Thread

1. 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. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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…)

               1. 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?

                  1. 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.

                     1. 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.

                        1. 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.

                           1. 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_).

                              1. 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.

                                 1. 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.

                              2. 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.

                  2. 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

                     1. gizajob · 1789566259 · focus · HN ↗

                        It would be towards “The United States of Germany”, not Europe.
                  3. 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.

                     1. 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.

                        1. 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.
                  4. 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.

                     1. 740273730191 · 1789565421 · focus · HN ↗

                        [dead]

                     2. 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE

                        1. lII1lIlI11ll · 1789567884 · focus · HN ↗

                           Could you elaborate regarding how exactly were eastern bloc countries &quot;tricked&quot; into joining by the UK? And what prevents them from leaving now that the tricksters from UK have long since left themselves?

                           1. fidotron · 1789568796 · focus · HN ↗

                              I refer you to the video as to the why and how, keeping in mind that&#x27;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&#x27;re joking.

                              1. lII1lIlI11ll · 1789569269 · focus · HN ↗

                                 A clip from a comedic fiction TV series? So much for a &quot;strong case to be made&quot;...
                           2. whywhywhywhy · 1789571949 · focus · HN ↗

                              &gt; 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.

                     3. 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&#x27;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&#x27; minds, making Hungary de facto one of the most pro-EU countries in EU.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.