more money.
    rsynnott · 1789567991 · focus · HN ↗
    "Single market (but food treated specially)" wouldn't be unprecedented; Switzerland was basically like this for a long time.
    Working Time Directive may be more of a sticking point, though Canada doesn't seem _that_ far away from aligned with it anyway (big difference would be on paid time off, where Canada's way under the minimum).
    bryanlarsen · 1789570273 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAICT many EU nations let stat holidays count towards the paid time off allowance. Ontario has 9 stat holidays. 10 paid days off guaranteed + 9 stat holidays is pretty close to the 20 required by Europe's paid time off guarantees.
    rsynnott · 1789571021 · focus · HN ↗
    Which countries are these? The UK used to have a derogation which allowed them to do this, and Malta has some weird thing, but otherwise I wasn't aware of any exceptions?
    bryanlarsen · 1789572055 · focus · HN ↗
    France too, but since they set their minimum at 30 + May 1st it basically comes out in the wash.
    rsynnott · 1789579318 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that’s a non-issue, then, as the requirement is only four working weeks.
  4. unsupp0rted · 1789558431 · focus · HN ↗
    He asked for phase 1. It would be foolish not to expect phase 2
  5. shevy-java · 1789558542 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    graemep · 1789558801 · focus · HN ↗
    UK does not pay.
    The EU is likely to develop a military at some point and has some defence cooperation. if you do not trust the US, that means you cannot rely on NATO, which means you need some alternative.
    > Right now it seems to me that e. g. Carney, and Leyen, use this more as promo-tour.
    I agree. It might be meant as a threat to influence US policy.
    ifwinterco · 1789559856 · focus · HN ↗
    That could be a european Nato though, doesn't mean you need literally one EU army
    graemep · 1789560557 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, and it might be a good idea. It should probably not be part of the EU though - there are a number of non-EU countries you would want in a European NATO such as the UK, Norway and Iceland.
    vintermann · 1789559883 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel's public broadcaster is a long time member of the European Broadcasting Union, which has nothing to do with EU, and honestly not all that much to do with Europe either. EBU organizes Eurovision. Why Israel's public broadcaster wanted to be part of EBU I don't know, cultural identification with Europe I guess? You'd have to ask them.
    But either way that's not the scandal. The scandal is that Russia's broadcaster got kicked out for Russia doing bad things (fair enough) but Israel's was kept in despite their government doing even worse things.
    jeltz · 1789560300 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, the scandal is about different members being held to different standards. Why are Azerbaijan and Israel allowed to stay while Russia got kicked out? Especially since Azerbaijan and Israel both have manipulated the voting in addition to waging wars.
    vintermann · 1789560462 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, Azerbaijan is another which is often forgotten. Honestly, it seems Eurovision is mostly interesting for countries that need PR help. I'd be happy to see the whole thing go, it's outlived what little purpose it had.
    mitxela · 1789561403 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Russia is an enemy of Europe while Israel is an ally.
    flohofwoe · 1789561722 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...while Russia got kicked out?
    For starters, neither Israel nor Azerbaijan threaten Europe with nuklear annihation on a nearly weekly basis.
    throw-the-towel · 1789563673 · focus · HN ↗
    Europe was created on the explicit premise of opposing Russia.
    mschuster91 · 1789562105 · focus · HN ↗
    Simple, for one the ITU region assignment, there's a bunch of other countries in Africa and Asia that are in the European Broacasting Area and thus eligible to join the EBU.
    The other thing more applies to other sports like soccer, most Arab countries (but especially Iran) will not accept having to work with Israel because it would require them to accept Israel as a legitimate country.
    2muchcoffeeman · 1789559966 · focus · HN ↗
    > Eurovision is also stupid. Why is Israel part of it? That makes zero sense, even way aside from what war criminal Netanyahu is doing - it's not a european country. Something is wrong with the word EU. It constantly seeks to expand. So that is now a misnomer.
    Eligibility to compete is not based on country, but my membership to the European Braodcasting Union of which Israel is a member, and Australian SBS is an associate member and was allowed to compete as a special case.
    Don't bring Eurovision into it. Learn to lighten up and have some fun instead.
    embedding-shape · 1789561014 · focus · HN ↗
    Agree, any country in the world should be able to participate in ESC, as long as the country agrees with peace, love and understanding. So yes, please ban Israel as soon as possible, together with any other countries that don't share these three very basic principles, that seemingly is easy for all the other participants to follow.
    2muchcoffeeman · 1789594236 · focus · HN ↗
    I get that they’ve done dodgy things in the past.
    And I agree that they should behave in a consistent manner.
    But it’s a song contest…
    Cyph0n · 1789561439 · focus · HN ↗
    > Don't bring Eurovision into it. Learn to lighten up and have some fun instead.
    So then why was Russia kicked out?
    greenavocado · 1789561744 · focus · HN ↗
    > Learn to lighten up and have some fun instead.
    Easy to say if you haven't experienced the killings
    ngruhn · 1789561743 · focus · HN ↗
    > > Common defense was already agreed anyhow.
    > Where and how?
    NATO presumably
    FabCH · 1789562635 · focus · HN ↗
    NATO, but also more importantly SAFE 2026.
    Canada gets significantly better deal than any other non-EU country.
    fangspire · 1789561758 · focus · HN ↗
    [flagged]
    tomhow · 1789625710 · focus · HN ↗
    Whatever this is meant to mean, please don't post it here. It's absolutely not what this site is for. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  6. bayindirh · 1789558696 · focus · HN ↗
    Being an Associate Country (or Associate State) doesn't guarantee visa-free travel (ask how we know), yet I'm sure that Canadians will get it served on a silver platter.
    FabCH · 1789580205 · focus · HN ↗
    You are confusing the current „candidate members“ with the new „associate member“ that doesn’t exist yet and is basically something Canada will get first.
    Among other things, they mentioned „recognition of professional qualifications“ in their speeches today, which is the first step in freedom of movement, so the direction is there.
    Also, visa free is a third thing, which already exists for Canada/EU. Neither needs a visa to travel to the other.
  7. bluecalm · 1789558824 · focus · HN ↗
    >>So, easier to sell stuff, easier to buy stuff, free to just travel to/from Canada/EU and work there with no extra paperwork, free to buy and sell service from Canada to EU and vice versa.
    >>No Euro, no vote in EU, no ECJ, no payments into each others budget.
    This version of EU integration is more popular than EU itself in significant part of EU right now.
    ChrisRR · 1789559687 · focus · HN ↗
    This was one of the stupid things that was touted as a benefit of not being in the EU during brexit.
