As an Australian, I have noticed a shift personally in feeling like I identify more with "European" culture, compared to 10 years ago I felt like we were the 51st state and I felt very close with the US.
This seems to be shared by others, I remember reading there was a survey that asked Australians who they felt our closest international friend was. The US was the top answer for over a decade, having stolen the crown from the UK I think in the late 90s or something. Recently though, it switched to New Zealand.
From the American side it felt like we had more cross-pollination with Australia in the 90s than in the decades following. Disney even had a studio out there that animated some of the TV shows it aired in the US (and presumably in Australia too).
There was a really great writeup by someone who worked in that Disney animation shop on a blog I once stumbled on - he wrote about how he took on the 'job of a lifetime' as a teenager while his mother was terminally ill and how that impacts your priorities.
Incredibly moving read that I unfortunately can't find now, but it covered how the Sydney office ended, from memory it was a combination of CGI changing the industry, and cost - Australian wages weren't cheap and the studio was mostly used for producing direct-to-video sequels which was a market that dried up.
The actual big influence on the Australian-American cross pollination though, I suspect, was Rupert Murdoch's expansion into the American film and TV industry. For all his faults, he was a big champion of talent from his homeland in both his movies and Fox TV network. Even the infamous Simpsons Australia episode was likely influenced by the big influence of Australians at Fox at that time.
Apart from the "Crocodile Dundee" and "Men at Work" phenomena in the late 80s, there is no real cultural pollination between Australia and the US, as far as I can tell. It's too far away and there are no real reasons for Americans to visit, nor are there enough internationally notable Australian music brands, films, or products that give visibility to the country, which is one price of being a commodity producing nation rather than finished goods. We know about Japanese and British prodigious cultural output, Japanese manufactures, German cars and Swiss machine tools and watches, but what product makes Australia stand out? Coal, copper, etc.
Didn't Australia used to have an auto industry? I kinda feel like Australia stopped producing culturally relevant output in the late 80s or 90s.
Haven’t Australians just moved to US - Keith Urban, Chris Hemsworth, Russel Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie and the list goes on … it’s not the same way as Japanese’s or Korean output, because English as the native language makes the transition seamless and doesn’t stand out.
Oh! I forgot JIRA and Atlassian are Australian too :D Now you really can’t deny you haven’t felt the Australian influence in your life. Lol
>Wifi, actually, was developed there (CSIRO patents)
Ehhh thats more like CSIRO patent trolls for wifi.
My recollection is that the particular trick they patented was already in use in CDMA networks, the CSIRO did it using 2.4GHz on a low power device and called it a new invention. But honestly it reeks of Microsoft pursuing anyone using a file allocation table
In the 80-90's, the most popular destination for Australians was the UK: Nick Cave, Kylie Minogue, Lisa Gerrard (of Dead Can Dance fame) and many others moved up there.
You rely heavily on Australia for both blockbuster and character actors. If they aren’t already British or Irish or Canadian, they are likely Aussies (or New Zealanders - sometimes seems like you barely have any actors of broad ability who you haven’t imported).
Margot Robbie, Geoffrey Rush, Hugh Jackman, Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, Chris Hemsworth (all three Hemsworths!), Toni Collette, Hugo Weaving, Eric Bana, Rose Byrne, Naomi Watts, Simon Baker, Judy Davis, Anthony and Jonathan LaPaglia, Poppy Montgomery, Rachel Griffiths, Miranda Otto, Portia De Rossi, Jacob Elordi… the list goes on and on and on (and includes the late Heath Ledger and Errol Flynn). These are just the easiest ones to name!
Directors: absolutely loads of them actually but notably Baz Lurhmann, Peter Weir, Bruce Beresford.
Films: Mad Max series, Gallipoli, Dead Calm, Muriel’s Wedding, Priscilla Queen of The Desert, Walkabout, Picnic At Hanging Rock, Sirens, The Piano, Rabbit Proof Fence, Lantana, Moulin Rouge, The Babadook, Daybreakers, The Great Gatsby. (Baz Lurhmann obviously ranks high here)
Again just the easiest ones.
