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

841–850 of 879 posts

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

#841

Post by graemep »

gizajob wrote: post #711
jeroenhd wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be rather foolish, but they can continue using the GBP. Or they can start using the Euro before joining. They wouldn't be able to mint their currency, but plenty of small (often island) nations use foreign currency already. Scotland is already a separate country, technically speaking, so I don't think it's comparable with the Basque situation. Furthermore, with the UK leaving the EU, they've opened doors tha…

I think if you keep researching one of the things that killed the referendum last time was the British government saying a hard no to continued use of the pound while scotland applied to the EU and joined the Euro. Now of course they could keep using the pound, but the amount of economic attacks against Scotland by the City of London and general lack of financial independence seems like it really would kill the idea…

IIRC it was not a refusal to allow Scotland to use the pound but to give a Scotland a say in setting interest rates, and even that was not a hard no because terms had not been agreed

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

#842

Post by anon291 »

goobatrooba wrote: post #805
anon291 wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right Europe famously has never meddled

Well "Europe" doesn't meddle in the Netherlands. The Netherlands are part of the EU and the Dutch government has to agree with every single important EU decision for it to be adopted. So when there's "meddling" it is about rules that the Dutch government has itself agreed should apply.

Wow that really flew over your head

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

#843

Post by illiac786 »

Epsilon_Tauri wrote: post #345

The EU itself is becoming increasingly integrated with the free movement, common currency, aligned education system etc etc, but these things take a lot of time, not the least identity-wise. For sure, my children feel more European than I did growing up in what was then a non-member state. So outright membership is likely not the route for overseas friends, but it seems we are inexorably moving towards a closer coope…

Inexorably is not the word I would use. It’s hard work. UK is a good example of how fragile it remains, even after decades of membership.

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

#844

Post by FabCH »

pjc50 wrote: post #560
FabCH wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What actually _is_ the deal? Nobody in this thread seems to have any idea what the specifics are, which matters a lot. It sounds like we're still at the "very early talks" stage? Less integration than even Norway (EEA)?

There isn’t any. It was just a political statement from both sides that they are willing to give it a go, and broad lines were drawn.

There’s a meeting scheduled in Ottawa next month for the actual deal writing.

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

#845

Post by jen20 »

gizajob wrote: post #829
jen20 wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time Yes. Just the demographics has substantially thinned their numbers by now though. > would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again. Highly unlikely - and turnout on the other side would be dramatically improved. Had the vote been held again the following day, it's likely that the result would have been different. If it were held today, it would…

I think you’ve fallen into the common trap in believing that there was a simple narrative which can be used to understand the Brexit vote, when the data shows there were 17 million different and varied reasons within a mass resistant to modelling.

There were a few categories of reasons.

The ones that are persistent are "I'm going to vote for anarchy because politics does no good for me", "I'm racist and don't understand that this doesn't get rid of people I really want to get rid of but really want it to so whatever" and "I'm xenophobic and haven't accepted that there isn't a British Empire anymore".

There may be fringe cases around specific regulations, but those were the main three. People were voting for whatever they wanted Brexit to be, most of which is pure fantasy, not what it actually is, which is a clusterfuck of badness, and zero benefit to anyone.

I say this as someone _who was a member of the Conservative Party at the time_, though the fact that the candidate in my constituency since 2010 was Jacob Rees Mogg meant I have voted against them in every election since then.

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

#846

Post by llm_nerd »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #626
diego_moita wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I continue to be sad Don't be. Trump is a necessary and welcome wake up call. We Canadians needed Trump's shock of reality. The truth is that, for more than a century, the main trait of being Canadian was simply not being American and not trusting Americans. In 1775 George Washington ordered the invasion of southern Quebec and we resisted. After the American revolution we received an huge influx of Loyalists, the A…

> The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans The Haudenosaunee Confederacy probably learned this the strongest. And more even than the Loyalists help build this country. Or I'm more conscious of this as I live in a place where Joseph Brant's (Thayendanegea) name is all over the place. But they -- and Britain's other indigenous "allies" in the US interior -- also learned the h…

> The Treaty of Ghent ended the war of 1812 but on terms that let the Americans commit genocide against the native populations to the west of them

The British tried to create a native "buffer" zone. The Americans refused, and the British were ultimately in no position to make this happen. Instead they implemented article IX that demanded that the US return all entitlements, possessions, lands, and so on to natives as they were in 1811. The US agreed.

And then ignored it. The British were in no position to "let" or "prohibit" anything within the US or its territories.

> they subsequently had that chipped away at for generations and it's just a tiny postage stamp of what it used to be.

They literally sold it off, for their own benefit, as a free peoples with agency. There is extraordinary little controversy about this. And FWIW, the British bought that land from another tribe, and then moved a tribe -- one that had slaves, btw, and Joseph Brant was a notorious slaver -- in basically as refugees.

There are tiny areas where there is a contention that whatever band leader was in charge was illegitimate, but the vast majority of the transactions are settled historic record that absolutely no one has under doubt. A group of people had a lot of land and not much to do with it, so when other groups made offers for it they were onboard.

"Chipped away" is quite a hilarious misrepresentation of this. It actually sounds comically racist, like you're the "good guy" who is here to tell them that what they did with their own stuff was wrong.

It's interesting how patronizing both your points are. The British were both responsible for American actions, and then in the future were responsible for Mohawk actions. All lesser peoples have no agency or self-control, and need to be limited and directed by the apparently superior, all-knowing British.

My ancestors here in Ontario owned large tracts of land. Over centuries they sold it off. "Chipped away". No good guys, right? Give me back my land. The British should have stopped them from selling, because surely hundreds of years later it might be worth more?

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

#848

Post by Grombobulous »

gizajob wrote: post #274
Grombobulous wrote: post #98

Maybe this is a naive statement, but it seems like full membership including open borders between Canada and other EU states and adoption of the Euro would also be beneficial to everyone involved. The UK should continue to be embarrassed and ashamed to leave such an incredible institution, although at this point we can say that they clearly don’t deserve the EU anyway.

Yes but someone will need to step in and adjudicate once everyone in Europe has enough of living in the United States of Germany and there’s another war over it.

Is that happening? The EU is the most desirable citizenship/passport in the world.

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

#849

Post by Eupolemos »

dudul wrote: post #313
tvbusy wrote: post #9

Good news. This world needs more cooperation and friendship.

Nations don't have friends, they have interests.

Democratic populations have feelings towards each other, including friendship.

There are plenty of nations I feel my nation has friendships with - if they were bullied, we'd stand up for them on pure reaction.

Not everything is interests. People are people.

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

#850

Post by snapplebobapple »

bigyabai wrote: post #835
snapplebobapple wrote: post #826

My country has fallen so far... dealing with the government and regulators in the usa, canada, and the eu. I can tell you the eu is pretty clearly bottom tier for competency, effectiveness and even justimplementation that makes sense. Usa is the best of the three surprisingly and canada is mid mostly because it is too lazy to suck as bad as the eu

> dealing with the [...] regulators in the usa > Usa is the best of the three surprisingly As a US citizen, I'd rather our regulators copied Europe's consumer protections. American businesses do not respect privacy or free market economics, and it is destroying the tech sector.

Its one of those things that seems good on paper and then when you experience it, you realize it is just a grift to keep extremely incompetent beaurocrats in bageuttes and lattes
Post reply on HN