    That we'd still have to comply with EU rules if we wanted to trade with them, but we wouldn't have any vote in those rules
    Fnoord · 1789561651 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, the Brexit campaign was manipulated by a state actor (or rather: 'a criminal actor disguised as a state'). None of the alt-right nationalism is in the long-term benefits of the country. This is globalism, the end game. You either team up, thereby reducing your costs, or you get swallowed. Ask Ukraine, Tibet, Hong Kong how it worked out for them not belonging to a bigger team. So divide and conquer is a logical move for the opponent, and it happens to align with alt-right. There is also documented evidence of external influence in these. A medium such as Follow The Money has documented such in various of their articles.
    whisperenjoyer · 1789567103 · focus · HN ↗
    > Ask Ukraine
    The whole political course of Ukraine in the last ~20 years is mostly about teaming up with EU and NATO, isn't it?
    rsynnott · 1789567832 · focus · HN ↗
    ... No. Not until this: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
    bryanlarsen · 1789568117 · focus · HN ↗
    Yanukovych was elected in 2010 promising "economic modernisation, greater economic ties with the EU, and military non-alignment." (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych). His backsliding on those promises is what caused the Revolution of Dignity. I think the OP's statement is roughly accurate.
    dragonwriter · 1789568296 · focus · HN ↗
    Nope, not the part between the NATO bending to Russian demands not to extend Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 (followed immediately by the Russian invasion of Georgia)—when Ukraine abandoned pursuit of NATO membership—and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (after which it resumed pursuit to of NATO membership.)
    The resumption is sometimes tied to the Revolution of Dignity preceding the Russian invasion, and even occasionally claimed to be a reason for the invasion, but the decision to abandon the neutrality position was well after and a response to the invasion rather than the other way around.
  8. DanielHB · 1789558889 · focus · HN ↗
    How is this different from the EEA (Norway/Switzerland/Iceland)?
    moeadham · 1789559277 · focus · HN ↗
    EEA you have to follow rules but get no say in said rules.
    embedding-shape · 1789559399 · focus · HN ↗
    To "join" the EEA both sides/parties of it has to agree, so yes, members do have a say, it's beneficial (and should be) to both parties of the agreements.
    QuantumNomad_ · 1789559423 · focus · HN ↗
    Will Canada have to follow the rules? Will Canada have a say in the rules?
    gizajob · 1789562673 · focus · HN ↗
    Follow, yes. Say, very little.
    icantevenhold · 1789559545 · focus · HN ↗
    Reductive to the point of untruth
    mitxela · 1789561302 · focus · HN ↗
    Like me when I sign up for Hacker News or Twitter.
    embedding-shape · 1789559328 · focus · HN ↗
    For one this seems related to EU the umbrella organization, not Europe the continent, while I suppose the European Economic Area might be geographically limited to Europe the continent. Maybe something like the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) might be more applicative here.
    FabCH · 1789562369 · focus · HN ↗
    Jurisdiction of ECJ and boring normative stuff like languages on packing.
  9. klelatti · 1789559328 · focus · HN ↗
    > Carney was asking for freedom of movement of goods, people and services, but without full monetary and legislative integration.
    > no payments into each others budget.
    Not going to happen!
    To enable free movement of goods and services the EU insists that the goods and services are produced in an identical regulatory environment.
    Even when the regimes are basically identical - eg the UK - then the EU doesn't permit it without budgetary contributions.
    fidotron · 1789560403 · focus · HN ↗
    It's actually going to raise questions as to why the EU are A-OK with this now when a possible interpretation of associate membership is it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.
    All depends on what an associate member is of course.
    corford · 1789561057 · focus · HN ↗
    >inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.
    That's a bit of a stretch
    fidotron · 1789561741 · focus · HN ↗
    It's literally what happened.
    Cameron was trying to reduce the scope of EU integration with the UK (esp freedom of movement), with the threat he didn't want to use of a referendum, the EU said no (as the other commenter explained partly to disincentivize others, but also because they thought he was bluffing and people would never vote to leave), so the referendum was held.
    thih9 · 1789561995 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair, freedom of movement is one of the core principles[1] of the EU.
    Restricting that is a tall ask, I wouldn't describe refusing that as being inflexible.
    [1]: <a href="https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en" rel="nofollow">https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor... "Freedom of movement gives citizens the right to move and reside freely within the Union."
    gizajob · 1789562472 · focus · HN ↗
    I kind of made a point like this in the other thread - during Brexit it was a very hard No from the EU that they couldn’t negotiate on key points such as freedom of movement, and countries are either IN and have everything the EU comes with, or they’re out. Now, it seems, that Canada is being offered a favourable half-in arrangement simply because they’ve never before been involved. Seems pretty bizarre and arbitrary for the EU, but also totally standard for the EU because it’s bizarre and arbitrary.
    foldr · 1789563320 · focus · HN ↗
    This potential deal for Canada comes with compromises which would obviously be unacceptable to the UK (e.g. no full voting rights).
    gizajob · 1789563550 · focus · HN ↗
    Likely as unacceptable to Canadians.
    rsynnott · 1789564539 · focus · HN ↗
    EEA nations (Norway, Iceland etc) have found them acceptable, and preferable to fully joining up.
    thunderfork · 1789565041 · focus · HN ↗
    It's fine by me (sample size 1 Canuck)
    fidotron · 1789563658 · focus · HN ↗
    Does anyone actually know publicly what is and isn't the deal for associate membership?
    At least here (in Canada) I'm not seeing any concrete details.
    jeromegv · 1789564811 · focus · HN ↗
    No, nothing public, we are all speculating. But we can surely guess at 99% that Canada would get no voting power, being that we are in North America and Canada isn't interested in that kind of arrangement.
    drdexebtjl · 1789563749 · focus · HN ↗
    The crucial distinction is which half is in which “half-in” agreement.
    They are not offering Canada conditions that the UK would have wanted.
    Jackpillar · 1789564469 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure why its so difficult for you to understand the obvious goal of taking a hardline stance on leaving the EU as a member state vs onboarding possible partnerships, members, etc. You're looking at this backwards.
    grumbelbart2 · 1789565022 · focus · HN ↗
    Cameron wanted to split the four freedoms. Canada does not, from what I can read.
    antalis · 1789565084 · focus · HN ↗
    That's wrong, he did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
    rjsw · 1789567176 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that the EU would be in worse shape today if the UK had followed most other members at the time and restricted freedom of movement to it for the countries that joined in 2004 and 2007. It would have been nice to have got some credit for that.
    Sharlin · 1789561131 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK already enjoyed a large amount of unique concessions as a full member. The rest of the EU was right not to give in. Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. No such problem in negotiating tighter integration with nonmembers (and in retrospect, many of the old WP countries should've joined as something like associate members at first…)
    fidotron · 1789561525 · focus · HN ↗
    This is the other part: if associate membership is a thing then won't half of the EU start thinking that's their future?
    Sharlin · 1789561706 · focus · HN ↗
    > Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative.
    Because you simply wouldn't be offered the option of just deescalating your full membership to an associate membership. If you want to leave, you leave fully, and then in time we can discuss what happens next.
    fidotron · 1789561816 · focus · HN ↗
    This makes being involved as little as possible but no more far more attractive than being bound too tightly together though.
    Almost like many of the EU states were misled into their current situations.
    Sharlin · 1789562251 · focus · HN ↗
    How so? Many EU states have benefited enormously from being on the receiving side of EU subsidies, which obviously would be out of the question without full integration.
    fidotron · 1789562729 · focus · HN ↗
    It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside.
    Which many people inside the EU would observe seems completely consistent with EU behaviour.