(Also if you have never seen it: Mary & Max. Thank me later)
Also: Bluey!!!!
Now stop making me defend Australians, I’m British. There’s a rivalry to maintain here for both our sakes.
If I'd wanted to score a negative point I would have listed the trans-national bigot Mel Gibson (only American by birth) along with Mad Max.
(Though that reminds me — in the films list I forgot to mention his debut film Tim, which is a lovely film that definitely had a US distribution and a US co-star)
Australia's alignment with the US was a major consequence of World War 2 and the aftermath of that.
Pre WW2 we were basically in lockstep with the UK. However after Singapore fell to the Japanese it became increasingly obvious that the UK could not be relied upon to defend Australia. At the time most of the elite Australian troops were fighting in North Africa (El-Alamein, Tobruk etc). and there was a genuine perceived threat that Australia could be invaded. PNG which was Australian territory at the time was invaded. The Japanese bombing of Darwin only intensified this.
Almost overnight our foreign policy swung behind the US instead. Post WW2 this led to things like the ANZUS Treaty. It is the reason there are US military bases in Australia and the reason why we have followed the US into all of their wars which we arguably had no business involving ourselves in (Vietnam, Iraq etc.).
Personally I feel the recent actions of the US are not beneficial to Australia's interests at all. Trump has squandered an awful lot of accumulated goodwill already, even if another government is elected in US a lot of damage has already been done.
I've been thinking the silver lining of the current situation is that we'll be less inclined to send troops to aid US in their latest Middle East boondoggle, in the expectation of reciprocation in the future.
In other online spaces, I've seen some conservative commenters from the US asserting that America is so powerful, the rest of the world has no choice but to go along with them, and therefore there is no need to maintain good relationships and the US should do what most immediately benefits itself at all times. Certainly, there are some areas where we simply have to play along with the US, but I think they are underestimating the amount of things where they will no longer be our first choice to deal with.
The problem with deciding you're so powerful you can force everyone to follow you is you actually have to force everyone to follow you and it turns out that's super expensive and costs you a lot of power in terms of committed assets to do it.
>Almost overnight our foreign policy swung behind the US instead.
We still had dual citizen brits running government departments making pro UK decisions until like the 70s or 80s. The UK/US have sort of shared us until the 90s. We let the poms nuke SA.
I'm surprised - aren't AU & NZ super close culturally and aligned politically? I would have thought the US, CA, et al would be vying for a distant second.
Not only close, but NZ was originally slated to join Australia and is indeed named in the original Australian Constitution (that created federation) as one of the original 7 states.
As a German guy who backpacked through Australia for a while when I was studying the drinking culture definitely made you guys seem European I can you tell you that much, I didn't feel far from home
Having spent a lot of time in the UK, EU and US, I feel Sydney is way more like California than say London or European cities, in terms of living, shopping and culture. Even things from the US are coming here, like the growth of Halloween.
If you walk into a shop, the US is much more like Australia in terms of service and attitude (even though retail staff are paid vastly differently).
I always thought this was due to TV and Australia having remote branches of many US retail chains.
Outside of California, it's similar but diverges a lot in areas like socialism. In the recent 20 years Australia has pretty much become more like the EU in terms of socialism.
I agree. Since moving back from California a decade ago, Australia has felt more and more American.
Big cars, the slow incursion of American sports, more American brands popping up (including Starbucks actually getting a foothold), Gen-Z using American terms like math and trash, and a rise in the “screw you” style of American individualism.
I don’t think any of this is making Australia a better place to live.
I've always felt that Australia felt like a British version of California. Though California is itself a bit exceptional in the context of America. The two places have a lot in common though - not withstanding the fact that everyone drives on the wrong side of the road and uses different power cables.
Well, socialism died out in Europe around 1989. When the iron curtain fell. Currently there is not a single country that has socialism in it's constitution. In the EU, but also in exactly zero non-EU european countries.
