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. FrancisMoodie · 1789561860 · focus · HN ↗

               I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further.

               The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.

               Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.

               1. fidotron · 1789562107 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election

                  That is iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.

                  > The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.

                  V. hard to see what Canada gets out of it. All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.

                  1. foldr · 1789565016 · focus · HN ↗

                     >[The Conservatives promised a referendum] iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did.

                     No. The Conservative party promised an EU membership referendum by 2017 in its 2015 manifesto. That was not conditional on a failure of renegotiations. Nor, indeed, did David Cameron even concede that the renegotiations had failed, so that can’t possibly have been his stated reason for calling the referendum.

                     See a summary of the manifesto here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;election-2015-32302062" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;news&#x2F;election-2015-32302062

                     And also <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2016&#x2F;jan&#x2F;10&#x2F;david-cameron-stay-as-pm-if-i-lose-eu-referendum" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2016&#x2F;jan&#x2F;10&#x2F;david-camer.... Here, Cameron is directly quoted as saying:

                     &gt; My policy is to hold a renegotiation and then a referendum. That is what we promised in the manifesto and then to abide by what the British public say.

                     So clearly, there was never any suggestion that the referendum would be called or not called depending on the outcome of the renegotiations.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.