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

Why Canada Should Join the EU

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 823 posts

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#771

Post by sealeck »

grecy wrote: post #713
crote wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is an attractive option for Canada. The main downside of EFTA is that you are required to follow a lot of single-market legislation, without getting any say in it. Considering how tightly Canada is currently coupled to the US, this would be an absolute nightmare for many businesses. Yeah you'd gain a hypothetical overseas market, but in turn you're losing alignment with an absolutely massive market…

Sure, but if the threatened tariffs come in, that nearby market will drop considerably. The EU is also a bigger market than the US. 440mil vs. 340mil.

Usually when evaluating markets you consider how much money the relevant participants have, not just how many of them are.

For example China has 1bn+ people, but Canada probably shouldn't sign a free trade deal with them.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#772

Post by wkat4242 »

skissane wrote: post #81
nobodywillobsrv wrote: post #7

The biggest problem with the EU is that it is built for bureaucrats and as such it is geared towards irreversible "blob" decisions. Brexit should have been a near no-op. But it was a huge pain. They hadn't even planned for it or thought about it. EU should have a pre-memeber clearing state that countries stay in and then vote every year or n years to be "in" or "out" of the EU. But part of being in the EU should be t…

> Brexit should have been a near no-op. But it was a huge pain. How was it ever going to be a "near no-op"? Putting everything else aside, Northern Ireland was always going to be huge sticking points. Ireland would make sure it was. Besides, it was in the EU's self-interest to maximise the pain for the UK, in order to discourage other member states from going the same way - and the EU succeeded. Marine Le Pen no long…

The UK were just being difficult and asking for things they knew they couldn't have. Like to join the single market for services but not for products. That breaks one of the most fundamental values of the EU. This is what made Brexit negotiations so difficult. And of course there was the northern Ireland issue with which they didn't even know what to do themselves.

Also, them constantly replacing their negotiatiors didn't help. But at least they're out now.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#773

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

sealeck wrote: post #770
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being "anglophone" isn't the issue. Rather that we're ALL anglophones. But anglophones (or better native English speakers) are only anglophones.

Come again?

reason for why Europeans are "against anglophones" as parent claims is likely that native english speakers tend to be only that. (not speaking anything else while for the rest of us being "anglophone" barely registers as a "skill" ...)

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#774

Post by bobxmax »

mardifoufs wrote: post #756
bobxmax wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well aside from 30 million angry Canadians ready to burn down the white house again.

I literally can't think of a single canadian population/group that would be willing to die for canada. Liberals don't care, conservatives (the group more likely to join the military) absolutely don't care about the Canadian identity anymore, Quebecers sure wouldn't, immigrants (me included) wouldn't either... Like, this isn't 1812 where Upper and Lower Canada had an actual identity or link to the British throne, or w…

I don't agree with that at all. It can feel that way in big cities - but rural Canada have a very strong Canadian identity.

Trump will have a hell of a time annexing Quebec.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#775

Post by Sabinus »

ashoeafoot wrote: post #731
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of Europe has ethnic strife and tensions. Bosnian / Serbian. Czech / Slovak (until recently). Spain has its breakaway ethnic movements. Ireland like others mentioned is a close analogue.

and pushing for division and strife is what putin pays you for

On the topic of Russian agitation about Western oppression, imagine all the quiet repression of the minority ethnicities in Russia.

Russian spending on 'internal security' is legendary.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#776

Post by secrecymatrix »

FrinkleFrankle wrote: post #473
valunord wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, fair enough! Let’s just hope no one ends up eating their own words if Greenland - or even Canada - starts rethinking their options... Arctic politics can shift fast, and it’d be a shame to see China further sink its teeth into the region while closer ties with people who actually share similar cultures and values were on the table. But hey, I’ll happily shelve this take if Denmark and Canada keep things locked…

As a Canadian, the idea of becoming part of America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. Our country has problems, yours is broken. It's been broken since its inception. Giving every state an equal representation in the Senate and an outsized representation in Congress meant that it was ALWAYS going to break. I the 70s a few people tried to change this by abolishing the electoral college and ensuring you vote dire…

[dead]

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#777

Post by wvenable »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #761
wvenable wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At a 90 working, 10 non working people ratio, there isn’t going to be much to export, and hence the local currency isn’t going to buy much elsewhere in the world. Canadian currency at the lowest in years. But most of the wealth of Canadians is not held in cash and not entirely even in Canadian investments. > It is sort of “land value is a product of labor from decades prior that has accumulated to the orderly, prod…

> The land I live on is worth well over a million dollars and increases at a significant rate every year but has no basis in reality other than demand for land outstrips the supply. It’s only worth whatever it is because that land has access to utilities, sources of food, security due to social cohesion and judicial systems, etc. Some of that stuff takes decades to build. And if you stop being able to buy the food yo…

There are many many empty homes in Canada -- in some cases entire "luxury" buildings sit mostly empty. These properties are sold even before they are built to international markets before they are even advertised for sale in Canada (if at all).