    Edit to add: "Being misled" would refer to the way the EU was sold to many participants in earlier decades as an economic union, and not an all encompassing political one, with it simply ratcheting that way. Whenever objections occurred referenda would simply be repeated until the populations complied. It's far from the exercise in democracy that proponents promote. (This is distinct from saying it is _all bad_).
    Sharlin · 1789562995 · focus · HN ↗
    Your position seems so astonishingly alien that I don't even know how to start replying. It seems biased against the entire concept of how human cooperation works.
    fidotron · 1789564001 · focus · HN ↗
    My position is hardly rare. Iceland didn't join at least partly because they were suspicious of intentions regarding fishing.
    Human cooperation does not mean misleading your compatriots into deals that you then ratchet up ever further until it becomes completely intolerable.
    There are reasons that in the long run flexibility wins.
    rsynnott · 1789564416 · focus · HN ↗
    > It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside.
    Mostly, like, the right to have, say, your own standards on chemical safety, tho. That is generally not something that most people would _want_; it basically just means you lose your job because import/export becomes, if not impossible, at least bureaucratically expensive enough that people will just buy from elsewhere.
    johannes1234321 · 1789563587 · focus · HN ↗
    There is always the debate around "Europe of two speeds" - where there is a deeply integrated core of nations, maybe even going towards "United States of Europe" and the others tightly associated, but not fully integrated.
    Of course the set of countries and level of integration depends on whom you ask
    gizajob · 1789566259 · focus · HN ↗
    It would be towards “The United States of Germany”, not Europe.
    rsynnott · 1789563908 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe, and that might actually be okay from the EC’s pov. There’s a fairly old proposal for a ‘two speed EU’; a core that accelerates towards near-federalism with a more eurosceptic periphery.
    fidotron · 1789564133 · focus · HN ↗
    Right. The oddity now is the euroscepticism is rooted in the countries previously considered the core.
    I am of the view the UK should never have joined as a full member, and it would have been better to establish the two speed membership way back then, allowing France and Germany particularly to engage in further integration without mutual interference involving the UK.
    soco · 1789565478 · focus · HN ↗
    Let's face it, UK never was "full member", for all means. But that's beside the actual point: the German/French euro-skeptics see their countries paying the eastern block a lot of money, sees that same block totally ungrateful about it (ooga booga colonialism), but at the same time don't notice their own employers happy to have such markets at their fingertips - because said markets grab also jobs at their expense, again something the eastern block actively ignores. At the same times the ruling parties everywhere won't touch a running system (even when it's barely running) to not lose their hard won privileges, and the rightwing grows claiming imaginary but heartwarming solutions.
    lII1lIlI11ll · 1789564680 · focus · HN ↗
    > This is the other part: if associate membership is a thing then won't half of the EU start thinking that's their future?
    Presumably by "half of the EU" you mean (sometimes) euro-sceptic states like Hungary or Poland? Well, these are not in EU because some illuminati/lizard people tricked them into joining and now won't allow them to leave, like some of their politicians would like you to believe, but because they enjoy billions of subsidies per year.
    740273730191 · 1789565421 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    fidotron · 1789566521 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a strong case that much of the eastern bloc were tricked into joining, by the UK, in order to weaken the Franco-German efforts for ever closer union.
    This was even a joke in the UK at the time. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
    lII1lIlI11ll · 1789567884 · focus · HN ↗
    Could you elaborate regarding how exactly were eastern bloc countries "tricked" into joining by the UK? And what prevents them from leaving now that the tricksters from UK have long since left themselves?
    fidotron · 1789568796 · focus · HN ↗
    I refer you to the video as to the why and how, keeping in mind that's before the Berlin Wall came down.
    The Brits have a habit of only telling you the precise truth when they think you think they're joking.
    lII1lIlI11ll · 1789569269 · focus · HN ↗
    A clip from a comedic fiction TV series? So much for a "strong case to be made"...
    whywhywhywhy · 1789571949 · focus · HN ↗
    > the tricksters from UK have long since left themselves?
    This wasn’t intentional of the people who started the cogs turning, it was meant to be an empty gesture to get elected, no one expected it to actually pass.
    ricardobayes · 1789567321 · focus · HN ↗
    I would like to make a slight correction: the hungarian public opinion was never, ever euro-sceptic. This was one of the major reason the previous government was voted out, because they didn't reflect the will of the people. Opinion polls regularly poll 70-80% of EU approval despite being decade-long propaganda trying to change peoples' minds, making Hungary de facto one of the most pro-EU countries in EU.
    teamonkey · 1789561348 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t think Cameron did much serious negotiation on this front. He resigned the evening of the referendum results.
    It was a deliberate choice by his successors to pursue a hard Brexit. A softer Brexit was always possible and likely would have been more acceptable to the EU, as it would have had less financial impact and disruption to trade.
    fidotron · 1789561938 · focus · HN ↗
    That's what happened afterwards.
    The referendum was triggered by a failed negotiation between Cameron and the EU in the first place.
    jeromegv · 1789564745 · focus · HN ↗
    The referendum was triggered by him making a bad political calculation that he would win it and could squash the aisle of his party that was pushing his idea. This was never truly due to a failed negotiation. The hardliners in his party wanted entirely out either way.
    antalis · 1789564967 · focus · HN ↗
    You've got it wrong: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
    fidotron · 1789566142 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no planet on which Cameron's visit that time was regarded by anyone on any side as anything other than a failure. Cameron was simply putting a face on it.
    It has pissed off the EU (understandably), pissed off his own supporters, and pissed off his enemies.
    foldr · 1789567405 · focus · HN ↗
    The point is that the referendum was an unconditional 2015 Conservative manifesto promise, and was going to happen anyway, regardless of how Cameron's renegotiations with the EU went (sources here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49726666">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49726666)
    The outcome of the negotiations may have affected the course of the Leave and Remain campaigns, but it was not the trigger for the referendum itself.
    theplumber · 1789564999 · focus · HN ↗
    This is was about immigration. I don’t understand why people are still in denial about this. I am pretty sure it would have happened anyway regardless of what economic concessions UK would have got. It’s worth to note that the immigration is still an issue in the UK and the EU and I think more EU members will leave because of this.
    fidotron · 1789565846 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. And, let's face it, democracy. Either the people in the UK wanted freedom of movement or they didn't, and they voted on that basis.
    People don't exactly feel they agreed to the Boriswave either, and now when I am back visiting the UK it's noticeably the most racist it's ever been, by a very significant distance.
    I'm in Canada now and Canada has the same dynamics going on.
    nutjob2 · 1789568017 · focus · HN ↗
    > Exactly. And, let's face it, democracy. Either the people in the UK wanted freedom of movement or they didn't, and they voted on that basis.
    It was neither. They wanted freedom of movement that was only one way. In fact they didn't know what they wanted because they were sold a bill of goods when it came to Brexit.
    gizajob · 1789566414 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is what will kill it in Canada too. There’s maybe only a million Canadian citizens who would be interested in the idea of freedom of movement to Europe. There’s probably 10-20 million Canadian citizens who would be a hard “absolutely no way” to opening their borders to 250 million random Europeans in return.
    bryanlarsen · 1789566936 · focus · HN ↗
    44% of Canadians support re-opening immigration; I'm willing to bet that a larger number would support immigration from EU nations.
    gizajob · 1789567023 · focus · HN ↗
    So you’re saying 56% of Canadians would vote No?
    bryanlarsen · 1789567328 · focus · HN ↗
    > I'm willing to bet that a larger number would support immigration from EU nations.
