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. bluecalm · 1789558824 · focus · HN ↗

         >>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.

         This version of EU integration is more popular than EU itself in significant part of EU right now.

         1. ChrisRR · 1789559687 · focus · HN ↗

            This was one of the stupid things that was touted as a benefit of not being in the EU during brexit.

            That we'd still have to comply with EU rules if we wanted to trade with them, but we wouldn't have any vote in those rules

            1. Fnoord · 1789561651 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, the Brexit campaign was manipulated by a state actor (or rather: 'a criminal actor disguised as a state'). None of the alt-right nationalism is in the long-term benefits of the country. This is globalism, the end game. You either team up, thereby reducing your costs, or you get swallowed. Ask Ukraine, Tibet, Hong Kong how it worked out for them not belonging to a bigger team. So divide and conquer is a logical move for the opponent, and it happens to align with alt-right. There is also documented evidence of external influence in these. A medium such as Follow The Money has documented such in various of their articles.

               1. whisperenjoyer · 1789567103 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Ask Ukraine

                  The whole political course of Ukraine in the last ~20 years is mostly about teaming up with EU and NATO, isn't it?

                  1. rsynnott · 1789567832 · focus · HN ↗

                     ... No. Not until this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Revolution_of_Dignity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Revolution_of_Dignity

                     1. bryanlarsen · 1789568117 · focus · HN ↗

                        Yanukovych was elected in 2010 promising &quot;economic modernisation, greater economic ties with the EU, and military non-alignment.&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viktor_Yanukovych" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viktor_Yanukovych). His backsliding on those promises is what caused the Revolution of Dignity. I think the OP&#x27;s statement is roughly accurate.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.