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?
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.