    Especially if it was a reciprocal right.
    fidotron · 1789569216 · focus · HN ↗
    If it involved being able to leave Canada in perpetuity without an exit tax, which would open the floodgates in a most unintentional way.
    theplumber · 1789602380 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah but you have to wonder why the EU nations themselves are not very happy with the EU immigration. One part of the answer is that some are more open to out of EU immigration than others. A while ago that was Germany who got 1 million plus of refugees and economic immigrants from Syria , Afghanistan and other non European countries. Now it seems that Spain is that willing to take immigrants and of course also provide them citizenship after 3-5 years. So you may end up with a disproportionate amount of immigrants that come from Europe but are not really European in terms of looks and behaviour.
    gizajob · 1789660453 · focus · HN ↗
    Give it another ten to twenty years and the far right will be in control all across Europe.
    theplumber · 1789768586 · focus · HN ↗
    I never understood this blame on EU as an external entity. If far right wins in most member states then EU itself becomes far right. The EU is MPs elected by the EU people directly and council members which are heads of state elected as well in most countries.
    gizajob · 1789825916 · focus · HN ↗
    >If far right wins in most member states then EU itself becomes far right.
    Yeah… well, then the fun really begins doesn’t it.
    But you know that the EU has this basically leftish centrist ideology of equality mixed in with the neoliberal profit-motive of the soft right. That it’s overt rationalism is politically neutralising rather than centrist, that is to say extreme positions either side do not flourish and are ridiculed as irrational, shouted down, and discarded even if they represent the views of several million people across the bloc. That continued ignorance and attempt at rationalising by a minority of career politicians in the face of an increasingly irrational and polarised base is feeding the right and pushing it into more extreme positions, because at least the right will represent and say what the EU refuses to.
    teamonkey · 1789583499 · focus · HN ↗
    It was about money.
    People were poor, wages had hardly grown after years of austerity following the 2008 crash. A huge campaign pointed the finger squarely at the EU: they are taking our money, they are the reason you’re poor, you would be richer without them.
    People believed them.
    theplumber · 1789603567 · focus · HN ↗
    I have seen it differently. I’ve seen it about immigration, the party driving it being UK Immigration Party. Boris “party” put some economic spin on it but it was fuelled by immigration.
    teamonkey · 1789684714 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the UK Independence Party?
    nutjob2 · 1789567672 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of your comments about the EU are borderline bad faith and at least show bias.
    This is an example. The referendum was entirely the UK's choice and had nothing to do with the EU. It offered more concessions than the UK deserved (having already held numerous opt-outs) and they still called the vote.
    One of the effects of Brexit was that EU popular solidarity has noticeably improved while the UK has gone in the opposite direction. That says a lot about Brexit.
    blitzar · 1789561823 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK wanted to maintain its veto over all EU matters (cake and eat it too).
    FrancisMoodie · 1789561860 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further.
    The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.
    Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.
    fidotron · 1789562107 · focus · HN ↗
    > Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election
    That is iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.
    > The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.
    V. hard to see what Canada gets out of it. All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
    rsynnott · 1789564779 · focus · HN ↗
    > All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
    Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations. This would make trade (particularly for small businesses) _far_ easier. See the UK for how difficult this can become if you're not in alignment; it's survivable for huge companies (though even some of them had trouble; for instance Marks and Spencers' stores in Ireland literally went empty for a while because they were insufficiently prepared), but if you're a small business importing a bunch of components from Europe and making a thing which is largely sold to Europe, there's a _massive_ difference in bureaucratic overhead between being in and out.
    Even many Norwegian SMEs don't see direct sales to Europe as worth the overhead, and Norway's in the EEA, as close to the EU as you can get without actually being in it.
    fidotron · 1789565199 · focus · HN ↗
    > Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations.
    Canadian provinces do not agree with each other about trade regulations. They will not surrender this to the federal government, and they certainly won't to the EU.
    Canada isn't actually a single market itself.
    foldr · 1789565016 · focus · HN ↗
    >[The Conservatives promised a referendum] iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.
    No. The Conservative party promised an EU membership referendum by 2017 in its 2015 manifesto. That was not conditional on a failure of renegotiations. Nor, indeed, did David Cameron even concede that the renegotiations had failed, so that can’t possibly have been his stated reason for calling the referendum.
    See a summary of the manifesto here: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32302062" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32302062
    And also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/david-cameron-stay-as-pm-if-i-lose-eu-referendum" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/david-camer.... Here, Cameron is directly quoted as saying:
    > My policy is to hold a renegotiation and then a referendum. That is what we promised in the manifesto and then to abide by what the British public say.
    So clearly, there was never any suggestion that the referendum would be called or not called depending on the outcome of the renegotiations.
    FabCH · 1789562235 · focus · HN ↗
    I missed the part where the UK was willing to give up all veto and voting rights and still have freedom of movement.
    Both of which Canada is ok with.
    fidotron · 1789562485 · focus · HN ↗
    I am in Canada. There's no evidence Canada is OK with those things.
    FabCH · 1789563968 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair enough.
    It’s what the newspapers report:
    <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...
    fidotron · 1789565023 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not actually reporting on the substance in any meaningful detail, and no one is, for the relatively simple reason that once it happens every special interest group in Canada will find something to go nuts about.
    dghlsakjg · 1789565023 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have any sources that aren’t right wing publications from a country whose right wing is actively working against Canada and the E.U.?
    FabCH · 1789579976 · focus · HN ↗
    That sounds like you are looking for the Ground News thing I get advertising for on every YouTube video.
    bryanlarsen · 1789580521 · focus · HN ↗
    Ground News itself is right wing propaganda.
    gizajob · 1789562537 · focus · HN ↗
    A majority of Canadians haven’t decided this in an election, and I doubt that 20 million of them would be on board with it.
    donbox · 1789565700 · focus · HN ↗
    The elected representatives can decide? I mean their Parliament.
    fidotron · 1789566259 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds constitutional, and if you want to make a Canadian exasperated ask about the history of the Canadian constitution.
    Hint: it's still not been signed by all the relevant parties.
    donbox · 1789569357 · focus · HN ↗
    Curious, What makes ( or would make) this constitutional. I guess, we need to wait for the details.
