Thread

EU chief opens door for Canada to become 'associate member'

693 points · 905 comments · hackernj

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. leidenfrost · 1789560236 · focus · HN ↗
    AFAIK Charles III is the monarch both for UK and Canada.
    Doesn't this mean that Canada is, in a certain degree, dependent of UK?
    graemep · 1789560396 · focus · HN ↗
    No. He is separately the monarch of the UK and Canada. You could just as well argue that the UK is dependent on Canada for that reason.
    thaumasiotes · 1789566591 · focus · HN ↗
    You could, but it might be difficult to hear yourself over the explosive laughter of everybody around you.
    Which country would you say has a closer relationship with the King of England?
    triceratops · 1789568540 · focus · HN ↗
    Which country would you say has a closer relationship with the King of Canada?
    thaumasiotes · 1789569859 · focus · HN ↗
    England, which is why he's called the King of England and never called the King of Canada.
    amiga386 · 1789577517 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no King of England. Charles III is King of the United Kingdom, and all places within. The UK does not have a King of England any more than they have a King of Scunthorpe or a King of North Piddle.
    The last King of England was William of Orange, who died in 1702 and was succeeded by Anne, who was the last Queen of England. The Act of Union 1707 merged the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England into a single successor state, the Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801 that became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in 1922 became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
    thaumasiotes · 1789631402 · focus · HN ↗
    > Charles III is King of the United Kingdom, and all places within. The UK does not have a King of England any more than they have a King of Scunthorpe or a King of North Piddle.
    It really shouldn't surprise you to learn this, but the ordinary name for the "United Kingdom" is "England".
    amiga386 · 1789672617 · focus · HN ↗
    It really shouldn't surprise you to learn this, but the ordinary name for the "United States" is "California"
    thaumasiotes · 1789787328 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem to be completely unaware of... something. But you're not making it clear what. I'm confident you know that the ordinary name for the United States is "America".
    amiga386 · 1789820253 · focus · HN ↗
    You seem unaware that the ordinary name for the United Kingdom is "Britain".
    Imagine standing in New York City and proclaiming to the locals how lovely California is and how much you like it here in California.
    Now imagine standing in Glasgow and proclaiming to the locals how lovely England is and how much you like it here in England.
    If corrected, just say that England is the "ordinary name" for where you are.
    If you're not sure where you actually are, Miss South Carolina can help: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
    thaumasiotes · 1789841637 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/England" rel="nofollow">https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/England
    Check sense 4, and the usage note.
    You can insist that everyone else in the world is speaking their own language wrong as much as you want, but no one will care.
    dofm · 1789846439 · focus · HN ↗
    See how it says: (dated, sometimes proscribed)
    We avoid doing this (only a few silly old men and bigots do it, as a dog whistle in national politics).
    You should not do this.
    It is not, in any sense, the "ordinary name" of the UK. It was pure chauvinism even when it was in common use. Don't do it; it will inevitably and correctly annoy people.
    ETA: Even "Britain" and "British" are pretty complex. "Britain" is not really a place in any meaningful or legal sense. The islands are "the British Isles" but only cartographers and mariners really say that (because Ireland is one of them). Great Britain is an island. No identifiable map region is called Britain. "British" is a citizenship and a passport; whether people say they are British is increasingly a personal decision and people have a really wide variety of reasons for their choice.
    Safer to say "The UK" when you mean it, and England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland only when you specifically mean those.
    Anything else is quite likely to get your drink spilled over you.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.