To educate: socialism has nothing to with how influence the execute or legislative has. Nor has it anything to do with health insurance.
The central point of the ideology called "socialism" is that control of the state (not of private owners) over the "means of production". Like capital, land, workforce. To gain this control, socialism is keen to use force. They call it e.g. "dictatorship of the proletariat". Usually this leads to heavy oppression of the people, to some sort of police state. If you look at any real socialist country (like GDR, USSR, Yugoslavia, Cuba, North Korea) you'll always find it to some sort. Even in today's China the banks are still under government control, so "the party" has the ultimate say in everything.
You usage of "socialism" doesn't fit that at all. Perhaps you meant something that isn't fully libertarian?
My guess is the US people are badly educated these days. And thus easily influenced with false factoids coming from libertarian oligarchs like the Koch brothers.
And also it seems like they never heard about "social market economy" ... I mean, there is a spectrum between a fully socialist country like e.g. North Korea and a fully capitalist like ... actually we don't have one that is purely capitalist. Not even in the USA does the "market regulates everything".
And also I think that quite a few people never pondered about the idea that there are two words ("social" and "socialism") for a reason.
The term socialism wasn't defined by Marx. That's the heart of why you don't understand the definition of that word. There are a half dozen different branches with different definitions, all of which predate Marx. The only reason that you think that is that Lenin made him famous. But you can have socialism without any of the things you mention. It still doesn't work but its different. Think Finland in the 1970s or Sweden in the 1980s. Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions. They also don't work.
PS Now a serious question, do you think your country is worth defending? If not, why should another country think it is?
> Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions.
... Er, no, Britain is not a socialist society by its own definitions, or anyone else's (unless you want to stretch the term so far that it encompasses Labour's fairly minimal social democracy, but at that point the term is becoming almost meaningless). Where are you getting that?
As an American, I hope you can identify strongly as an Australian. Why bother telling yourself you’re something of a European?
In any case, I hope countries form ties with Europe. Europe needs be economically stronger than it is. Better for the world, so long as they can slow their tendencies toward government control and censorship.
In the US, some states are politically... out there (Ken Paxton there, you almost wouldn't believe he existed, he's like a caricature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton#Legal_issues). And they can have an impact over the whole union; in this case, a DC journalism non-profit has to take this nonsnse seriously, and had to spend resources defending itself.
In the EU, some countries are politically... out there. For instance, see Hungary, particularly before they managed to dump Orban. But media organisations in, say, Denmark, don't really have to care at all about what Hungary thinks about their reporting; the sort of interstate anti-speech lawfare above simply doesn't really happen in Europe.
I mean — Brendan Carr seems to be able to bully the TV industry pretty successfully on behalf of MAGA. Trump shakes down businesses for a government cut — Intel for example. You are deporting foreigners based on their opinions. Trump shook down most of the major law firms for pro-bono work based only on a false perception of his mistreatment. He's pursued and pretty successfully harassed major universities into various forms of consent decree. People lost their jobs for exercising their free speech over Charlie Kirk (most of whom did not really see any kind of restoration). Trump extracted settlements from major news networks for content he didn't like based on his own fantasy misunderstanding.
The list goes on and on and on — Europe as a whole does not act in this thuggish, extrajudicial, capricious way.
People identify with other places, people, policies, and cultures — along with their own, or wherever they're originally from. Sometimes they don't even identify with their own, or say, feel alienated. It's perfectly fine, and in fact a very healthy state of being.
The civil national identity is wasting away. I'm less and less inclined to call myself Australian, as opposed to English, because Australia now is for everybody. An Australian doesn't even mean a funny accent anymore. It doesn't mean anything.
I like the small % of nutcases in my country. We also consider disinformation a national security threat. That way a foreign adversary cannot push the public into voting for an incompetent, ignorant and arrogant criminal narcissist. I don't want my country to turn into an idiocracy.
And concerning your 2nd amendment, I also own guns. The difference is that only sane, non-violent people can have guns in my country, and crazy people not. You know, crazy people that would take their guns to schools and start shooting.
