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. 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.
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.