    [deleted] · 1789563815 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    georgeecollins · 1789563893 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is the EU obligated to treat every country the same way? Canada presents different economic opportunities and challenges than the UK. Or, if you want to say it was due to politics, who was bashing who?
    gmueckl · 1789564603 · focus · HN ↗
    The explanation is easy: Canada is not on the European continent. The EU can only extend full membership to countries on the continent, so Canada needs a special arrangement. And because there's a whole ocean serving as a reason for this special treatment, it's easy to argue that it won't extend to countries who can become full members.
    gremlinunderway · 1789565083 · focus · HN ↗
    There's actually no continental definition in the EU constitution but yes probably in practice this is correct in terms of perception
    abraxas · 1789564883 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK wanted it the opposite way. They wanted full access to the EU market but forbid the movement of people because they wanted to get rid of the Poles. The EU would never agree to that and rightly so.
    antalis · 1789565259 · focus · HN ↗
    Cameron did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
    jen20 · 1789565708 · focus · HN ↗
    That is a rather fantastical and revisionist version of why the Brexit referendum was called - which had more to do with a misguided attempt to put the crazy wing of the Conservative Party to bed rather than anything to do with the EU, where the UK had the best deal imaginable already.
    gizajob · 1789566863 · focus · HN ↗
    Nevertheless when put to British voters 50% of them decided that best possible deal still wasn’t in their interests. And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that. So the EU was very much fine with their democratic process seeming like an irrelevance, while at the same time the Brexit vote was actually an example of a democratic process working as it should do. One can argue about craziness or otherwise, but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time and if there was a referendum to rejoin the EU would likely be another 17 million crazies voting no again.
    jen20 · 1789582153 · focus · HN ↗
    > but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time
    Yes.
    > would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again.
    Highly unlikely - and turnout on the other side would be dramatically improved. Had the vote been held again the following day, it's likely that the result would have been different. If it were held today, it would be a landslide towards rejoining with the original terms.
    People actually know what they're voting for, instead of falling for make-believe horseshit about how much money could go into the NHS (but didn't) on the side of a bus, with a heavy dose of Russian propaganda on Facebook.
    gizajob · 1789582393 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you’ve fallen into the common trap in believing that there was a simple narrative which can be used to understand the Brexit vote, when the data shows there were 17 million different and varied reasons within a mass resistant to modelling.
    jen20 · 1789587508 · focus · HN ↗
    There were a few categories of reasons.
    The ones that are persistent are "I'm going to vote for anarchy because politics does no good for me", "I'm racist and don't understand that this doesn't get rid of people I really want to get rid of but really want it to so whatever" and "I'm xenophobic and haven't accepted that there isn't a British Empire anymore".
    There may be fringe cases around specific regulations, but those were the main three. People were voting for whatever they wanted Brexit to be, most of which is pure fantasy, not what it actually is, which is a clusterfuck of badness, and zero benefit to anyone.
    I say this as someone _who was a member of the Conservative Party at the time_, though the fact that the candidate in my constituency since 2010 was Jacob Rees Mogg meant I have voted against them in every election since then.
    gizajob · 1789649690 · focus · HN ↗
    You just repeated the same mistake but with more detail.
    jen20 · 1789653539 · focus · HN ↗
    I understand why you’d like to believe that, but it’s simply not true.
    hardbass · 1789627122 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course not. Just by age range, I assume a lot of Brexit voters would have dead and younger voters are probably more EU supportive.
    nutjob2 · 1789648270 · focus · HN ↗
    > And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that.
    This is ignorance or just plain bad faith. MEPs are not the main democratic mechanism of the EU, it's the national governments. This is on purpose, so that both national democracy and sovereignty can be maintained.
    This is the typical of EU misinformation spouted by people who have a problem with the EU. Of course people can dislike the EU all they want, but people who constantly rail against it, with little or no basis in fact, I'll never know. It's not about the EU, it's some sort of bitter obsession or ideological idiocy. Somehow the EU means much more to them than they claim, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much energy complaining about it.
    gizajob · 1789649075 · focus · HN ↗
    But I was a supporter of the EU who noticed this. Like I comment elsewhere, the EU is like Teflon and resistant to critique - when there is an issue or a defect we get comments like yours “yes yes but this isn’t the actual process, that is a governmental/national/commission/parliament issue.”
    It’s not misinformation - it’s a very basic fact about the democratic mechanism we had for electing who represents us in the EU parliament which makes and votes on our laws. The opacity of this process and the general lack of enfranchisement in it is a major flaw but one that the EU was content with, because a simulation of a democratic process is good enough, better even, because it avoids the scrutiny and can be defended by people like you. It’s a basic fact that people did get off their arses and vote to leave in greater numbers than even bothered to be enfranchised in the elections for MEPs. You don’t have to bleat about it or invoke ignorance or bad faith because all you show up is your own bad faith to a fairly basic fact.
    LightBug1 · 1789566671 · focus · HN ↗
    >>> "it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum."
    "Negotiate" ... is that what you call it?
    David Cameron (and team) were the most inept bunch of wankers this country has had the misfortune of being represented by in living memory (in terms of medium/long-term real impact).
    We had better terms than anyone in the EU and we still fucked it up.
    mejutoco · 1789566927 · focus · HN ↗
    > Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.
    You are assigning too much responsibility to the EU here and none to the other actors responsible for Brexit. It borders on propaganda, but I do not want to assume ill intent.
    And Cameron, didnt he say he would guide UK no matter the result and then resigned when Brexit won?
    fidotron · 1789567934 · focus · HN ↗
    Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum, the tension was so obvious. This idea people were conned into voting leave is just utter nonsense - they'd been chomping at the bit for the opportunity for years.
    Now the UK has managed to ramp up the tension dramatically, but without some easy foreign political bogeyman to blame. It's not going to end well either, but it's not clear exactly what the endgame is. This is why the Greens, Reform and Restore are suddenly things.
    foldr · 1789572606 · focus · HN ↗
    >Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum
    Come off it. Neither the referendum nor the referendum result were inevitabilities.
    saulapremium · 1789581580 · focus · HN ↗
    Inflexibility was not the reason for Brexit. It happened because the British population was tricked by being fed misinformation about the EU for years by people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Little things like "The EU bans bendy bananas" to big things like "Turkey is going to join any day!"
    cmiles8 · 1789560786 · focus · HN ↗
    A) Would never happen.
    B) If it did happen, the US would just say “give us the same deal or you get cut off” and Europe would capitulate immediately.
    usrbinbash · 1789561376 · focus · HN ↗
    Cut the EU off from ... what?
    Technlogy? That would likely result in a US market crash the likes of which has never been seen before. Look at what percentage of the stock market is the magnificent 7. Now imagine what would happen to that if US tech giants were no longer allowed to sell their products/services in the EU. The market is fragile as it is with the AI bubble going on.
    Trade? That cuts both ways, and the US economy and cost-of-living crisis doesn't give them lots of wriggle room.
    Products? China will be all to happy to step into whatever market is thus competition-free, not to mention the impact this would have on US businesses.
    boringg · 1789566754 · focus · HN ↗
    Right....
    embedding-shape · 1789561411 · focus · HN ↗
    > To enable free movement of goods and services the EU insists that the goods and services are produced in an identical regulatory environment.
    Doesn't seem to be true anymore, at least in every case. See the EU-Mercosur agreement for one recent exception to this, the goods we're now importing from South America don't have the same regulatory environment by far, to many of our local farmers.
    klelatti · 1789561844 · focus · HN ↗
    EU - Mercosur is not free movement of goods and services.
    preisschild · 1789564730 · focus · HN ↗
    EU-Mercosur products need to comply with the EU's food safety standards (SPS1)
    rsynnott · 1789564842 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada already has a free trade deal along the lines of the EU-Mercosur one; free movement of goods and services implies a _lot_ more than that.
    ocd · 1789561470 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of this is about resource access, and that can't be magically conjured. You can have all the industry and business you want to put on paper, but this is a tangible concern for Europe where they require these things from a stable and trusted nation with a similar regulatory and political environment.