What a weird thing that we ever felt this way as our way of living has nothing in coming with Americans (except for big trucks driving through empty lands).
Our labour laws, minimum wage, holidays, our Medicare system etc etc is a lot more socialist European than megacorporist American
This may be partially why the US dispatched the LA Rams and the SF 49ers. Even though McDonald's has hundreds of US bases in Australia, the corp lacks a rushing and passing game. I don't see the NFL being successful there, but time will tell. Interesting note, in SE Asia, I watch NFL commentators based in the UK. It's strange seeing NFL talk with a British accent. And TIL. I always thought the Hungry Jack's was a Burger King knockoff, but apparently it's actually Burger King with a different name.
It is an interesting position we are in here, I suspect we will do the usual thing and walk the middle road. Australia, is part of the Commonwealth, huge trade partner with Asia and allies with the US. Why not throw Canada into the mix some more.
This setup is why I call this place an equal opportunist whore. If we can do business with you, we will. I also call it the worlds largest Mining town, but that just acknowledging the reality of the place a little.
As much as many are going against the US, I don't think there is much constitution at the top here to make such a bold move. We will just be pottering around down here hoping all the bad stuff passes us by as nobody notices us.
I'm Australian and am increasingly ok with this approach. I'm growing slowly out of a protectionist mindset, toward one of cautious, and considered collaboration. Singapore follows this approach and it has worked well for them so far.
I've never really understood the protectionist mindset. It kinda only makes sense to me as a fading shadow of WWII paranoia. The invasion of Australia by a foreign adversary has never been something I've worried about (but, maybe, that's _because_ of the alignment with the US). I've also struggled with the practical logistics of it.
100%. The only conceivable threat of invasion would be China, and they can just buy Australian resources [0] for far cheaper than it would cost them to invade us.
I don't understand who the cookers think we're defending against.
Singapore is a city, Australia is a continent. Singapore is a poor analog for pretty much every other country. It was founded precisely because it sits near a busy sea route. It makes sense for Singapore to be very open to trade. That does not mean it works for Australia.
(I'm not arguing that the reverse is true, just that Singapore proves nothing.)
You'd be surprised at how many equal opportunist whores there are on earth. These are the countries that I believe Mark Carney referred to when he said "middle powers".
It is simply the most rational choice for countries who wish to thrive to play all sides, taking none and survive the disruptions.
India does the same. They try to be friendly (or at least on business terms) with as many countries as they can and stay out of global conflicts as much as possible. They were buying oil from Russia well after the Russia-Ukraine war started. It also worked well for India as they were able to get rock bottom prices.
From a purely economic standpoint, this would make sense. Not sure what to feel about the ethics of it though - at least part of the Russian war bill was footed by the money India paid for Russian oil. One can argue the Ukraine's problems are not India's problems. One could also argue it would be nice to not fund shitty wars, even a little, even indirectly.
Geopolitics is a complex subject I suppose, for a layman like me.
Russian natgas is laundered through third parties, whereas India is laundering Russian oil. Not saying I support any of these sanctions or tariffs, but India is making bank selling Russian oil to Europe right now, so there is going to be some political blowback. Malaysia also.
> Geopolitics is a complex subject I suppose, for a layman like me.
It helps to be familiar with realism in international relations theory starting with Machiavelli and Hobbes, and postwar realism which developed over the Cold War. The ethics have been debated for centuries and the mainstream interpretation is that leaders have a fiduciary obligation to the population they are responsible for, which fundamentally changes ethical considerations.
It’s a completely different moral question when you’re responsible for a billion people, many of whom may suffer or die due to the cost of fuel. It is in principle a violation against their own people for Indian leaders to prioritize Ukraine’s people over their own.
Russian crude made up 35-40% of India's oil imports in 2024. I'm sure it is not much different at present. Although a bill just passed through congress that will allow Trump to put up to a 100% Tariff on Indian imports.
