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. mejutoco · 1789566927 · focus · HN ↗

               > Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum.

               You are assigning too much responsibility to the EU here and none to the other actors responsible for Brexit. It borders on propaganda, but I do not want to assume ill intent.

               And Cameron, didnt he say he would guide UK no matter the result and then resigned when Brexit won?

               1. fidotron · 1789567934 · focus · HN ↗

                  Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum, the tension was so obvious. This idea people were conned into voting leave is just utter nonsense - they'd been chomping at the bit for the opportunity for years.

                  Now the UK has managed to ramp up the tension dramatically, but without some easy foreign political bogeyman to blame. It's not going to end well either, but it's not clear exactly what the endgame is. This is why the Greens, Reform and Restore are suddenly things.

                  1. foldr · 1789572606 · focus · HN ↗

                     >Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum

                     Come off it. Neither the referendum nor the referendum result were inevitabilities.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.