YHK - yet another hacker news clone

If they changed that they'd perhaps become world powers themselves.

It is 100% about Trump.

Canadian provinces have a far bigger ability to screw things up for the whole than countries do inside the EU, and people remotely familiar with the EU will understand what a strong statement that is.

The pivot away from Germany / France is starting and will not stop.

All it took was Merkel and sucking up to Russia.

There's no such thing as "friendship" in geopolitics. Everyone should have learned this by now.

To use the Oracle example, USA is like a lawn mower. If you grease the wheels and keep the gas tank full then it will mow your lawn. But if you stick your hands in the blades then it will cut your fingers off.

It also might just cut your fingers off anyway.

Not white enough for the EU. There is a lot of opposition to even Turkey, which is already in customs union, joining and talks are dead specifically because EU countries do not want immigration from Turkey.

Bonjour du Québec.

The EU does not have a military to annex any neighbours with. Individual states do, but non are really great powers any more.

Really? Because there's this organisation called CUSMA that nations can voluntarily leave (the US) and some want to stay in (Canada).

It's economy is larger than the EU btw.

EU already has uniform regulations, what are you talking about? It's also the third largest economy in the world, as uncompetitive as it is.

These sorts of refactorings take time, even more so if done by "committee". The good thing is that explicit interfaces have to be created thereby (hopefully) increasing adaptability and resilience over time.

I agree, but there are huge barriers to taking this step. You need a common identity to create a nation. Americans have one, so do other large nations. The EU does not.

It seems to me the EU is overburdened with trivial regulations (like regulating the maximum power consumption of domestic vacuum cleaners) rather than prioritizing core issues of its single market, manufacturing, trade, etc.

Trouble is small vested interests hold overly powerful sway over EU-wide policy. The example above is a case in point, individual member states should be able to set their own regulations independently if deemed warranted.

You're correct, annoying regulations are bloating the EU bureaucracy making it lethargic and uncompetitive.

Europe’s biggest problem, I think, is its lost mojo. There’s plenty of good ingredients, plenty of challenges too. It can still go either way. Hell, at this rate it might outperform simply because US and China blow up due to domestic problems.

The thing about mojo is that it’s super hard to predict. It might stay where it is and Europe’s share of global GDP might decline to nothing. Or it might rekindle out of nowhere due to some impulse.

Either way, middle democracies are a somewhat threatened species now, and from their individual PoV an imperfect union might be much better than efficiently staying on their own.

EU has such a bad name in these circles. As a EU citizen, I cherish these same regimes.

The only reason the trade is easy in EU (and with it non-EU partners) is these regulations. Countries that choose to stay outside but wanted access to our market (like Norway, Switzerland, etc.) - had to accept the regulations. So I highly doubt you'll get your wish.

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."

For the most part I am thankful that the EU regulates things strictly. As long as I am the consumer of what is regulated and not the maker. Because while the regulation is well meaning, it is not always effective or efficient. And sometimes it achieves absolutely no positive results.

And yet, I am generally for regulating a lot of things.

For instance the cookie-popup-horseshit is failed regulation that came about mainly because regulators were squeamish about real solutions that would have required constant judgement calls. Instead of posing an existential risk to companies that run roughshod over our privacy, they created impotent regulation that is a dual failure: it protects exactly nobody and it wastes everyone's time multiple times over.

Companies that do bad things should face existential risks. It is the only mechanism that works. Fines only work for small players. For large players it is surprisingly often a calculation where the numbers dictate you DO bad things because the downside risk is mostly quantifiable and financially acceptable.

Yes, sanctioning companies guilty of egregious violations of privacy would have been noisy, but it would have been the right thing to do. And it would have been cheaper and more effective than what we have today.

> [Canada would be] EU's first "associate member"

> …

> [Von der Leyen] did not give specific details on how any Canadian membership would work, but listed manufacturing, technology, AI, defence, energy, critical minerals and economic security as key areas for cooperation.

> …

> But "associate membership" of the EU does not currently exist and the process, if agreed, could take years.

>

Many people (including Carney himself) are presenting this as a fundamental and recent pivot.

But the opening moves of this happened a long time ago. CETA was negotiated by Chrystia Freeland and the now-often-maligned Trudeau gov't.

(also Trudeau also had a honeymoon phase for the first two to three years of his term...)

Notably many member states (incl. France) have not fully ratified it. The majority of its benefits are in place but not all.

Which doesn't bode well for the actual on the ground reality of any "associate member status."

I expect it will be mostly symbolic/diplomatic.

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 Americans that didn't want to be part of the U.S.; we say the American Revolution created 2 countries: yours and ours. In 1812 Americans raised war against us, as a continuation of the Napoleonic wars. Although we were still a British colony, we fought back, invaded Washington DC and set the White House on fire. In 1890, the McKinley Tariffs were meant to subjugate us, the same way Trump wants to do now [1]. They backfired, made us stronger.

But in the 80's the Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement fooled us. We became too reliant, friendly and confident to the Americans. It was a dangerous illusion. The Comanche, Apache and Navajo have learned too late that you can't trust Americans. Luckily for us, Trump reminded us that lesson on time, before it would be too late.

[1] https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-u-s-tariff-act-of...

A necessary move, because the US isnt acting like an ally anymore.

Hence the increased cooperation and agreements with the EU and China.

If there's an apt non-baseball metaphor, it's perhaps that USA is a circus we are compelled to pay attention to for now. We'd rather just not

This ignorance makes it very clear that the American voting populace does not take positive relations with erstwhile allies seriously. Increased trade integration may not be the ideal situation for Canada, but nothing about the situation is ideal. At least we won’t be subjugating ourselves to hostile hegemons like China and the USA.

Almost a decade on and most Canadians don't seem to realize we already have CETA (free trade) with the EU. It's not fully fully ratified but it's there. It's why our grocery stores have been slowly filling with European products we never had before (Yay!)

For example: It's already cheaper for me -- as a consumer -- to import sporting goods (skis, etc) from the EU than it is from the US. (And often less shipping hassle too, oddly).

And yet distributor arrangements often still funnel everything through the US, first as "North American distributor" models. Incurring shipping and sometimes even tariff overhead. (Looking at you Scarpa, North America. You suck.)

Even if all of this is symbolic, it may at least shift perceptions on our side of the Atlantic so Canadian businesses at least start looking to Europe more seriously as both importers and exporters.

People often forget our country was built on an east west shipping and transport axis with the St Lawrence (and later the Pacific) as outflow, to supply Europe (mainly Britain). It was only later that north-south trade became more important economically.

Shipping manufactured goods across the Atlantic to European customers may end up cheaper for them than shipping from China in some circumstances.

I'm maybe also a bit biased, I currently work for a European employer.