It's 2026 now, and their oil production has dropped 28% due in the last month, they stopped exports (at least temporarily) and were buying oil from Turkiye and Kazakhstan, military police are stationed at fuel stations and people are fleeing crimea due to no fuel and other conditions.
With the strait of Hormuz closed, Russia now accounts for more than 50% of India's oil imports. If the tariffs work, the strategic petroleum reserves of the rich countries will deplete even faster, and when the reserves are gone, those rich countries will pay more for non-Russian oil than India can, so India is going to eventually have to buy the Russian oil and take the tariff hit.
But there's also no fundamental need for a bold move either. Country relationships are almost entirely based on trade. It's 'nice' when there are ideology and policy overlaps, but they would get overlooked if there were serious trade disputes (although it's less likely to happen as it's easier to form trade agreements with the like-minded).
The relationship with the US is deteriorating entirely due to trade. The Iran war is an example of this because it completely fucks international and internal logistics. I don't think Australia, politically, cares if the US bomb Iran or even commit war crimes there, but the fact it affects trade (via oil prices and all the ripple effects of that) is the reason for at least preparation of an 'exit relationship' stance (and, of course, the other trade circus sideshows Trump is putting on, vis a vis tariffs).
I'm not sure Australia does much trade with Russia, hence Australia can support Ukraine until the cows come home, without risking trade margins.
Just to be clear on this - Australia is primarily interested in methods of reducing trade barriers, not any sort of political union.
Australia is economically served well by free trade: most of its production is low cost, high quality primary production of mining outputs and agricultural goods (grains, wool and meat) where if price and quality are the primary selection criteria it wins.
The downside of this is that Australia hasn't really got any significant manufacturing or advanced technology industry.
But it has made Australia one of the best performing economies of the past 25 years.
Not really. Australia is very lax when it comes to bringing in dependents, who outnumber skilled migrants themselves. We also have an oversupply of technically skilled people, with nothing for them to work on, because we got rid of all of our industry. High energy prices and wages means that you'll struggle to get anything that isn't finance, gambling, or real estate related off the ground. I guess defense is the other option, and it's essentially the only game in town if you want to do something hardware related.
I'm one of the lucky few who ended up in a job that really does exercise my technical training, and a big factor in that was COVID shutting the borders and me getting my foot in the door. That one event meant someone was willing to take a shot on me, and I got put in the hot seat and got time next to very senior software engineers, which changed the trajectory of my career. They got something out of it, too, as it turned out that I really was the right guy for that job.
There are currently 3 million temporary visa holders in the country, roughly 10% of the population. Australia also has a birth rate that is below replacement. All of those people need a place to stay, and if a population twice the size of Adelaide were to disappear tomorrow, we'd immediately go into a housing surplus. In fact, you wouldn't be able to get a loan for a house from the bank, because they're not in the business of investing in falling markets. Which is to say, the housing crisis here is entirely by design. It has been engineered by both sides of government for more than two decades, and is primarily kept afloat by our world beating migration rate. It has to end.
> There are currently 3 million temporary visa holders in the country,
It's pretty important to realise that this includes student visas (600K - and education is a major earner for Australia) and graduate visas (200K) and 700K New Zealanders (who have their own special temporary class).
There are also 250K working holiday visas (ie backpackers).
Yes, the largest chunk is students. In fact, ~6% of all international students in the world attend Australian universities, making it the largest per-capita destination for international students by a significant margin. They still require housing, and they still have working rights. Fake students coming over to work without ever attending a class is a well-known rort.
The single biggest justification for our high migration setting (among the highest in the OECD) is ostensibly for skills we need to keep the economy afloat. I've yet to see a skills shortage closed by migration. And of course, skilled migrants are one of the smaller cohorts in our net intake -- we actually bring in more dependents than we do skilled workers.
The high performing economies that didn't make it illegal to build are high performing because of that.
This is why the highest standard of living on the planet, with the highest GDP over the largest population... is in Texas.
The fact the people there aren't pathologically conservative/authoritarian in the "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" sense is the precise reason why that is.
