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. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. theplumber · 1789564999 · focus · HN ↗

                     This is was about immigration. I don’t understand why people are still in denial about this. I am pretty sure it would have happened anyway regardless of what economic concessions UK would have got. It’s worth to note that the immigration is still an issue in the UK and the EU and I think more EU members will leave because of this.

                     1. teamonkey · 1789583499 · focus · HN ↗

                        It was about money.

                        People were poor, wages had hardly grown after years of austerity following the 2008 crash. A huge campaign pointed the finger squarely at the EU: they are taking our money, they are the reason you’re poor, you would be richer without them.

                        People believed them.

                        1. theplumber · 1789603567 · focus · HN ↗

                           I have seen it differently. I’ve seen it about immigration, the party driving it being UK Immigration Party. Boris “party” put some economic spin on it but it was fuelled by immigration.

                           1. teamonkey · 1789684714 · focus · HN ↗

                              You mean the UK Independence Party?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.