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. rsynnott · 1789564779 · focus · HN ↗

                     > 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.

                     Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations. This would make trade (particularly for small businesses) _far_ easier. See the UK for how difficult this can become if you're not in alignment; it's survivable for huge companies (though even some of them had trouble; for instance Marks and Spencers' stores in Ireland literally went empty for a while because they were insufficiently prepared), but if you're a small business importing a bunch of components from Europe and making a thing which is largely sold to Europe, there's a _massive_ difference in bureaucratic overhead between being in and out.

                     Even many Norwegian SMEs don't see direct sales to Europe as worth the overhead, and Norway's in the EEA, as close to the EU as you can get without actually being in it.

                     1. fidotron · 1789565199 · focus · HN ↗

                        > Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations.

                        Canadian provinces do not agree with each other about trade regulations. They will not surrender this to the federal government, and they certainly won't to the EU.

                        Canada isn't actually a single market itself.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.