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.
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.