Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Thanks Trump
    by drgo
  • Between the US and China, the EU is the future, but they need to federalize then leverage that to implement a top notch military and economy.

    Carney can see this and wants a piece of the action. The question is if the EU can escape its parochial myopia and see it.

    Hopefully Russia will do something even stupider and precipitate the existential crisis that the EU desperately needs to get off its ass.

    by nutjob2
  • > they need to federalize

    "Shit Americans say"

    The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah.

    It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.

    by iLoveOncall
  • > but they need to federalize

    That's not happening or if it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.

    by tick_tock_tick
  • Canadian government seems to be denying this.
    by bawolff
  • Carney himself used these exact words couple days ago. This is coordinated.
    by cromka
  • Carney has said Canada is not looking to become a "member" of the EU. Meanwhile, "associate member" is an entirely new thing that has yet to be defined. These aren't incompatible statements.

    It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.

    I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.

    _________

    *NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.

    by beloch
  • Would it not make sense to perhaps invite the UK to be an associate member first? We’re right on the doorstep.
    by gizajob
  • If your country initiated a divorce, it makes no sense for the other party to invite you again. You should have to request first and show to them eg with a vote you won't again flake out in a few years.
    by hardbass
  • The UK will likely be welcome back right after everyone's confident Leave (be that Tory, Farage, or whoever the even worse party that Musk now supports are) definitely won't win a general election for at least another generation.
    by ben_w
  • You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults.

    Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that).

    The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.

    by Tomte
  • Stranger than fiction.
    by Chance-Device
  • Reality doesn't need to be plausible; we're all characters in each other's first-person narratives, with no access to the voice of an omniscient narrator.
    by ben_w
  • I mean, it's only what the US is doing that's strange.

    It's a country with tons of raw resources and a large consumer market, they're the "dream partner" for the large blocks (USA/China/EU, and Japan/India a bit behind). You buy their resources, they make a lot of money from it, you turn it into a final product and you make a lot of money from the value added, everyone is happy.

    It's really weird that the US is suddenly not happy about this arrangement, and for resource-starved EU it's a golden opportunity; of course we will happily buy if the US doesn't want to anymore. That's why there is so little friction showing up (there will be more later, of course, but relatively little), why Canada can get so many deal quickly with everyone during this turnaround, it's that obvious of a win for everyone involved.

    (as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, even more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)

    by nolok
  • Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
    by andy_ppp
  • The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.
    by rapnie
  • This “at the stroke of the pen” idea is fantastical. Actual Canadians would have next to no interest in this. Whole provinces of Canada don’t even want to be part of Canada so their appetite for having the EU parliament and Commission anywhere near them would be slim to none. Having 250million Europeans eligible to migrate to Canada would similarly be dead in the water even if a few people in Toronto and Quebec might warm to the idea of going the other way.
    by gizajob
  • > But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it.

    That would be the icing on the cake.

    by nutjob2
  • Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anti aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like it is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
    by hardbass
  • The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it.

    Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen.

    Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.

    by WinstonSmith84
  • Bienvenue aux canucks
    by jjgreen
  • As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.
    by ocd
  • It certainly does not make sense seeing as Canada is not in Europe.
    by gizajob
  • I think there is a lot of value there for other advanced economies in Asia, namely Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Aus/NZ.

    With the US self-destructing these countries need a new plan. They are routinely being pushed around by China and need a counterweight.

    by nutjob2
  • And it's not even "novel" in the sense that this group already exist, except so far it was gravitating around the US, and it might just reorient to gravitate around someone else.
    by nolok
  • I think it is telling that the Europeans and Canadians tend to approve of these conversations, while the Americans explain to us why it is impossible.
    by david-gpu