    This trade matter is likely going to require a new type of agreement that has some special privileges not extended in any other case for both parties.
    rsynnott · 1789563745 · focus · HN ↗
    Depends what they mean by ‘full’, really. I expect the EC would be happy enough to let them opt out of the euro, say. But maybe not the working time directive.
    soco · 1789566191 · focus · HN ↗
    There are many EU countries not having, some not even planning, to adopt the Euro. So I cannot imagine this being an important discussion topic.
  10. trklausss · 1789559885 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm curious how an integration into Schengen Area could actually work... Or does it just mean no passport controls?
    Also, to be able to sell stuff, you gotta comply with the CE rules one way or another, there is no free card here.
    About competition in Eurovision: absolutely, would love for them to participate, even if just as guest state :D
    LMAO just googled it: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_the_Eurovision_Song_...
    andyferris · 1789560667 · focus · HN ↗
    I think free movement of people doesn’t imply Schengen Zone style borders - I thought this was mostly an economic lever that people can move and work in another country by default, not a human right where a country cannot exclude chosen people (known criminals, etc) and track all crossings. I think of it as another country giving me a visa is opt-out for that country, not opt-in.
    The CE rules are relatively sane and followed commonly right? At least I see a lot of CE-stamped goods in Australia… so I always assumed that was the case.
    mschuster91 · 1789561937 · focus · HN ↗
    All that Schengen does is dismantle border checkpoints. As a German, I can freely move to any EU country for any purpose - transit, tourism and work - no matter if, say, I were a convict or whatever.
    There are expulsions and entry bans even under Schengen, but these are incredibly rare things to happen as the freedom of movement is considered to be a cornerstone of EU values.
    Gravityloss · 1789562343 · focus · HN ↗
    CE is a tool against protectionism. If a thing is CE stamped, you must allow it to be sold (if you're a member).
    rsynnott · 1789567416 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep; Ireland, say, has free movement, but is not in Schengen (the border with NI would make it virtually impossible).
    FabCH · 1789582650 · focus · HN ↗
    Freedom of movement is more than just visa opt-out. It’s legally almost impossible for an EU country to prevent a citizen of a different EU country from moving there. They would need to arrest you for terrorism or something equally dramatic.
    The ECJ has consistently ruled that the freedom of movement is very broad.
    I know this because it creates an interesting corner case where Swiss citizens don’t have quite the same broad freedom of movement since ECJ rulings don’t automatically apply to non-EU citizens. For example, an EU citizen can move to Greece for no reason at all and just sit on a beach. A Swiss citizen cannot, and has to find work in 3-6 months or leave.
    padjo · 1789561055 · focus · HN ↗
    Not all of the EU is in schengen, but we do have freedom of movement. Ireland for example is not in Schengen and never will be because of our travel arrangements with the UK.
    another-dave · 1789561988 · focus · HN ↗
    > Also, to be able to sell stuff, you gotta comply with the CE rules one way or another, there is no free card here.
    Yes but there's a big difference between "only import electronics that aren't fire hazards" and "you have to pay custom & excise on anything you import".
  11. inhumantsar · 1789559903 · focus · HN ↗
    more than a half dozen Canadians have already competed in Eurovision, including one winner (Céline Dion). has Australia ever won?
    ikr678 · 1789561729 · focus · HN ↗
    Australia has managed a 2nd and a 4th from 11 entrants. Our voting participation is quite low though, as the voting windows are usually at awkward AEST times and the main Australian broadcast of the contest is delayed until our primetime.
    dataengineer56 · 1789564789 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't vote for your own country so Australian bedtime is irrelevant.
  12. leidenfrost · 1789560236 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAIK Charles III is the monarch both for UK and Canada.
    Doesn't this mean that Canada is, in a certain degree, dependent of UK?
    afavour · 1789560351 · focus · HN ↗
    No, he’s just the monarch of two different countries simultaneously.
    singpolyma3 · 1789560380 · focus · HN ↗
    No. We have our own monarch who happens to be the same human is all
    foobarian · 1789560609 · focus · HN ↗
    So it's like two kubernetes pods happen to run on the same node.
    Intermernet · 1789562512 · focus · HN ↗
    More like a bunch of CNAMES pointing to a single record, but in this case the CNAMEs all start with "charlesv3".
    graemep · 1789560396 · focus · HN ↗
    No. He is separately the monarch of the UK and Canada. You could just as well argue that the UK is dependent on Canada for that reason.
    thaumasiotes · 1789566591 · focus · HN ↗
    You could, but it might be difficult to hear yourself over the explosive laughter of everybody around you.
    Which country would you say has a closer relationship with the King of England?
    triceratops · 1789568540 · focus · HN ↗
    Which country would you say has a closer relationship with the King of Canada?
    thaumasiotes · 1789569859 · focus · HN ↗
    England, which is why he's called the King of England and never called the King of Canada.
    bryanlarsen · 1789570418 · focus · HN ↗
    His title is "His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" but he can claim many others. In Canada he is announced as King of Canada.
    graemep · 1789574198 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, and he is also:
    "Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth"
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles_III" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_...
    triceratops · 1789570988 · focus · HN ↗
    They call him the King of England when he's in Canada? Or when he represents Canada abroad? Where exactly are you getting your information from?
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Royal_presence_and_duties" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Royal_prese...
    amiga386 · 1789577517 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no King of England. Charles III is King of the United Kingdom, and all places within. The UK does not have a King of England any more than they have a King of Scunthorpe or a King of North Piddle.
    The last King of England was William of Orange, who died in 1702 and was succeeded by Anne, who was the last Queen of England. The Act of Union 1707 merged the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England into a single successor state, the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801 that became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in 1922 became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    thaumasiotes · 1789631402 · focus · HN ↗
    > Charles III is King of the United Kingdom, and all places within. The UK does not have a King of England any more than they have a King of Scunthorpe or a King of North Piddle.
    It really shouldn't surprise you to learn this, but the ordinary name for the "United Kingdom" is "England".
    amiga386 · 1789672617 · focus · HN ↗
    It really shouldn't surprise you to learn this, but the ordinary name for the "United States" is "California"
    thaumasiotes · 1789787328 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem to be completely unaware of... something. But you're not making it clear what. I'm confident you know that the ordinary name for the United States is "America".
    amiga386 · 1789820253 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem unaware that the ordinary name for the United Kingdom is "Britain".
    Imagine standing in New York City and proclaiming to the locals how lovely California is and how much you like it here in California.
    Now imagine standing in Glasgow and proclaiming to the locals how lovely England is and how much you like it here in England.
    If corrected, just say that England is the "ordinary name" for where you are.
    If you're not sure where you actually are, Miss South Carolina can help: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
    thaumasiotes · 1789841637 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/England" rel="nofollow">https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/England
    Check sense 4, and the usage note.
    You can insist that everyone else in the world is speaking their own language wrong as much as you want, but no one will care.
    amiga386 · 1789846289 · focus · HN ↗
    The usage note that says "dated" and "proscribed". Do you know what either of those words mean?
