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. 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).

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.