Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 878 posts

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

#541

Post by graemep »

microtonal wrote: post #535
graemep wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arm is important, but for R & D. The impact of not having Arm will take a long time to be felt. The same for a lot of the others you mention. Not having a supply or Intel and AMD CPUs would be felt much faster and would be harder to find replacements for. > It's like turning a mammoth tanker, but it is slowly happening. Is it really happening? As has been mentioned on HN multiple times the EU's age verification app w…

Arm is important, but for R & D. The impact of not having Arm will take a long time to be felt. The same for a lot of the others you mention. Not having a supply or Intel and AMD CPUs would be felt much faster and would be harder to find replacements for. ARM doesn't just do R&D, they design full CPU cores. Until recently, Qualcomm's cores were ARM's reference design with their own extensions on top. It's only since…

> ARM doesn't just do R&D, they design full CPU cores

How is design not R & D? it is literally what the D in R & D stands for!

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

#542

Post by LastTrain »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #406
toasty228 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ought to take No one is taking anything here, but I think the american mind cannot comprehend complex things such as having allied and building agreements

American here. Only a third of us are MAGA. Still plenty to ruin our country though.

Half. The other sixth that vote that way are also MAGA

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

#543

Post by lnxg33k1 »

bitcurious wrote: post #506
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure, if I see the example of US as federation, it might work well for corporations only, but people have nothing, uniformity doesn't work because not all populations have the same needs/expectations

> I am not sure, if I see the example of US as federation, it might work well for corporations only, but people have nothing, What does this mean, concretely? What do the people not have? Who are those people? What would they have in the EU? There is this odd fatalistic attitude about the US in this thread that seems divorced from the reality I’ve experienced in my travels.

universal healthcare, paid time off just to cite two

work/life balance?

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

#544

Post by rsynnott »

fidotron wrote: post #450
Sharlin wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Many EU states have benefited enormously from being on the receiving side of EU subsidies, which obviously would be out of the question without full integration. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected membership, which essentially means that as EEA members they have to observe all the EU regulations and agreements when it comes to trade, without having any say about them. They have their reasons, but…

It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside. Which many people inside the EU would observe seems completely consistent with EU behaviour. Edit to add: "Being misled" would refer to the way the EU was sold to many participants in earlier decades as an economic union, and not an all encompassing political one, with it simply ratcheting that way. Whenever objec…

> It literally privileges people in countries outside the EU by giving them more rights than those inside.

Mostly, like, the right to have, say, your own standards on chemical safety, tho. That is generally not something that most people would _want_; it basically just means you lose your job because import/export becomes, if not impossible, at least bureaucratically expensive enough that people will just buy from elsewhere.

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

#545

Post by Waterluvian »

softwaredoug wrote: post #58

I’m not sure this is a good thing for Canada. The EU feels like an incomplete experiment. Not strong enough to actually be a single market. But still able to create additional annoying regulations on top of nation level ones. The EU needs to be truly Federal to succeed economically. That might create uniform regulations with more uniform regulations and actually make Europe competitive.

What alternative is there? The Americans are not an option anymore. It seems sensible to me that we want to get very close to one major power, and more close to everything else. Diversification.

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

#546

Post by throwaway283737 »

0xpgm wrote: post #6
noir_lord wrote: post #2

Good, if the middle power democracies don't align/work together they are going to get torn apart in the struggle between the US and China.

One thing that is common about middle democracies is that prioritize a bureaucratic elite structure over an entrepreneurship culture, while both the US and China embrace entreprenuership wholeheartedly. If they changed that they'd perhaps become world powers themselves.

You're getting downvoted now, but it's the Europeans who are running out of money for healthcare and public services (and voting for neo-fascist parties promising fixes that will never come).

European sentiment is totally out of touch with European reality. They'll post gleefully online about how much better their life is and then go back to their sardine flat where they can't afford to pay for heating, and it never ever occurs to them to reconsider any priors. They'll huff copium on Reddit about how bad American healthcare is, while waiting for years for desperately needed surgeries, paying far more for healthcare by way of taxes than any American does.

Are their ideas out of touch? No, it's reality that's wrong.

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

#548

Post by Jackpillar »

fidotron wrote: post #367
corford wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. That's a bit of a stretch

It's literally what happened. Cameron was trying to reduce the scope of EU integration with the UK (esp freedom of movement), with the threat he didn't want to use of a referendum, the EU said no (as the other commenter explained partly to disincentivize others, but also because they thought he was bluffing and people would never vote to leave), so the referendum was held.

Not sure why its so difficult for you to understand the obvious goal of taking a hardline stance on leaving the EU as a member state vs onboarding possible partnerships, members, etc. You're looking at this backwards.

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

#549

Post by cmrdporcupine »

throwaway283737 wrote: post #481

This is the same EU who once reduced the Canadian trade minister to (literal) tears, and made her denounce the (accurate) fact that, and I quote, "Europe is not capable of signing a trade deal". Notably, the EU has never ratified the Canada FTA and everyone's just sort of pretending it did for convenience's sake. Nice symbolism, but this is merely being used as leverage in Canada's negotiation with the US. "See, we h…

In some ways it's fitting though, the chaos and infighting of the EU mirrors the structure of our own confederation.

Provinces in Canada have strong powers and much of the same back and forth trade and regional politico-economic bickering as what happens between EU member states. Much more so than US states.

The vibe is familiar at least.

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

#550

Post by bryanlarsen »

meindnoch wrote: post #502

Good! My dream is an alliance with Canada and Australia, a truce with China, the dismantling of Russia (Siberia goes to China), and the isolation of USA.

China has a reasonable claim to Outer Manchuria, which includes Vladivostok; the treaties giving it up were signed under duress. But that's a far cry from all of Siberia. Siberia has not been treated well by the Russian or Soviet empires, but many non-Han territories have also been treated poorly by Chinese Empire.

Siberia is likely better off independent.

Post reply on HN