    If you want to be seen as an idiot, use the word "England" to refer to a group of four nations on which only one has that name.
    If you want to be seen as a raging dickhead, show that you know that and used the word anyway.
    dofm · 1789846439 · focus · HN ↗
    See how it says: (dated, sometimes proscribed)
    We avoid doing this (only a few silly old men and bigots do it, as a dog whistle in national politics).
    You should not do this.
    It is not, in any sense, the "ordinary name" of the UK. It was pure chauvinism even when it was in common use. Don't do it; it will inevitably and correctly annoy people.
    ETA: Even "Britain" and "British" are pretty complex. "Britain" is not really a place in any meaningful or legal sense. The islands are "the British Isles" but only cartographers and mariners really say that (because Ireland is one of them). Great Britain is an island. No identifiable map region is called Britain. "British" is a citizenship and a passport; whether people say they are British is increasingly a personal decision and people have a really wide variety of reasons for their choice.
    Safer to say "The UK" when you mean it, and England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland only when you specifically mean those.
    Anything else is quite likely to get your drink spilled over you.
    dofm · 1789815115 · focus · HN ↗
    Only among people who are wrong.
    graemep · 1789574610 · focus · HN ↗
    > You could, but it might be difficult to hear yourself over the explosive laughter of everybody around you.
    yes, i was just pointing out the inconsistency.
    > Which country would you say has a closer relationship with the King of England?
    Legally speaking they both have exactly the same relationship.
    I do not think King of England is actually one of his titles.
    amiga386 · 1789560563 · focus · HN ↗
    Let me introduce you to the Commonwealth of Nations
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
    These countries choose voluntarily to hold ties with the UK, and each other, and often accept the UK's monarch as nominal head of state, but don't be mistaken; they are all fully independent countries. Some are republics, some are kingdoms with their own king. They value each other's friendship, shared values and heritage, but they're not beholden to the UK or each other.
    monkeywork · 1789560741 · focus · HN ↗
    No - it means that Charles III is an independent monarch for two separate nations.
    The monarchy is 99% ceremonial in Canada but it's important to note that the Canadian Crown isn't the UK Crown... Canada is not a dependent of the UK in anyway, simply the person that wears the Crowns is the same person.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada
    >the Crown has had both a shared and a separate character: the sovereign's role as monarch of Canada has been distinct from their position as monarch of any other realm,[n 4][16][65][66][67] including the United Kingdom.[n 6][69][70][71][72] Only Canadian federal ministers of the Crown may advise the sovereign on any and all matters of the Canadian state,[n 7][70][73][74][75][76][77] of which the sovereign, when not in Canada, is kept abreast by weekly communications with the federal viceroy.[78] The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution and, in Canada, became a Canadian,[40][79][80][81] or "domesticated",[82] establishment, though it is still often denoted as "British" in both legal and common language,[40] for reasons historical, political, and of convenience.
    Gravityloss · 1789562215 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess if going in the UK gets tough the royals could move somewhere else to reign. Sigismund was king of Sweden and Poland, though he couldn't maintain both. Maybe we'd need some drama with usurpers and uncles and so on to keep the populace entertained. Without the civil war part...
    scosman · 1789562830 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh, Canada wouldn't actually welcome a local monarch. Ceremonial across a sea... sure, why not. A King moving to our shores, nope.
    bryanlarsen · 1789562413 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not just theoretical -- IIUC, if Charles, William and George get hit by the same bus, Charlotte would become Queen of the UK while Louis would become King of Canada.
    I'm sure that in that scenario Canada would quickly update their primogeniture laws to give Charlotte primacy over her younger brother, but at the moment the primogeniture laws of the two countries are different.
    cperciva · 1789563196 · focus · HN ↗
    No, all the Commonwealth countries changed their succession laws at the same time precisely to avoid this scenario.
    bryanlarsen · 1789563629 · focus · HN ↗
    You're right. I thought Canada only agreed to do so, but didn't follow through. I was wrong.
    HarHarVeryFunny · 1789565610 · focus · HN ↗
    The monarchy is essentially ceremonial in the UK too - the position gives the monarch a platform for advocating for inoffensive things like the environment, and the pomp of state visits is perhaps sometimes useful, but the monarch really has no wield-able political power despite technically being the boss and inviting the winner of elections to run the country.
    As an ex-Brit I was always pro-monarchy, enjoying the pageantry and historical continuity, although the current crop of royals don't have much going for them. Perhaps William will turn out OK.
    cmiles8 · 1789560938 · focus · HN ↗
    No, it’s like Elon. He happens to be CEO of multiple companies but they are separate and independent companies (for now).
  13. mytailorisrich · 1789561198 · focus · HN ↗
    It has to be like Norway/Switzerland/Iceland or more to get any free movements of goods and services. Level of access goes hand in hand with integration in term of regulation, etc.
    "Associate member" actually sounds like TIGHTER integration than Norway/Switzerland/Iceland, which are not members at all. Switzerland is not even in the EEA. It is a very bad term, actually as Canada cannot be an EU member (it isn't in Europe) and if they don't want or can't join the EEA then that leaves a Switzerland-like deal, which is purely bilateral.
    b3lvedere · 1789563464 · focus · HN ↗
    “Canada cannot be an EU member (it isn't in Europe)”
    I think the construct of geographical location should not be that big of an issue in these times. Plenty of EU countries have overseas properties.
    mytailorisrich · 1789564006 · focus · HN ↗
    It's the law and it should be very strictly enforced because otherwise it'd open the door for the Middle East and North Africa... But I don't think Canada would want to join the EU, it's anti-Trump bluster.
    dghlsakjg · 1789565973 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada does not want to join the E.U. as a full member and that is not what is being offered.
    Canada very much is not “blustering” when it comes to Trump. A big majority of Canadians see sovereignty and less reliance on the US as a massive issue. Canada has embraced China in a way that was unthinkable 5 years ago in a deal intended to hedge against the US. The Canadian Conservative Party lost an election it was thought to have a guaranteed win from and has continued losing seats since then in large part due to their half hearted response to Trump.
    mytailorisrich · 1789566495 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll go back to my first comment above: What is an "associate member"? It's a concept that does not exist but the very name suggests something stronger and tighter than anything that exists with non-members that have very close ties (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland).
    Hence I think it is safe to say that this is a lot of bluster, or ar least hyperbole, considering what Canada and the EU might really want and the long and complicated treaty process to define and create an "associate member" status.
    dghlsakjg · 1789572700 · focus · HN ↗
    Bluster has a connotation of empty threats and loudness for the sake fo loudness.
    Canada has been making real moves, and doing it quietly. In the past year non-US exports have grown by a record 11%. New trade and defense deals have been signed with more than 20 countries.
    Whatever is going on in Ottawa, bluster is not the word for it.
    mytailorisrich · 1789576079 · focus · HN ↗
    Not Canada, it is Von Der Leyen who took upon herself to use this "associate member" term and even EU countries are surprised not least because of basically whhat I explained earlier [1].
    [1] <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-capitals-mark-carney-ursula-von-der-leyen-associate-membership-canada/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-capitals-mark-carney-ursu...
    dghlsakjg · 1789582920 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah. I thought you were saying that Canada's pivots outside the US were anti trump bluster.