Land is valuable investment because the government decided many years ago that it can never decrease in value. It's a cycle: Canadian land value increases due to demand, this causes prices to increase, which increases the demand because it's a good investment. You'd be crazy to invest in business or anything else in Canada other than real estate. It's a sure thing and will give you the highest returns. If you a foreigner moving your money out of your country, even a little bit of loss is acceptable. There's no point in even renting out your property; the gains well exceed any reason to deal with that hassle. This is the reality.

The fact that people have to also live in the these investments is actually the problem! It's Bitcoin that people can sometimes live in. Its use as investment is completely divorced from the income of people living here and that is the problem.

> And if you stop being able to buy the food you want, get clean water, electricity, all that basic societal stuff because it is getting too expensive because there are too few labor sellers, then the land price (in real terms) will reflect that.

That's like saying Bitcoin should be worth nothing because it's useless as currency. I agree. But the reality is that Bitcoin is worth a lot -- just like property in Canada. It already doesn't reflect all that basic societal stuff because it's almost entirely unrelated to it. It should be but it's not.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#778

Post by jopsen »

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #316
jopsen wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turkey is formally in (suspended) membership negotiations and a major discussion point was that most of its land area is not on the European continent. Would the that be a discussion point if Turkey had a well functioning democracy? Solid economics? Didn't have the death penalty? Found some sort of resolution to conflicts on its borders?

> Turkey had a well functioning democracy Turkey has a functioning democracy it's just that most of the population loves populist rhetoric. Erdogan's party lost mayoral elections in all the major cities. > Solid economics Turkey had a GDP PPP of $3.45 trillion in 2024 (12th in the world) > Didn't have the death penalty Turkey doesn't have the death penalty. > Found some sort of resolution to conflicts on its borders…

High population with low GDP per capita.

Turkey certainly has some economic issues with inflation, etc.

Yes, Turkey has democracy, but what was the coup thing going on a few years back?

----

But yes, high population == more votes, could also be a concern.

But maybe in a few decades the EU will have labour shortages and willing to take on a new challenge, who knows? :)

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#779

Post by mardifoufs »

bobxmax wrote: post #774
mardifoufs wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally can't think of a single canadian population/group that would be willing to die for canada. Liberals don't care, conservatives (the group more likely to join the military) absolutely don't care about the Canadian identity anymore, Quebecers sure wouldn't, immigrants (me included) wouldn't either... Like, this isn't 1812 where Upper and Lower Canada had an actual identity or link to the British throne, or w…

I don't agree with that at all. It can feel that way in big cities - but rural Canada have a very strong Canadian identity. Trump will have a hell of a time annexing Quebec.

I'm from Quebec, I completely agree that it wouldn't go well at all, but that doesn't mean that we would try to defend Canada.

And that exact Canadian identity has been eroding very strongly in my experience. There's no real Canadian identity, I'm not even sure why that has shifted, but apathy is much more common than any feeling of belonging. Maybe the fact that urban areas control Canadian politics (which makes sense, that's where the population is) and has been doing so for decades now leads to a stronger disconnect between rural populations and their governments.

Re: Why Canada Should Join the EU

#780

Post by philipwhiuk »

rayiner wrote: post #732
philipwhiuk wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approval ratings are stupid. The 27% on a ~65% turnout roughly corresponds to the % who voted for them. Labour aren't impotent due to the 'excellent' nature of our system, they have all of the power. And as much as Musk blathers, there won't be an election for several years. And Labour aren't a coalition, it's one party. It's the right that would be fragile if it decided to coalesce. Reform took from Labour as well,…

> Approval ratings are stupid. The 27% on a ~65% turnout roughly corresponds to the % who voted for them That’s the point! Labour can win the election under the UK’s rules but at the end of the day the Labour government is immediately unpopular it doesn’t have the support of anything close to a majority of voters. “Coalitions” exist in politics regardless of the election rules. In the U.S., parties have to form inter…

> In the long run, a party can’t government with a sub-30% approval rating.

Labour won 3 terms in office and got elected repeatedly with Blair on similar rating:

https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/2007...

And that's assuming these ratings last to the election and aren't a reflection on one thing, the budget. If the real economy improves then his approval rating will too.

Post reply on HN