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. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. 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.

                     1. 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.

                        1. 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;eu-capitals-mark-carney-ursula-von-der-leyen-associate-membership-canada&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.eu&#x2F;article&#x2F;eu-capitals-mark-carney-ursu...

                           1. dghlsakjg · 1789582920 · focus · HN ↗

                              Ah. I thought you were saying that Canada&#x27;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&#x2F;gas reserves that could replace Kremlin aligned sources in the EU (and the defense deal that Canada just announced with Ukr.).

               2. 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

                  1. 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: &quot;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&quot;.

                     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.

               3. 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&#x2F;Middle East, not Europe. The rules could certainly be loosened further with agreement.

                  1. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.