    No idea about the EU side rhetoric, but it may not be bluster considering that Canada has huge potash and oil/gas reserves that could replace Kremlin aligned sources in the EU (and the defense deal that Canada just announced with Ukr.).
    coffeebeqn · 1789567082 · focus · HN ↗
    Middle eastern or North African countries can’t join because the member states don’t want them to join and they need unanimous agreement. See Turkeys failed bid for example. Even a country with positive general public appeal like Ukraine is very unlikely to join in the next 10 years
    mytailorisrich · 1789567792 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, unanimous agreement is required once a country has applied as part of the process of accepting the application.
    However Article 49 of the European Union states: "Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union".
    So Middle Eastern and North African countries (and Canada) cannot apply in the first place.
    I think Turkey is in the grey area that allows some wriggle room as it spans both Europe and Asia.
    rsynnott · 1789567609 · focus · HN ↗
    Turkey, only a tiny part of which is geographically in Europe, is a candidate (though talks are suspended in practice until, at least, Erdogan is out of power), and Cyprus is geographically in Asia/Middle East, not Europe. The rules could certainly be loosened further with agreement.
    mytailorisrich · 1789574069 · focus · HN ↗
    Good point regarding Cyprus but considering the political and social situation in Europe I think that any loosening of the rules is a non-starter.
  14. catchnear4321 · 1789561744 · focus · HN ↗
    Eurovision being the primary point of contention between the US and the EU.
  15. femto · 1789562542 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...wait for Australia to join first.
    A possibility.
    <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/australia-on-same-page-canada-it-seeks-deeper-eu-alliance-minister-says-2026-09-15/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/business/australia-on-same-page-cana...
  16. n4r9 · 1789562802 · focus · HN ↗
    I loved seeing "Le Vent du Nord" at Cambridge Folk Festival 2023, they'd probably make a decent Eurovision entry.
  17. TFNA · 1789563108 · focus · HN ↗
    When several EU countries are already struggling with large Indian Subcontinent communities that don't integrate (and dodge taxes and food-processing regs--Indians where I am have their own large underground cash-only food economy among themselves), opening up flow of people from Canada's mobile classes which has seen vast demographic change seems like it would only exacerbate the problem.
    rsynnott · 1789565308 · focus · HN ↗
    Which countries are these? There's a large population of Indian immigrants in Ireland, who seem to be integrating fine and are not notably doing much tax dodging (they would largely work in high-skill PAYE jobs, where tax dodging is virtually impossible).
    donbox · 1789568743 · focus · HN ↗
    I am assuming you are somewhere in Europe and given your apparent dislike for Indians, let's look at the reality. As a Canadian of East Indian origin, I can tell you that if these individuals are Canadian citizens, they are very unlikely to leave Canada for Europe. If they are not Canadian citizens, the point is moot anyway. In fact, I would expect more European citizens of South Asian origin to move to Canada, where English is spoken, integration is generally easier and salaries are far higher. So, breathe easy.
  18. rmgiroux · 1789563616 · focus · HN ↗
    Hey, Celine Dion won Eurovision already. We just need to get Switzerland to retroactively let her win stand for Canada :)
    If it gets a free trade and freedom of movement system in place, I don't think anyone is going to object in Canada much. Unless they try to open up fisheries, which would get them a bunch of Maritime (and Quebec?) objections...
    FabCH · 1789565083 · focus · HN ↗
    You only need 100 000 signatures to start a referendum...
    Fisheries are obviously not going to happen. They didn't happen with Iceland, they are not going to happen with Canada either.
    SenHeng · 1789572935 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada needs to send Bryan Adams.
  19. newsclues · 1789563901 · focus · HN ↗
    Easier to fly to Europe from our privatized airports! Sounds great!
    The funny thing is that we got this, instead of tangible and needed deregulation within Canada. Another announcement, instead of actual shovels in the ground and making life better for Canadians.
  20. philipallstar · 1789563932 · focus · HN ↗
    The main negative of the EU is people can migrate through it to get to your country, like the UK's small boats crisis. Canada, being so far from the EU, doesn't have that unique disadvantage. Which is good news for Canada if this does end up working.
  21. [deleted] · 1789564066 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  22. pjc50 · 1789564653 · focus · HN ↗
    What actually _is_ the deal? Nobody in this thread seems to have any idea what the specifics are, which matters a lot. It sounds like we're still at the "very early talks" stage? Less integration than even Norway (EEA)?
    FabCH · 1789587341 · focus · HN ↗
    There isn’t any. It was just a political statement from both sides that they are willing to give it a go, and broad lines were drawn.
    There’s a meeting scheduled in Ottawa next month for the actual deal writing.
  23. goobatrooba · 1789564819 · focus · HN ↗
    This requires likely an alignment of trade and product standards, so could still be demanding legally to get over the line. But the foundations are similar.
    Maybe Canada could just join EFTA, that would be easier.
  24. goalieca · 1789565063 · focus · HN ↗
    So what about the CETA (trade agreement) between canada and europe that isn't ratified yet. This feels like a hollow announcement for politicians.
  25. stingraycharles · 1789565973 · focus · HN ↗
    > Tighter integration than UK
    Sounds like it could be a solution for the UK as well, which begs the question: why wasn’t a similar proposal worked out with the uk?
    jonathanstrange · 1789566193 · focus · HN ↗
    The UK left and wasn't even able to make proper deals for exiting the EU, their own Brexit caught them by surprise and it was total chaos for a long time. They could now try to get closer integration with the EU but there doesn't seem to be much will for it in the UK.
    soco · 1789566247 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the UK wanted out, not in. You can work out solutions only when you are looking to work out solutions.
  26. carlob · 1789566897 · focus · HN ↗
    > Although, no joke, a lot of peoples first reaction is: "They need to compete in Eurovision first. Otherwise they should wait for Australia to join first."
    What? First time I hear of this. Honestly, Eurovision doesn't really have anything to do with the EU. We all know the main sponsor is from a non-EU country whose participation is much more controversial than Canada anyway.
    lrasinen · 1789567647 · focus · HN ↗
    The main sponsor did not renew the sponsorship deal for next year, though.
    FabCH · 1789582953 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Eurovision is this cultural joke that unifies all of Europe in this yearly cultural moment of absolute madness.
    And the EU treaties refuse to define what „European“ means, so using „watches Eurovision“ as a rule of thumb is surprisingly workable as a definition of where the borders of „Europe“ end.
    carlob · 1789594897 · focus · HN ↗
    so Australia is in Europe, but Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland are not?
    FabCH · 1789635653 · focus · HN ↗
    I guarantee you that the winning song will play on repeat over and over again in every city in Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland irrespective of if they are competing, and people will still watch the circus from those countries. The whole "well we are not competing this year as a protest" is part of the joke.
    That is the whole point. If you want to understand more, this song is genuinely a good explanation:
    <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tgnx6jTQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6tgnx6jTQ
    And I'm not even joking.
  27. superxpro12 · 1789567021 · focus · HN ↗
    I fully support eurovision-based enrollment tbh

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.