I don't know what metric you're using, but it ranks 37th of the 50 states just behind Arizona on the Human Development Index which ranks health, education, income. Texas at 0.917 is above the EU average (0.915) but below many others including the top Iceland (0.972), Norway (0.970), Australia (0.958), Canada (0.939), Japan (0.925) and the US as a whole (0.938)
So while Texas is indeed the wealthiest per GDP per capital (using your "over the largest population" filter) ($91,594 / 31.71M pop), it has a much lower HDI than countries with much lower GDP per capita, like Japan ($35,973 / 123.29M pop). In other words Texas out-earns Australia per head by 38% but trails it by 0.041 on HDI
HDI uses the log of income, so extra dollars count for less, and Texas lags on the life expectancy and schooling components.
For example, if we take the life expectancy in isolation to see the dragging metric, Texas is ranked 46th in the world at 79.1 years (2022 data), just behind 45th Estonia at 79.3 years (2024 data), but a long way behind 6th Australia (84.1 years) and 3rd Japan (84.9 years).
(edit: I used Japan as illustrative of a large population with a low GDP per capital to highlight that GDP isn't everything, and Australia as that's the country of question in this tread)
GDP per capita is mostly static since a large increase pre-COVID during the explosive China growth years 2005-2020.
Most variations since are exchange rate variations more than actual changes in GPD vs population (GDP is usually denominated in USD)[1],[2]
Low GPD per capita is definitely NOT correlated with high migration, which decreased in the years GPD per population decreased[3]
If anything low migration is inversely correlated with higher GDP over the last 25 years: high immigration is correlated with higher GPD per capita - but I don't think one should draw a causal link here: the cause of GDP growth in AUstralia is generally accepted as increased raw material exports to China, and that has led to higher employment.
While some are indeed highly skilled and earn well, many are skilled only on paper and end up driving Ubers. Also in the recent past many of the skilled migrants were for low-paid occupations like chefs.
> Just to be clear on this - Australia is primarily interested in methods of reducing trade barriers, not any sort of political union.
So, at a certain point, that gets fuzzy. The EU and Australia already have a free trade agreement which will remove essentially all tariffs when it goes into operation. But selling stuff from Australia to, say, Belgium will still be more difficult than selling stuff from Spain to Belgium due to lack of regulatory alignment. And regulatory alignment is political.
The Australian government has always taken "great interest" in what Canada does in regards to policy - they practically copy Canada all the time, even my Economics lecturer made a point about this. This isn't news.
Australia also has a huge problem with exports. For decades, China had huge demand for Australia's resources, particularly Iron Ore. However China is reducing this, so Australia needs a new plan.
There are many obvious differences, but Canada and Australia share many characteristics and I find myself comparing to Aussies. Similar population, massive landmass, population mostly contained in narrow stripes at the edges, ex UK colony, middle power, etc..
you might be overstating the problem. for sure there's overreliance on China which is decreasing slightly (1-3% from what I remember), but Australian exports are still increasing because of the US, India, Japan and many others
I'm guessing Canada and Australia would go for an EFTA 'lite' type deal. As EFTA doesn't require a customs union it's probably the easiest to implement and build up from.
I think they amended EFTA to require free movement which was a no-op as all the EFTA countries had free movement with the EU. I could see the EU agreeing to a NAFTA style workers visa if they really wanted push the freedom of movement side hence the 'lite' bit.
canada already has CETA for EU trade and CEFTA for trade with the EFTA. it seems like "associate membership" must mean something that goes beyond just a free trade agreement, because that already exists.
And not all EU members have ratified CETA either, so I'm not sure why everyone's getting their hopes up about "associate membership", whatever that is (it's not defined in the EU treaties). They can't even fully ratify a trade deal after almost a decade.
Australia is blessed with quite the spineless government at the moment. I doubt very much that they would be doing anything (at all actually) as concrete as forging deeper ties with Europe - at least at the expense of the US. After all, it wasn't so long ago that Australia handed the US $800 million of its citizen's hard-earned for submarines that might not ever get built within an alliance that looks increasingly one-sided.
Yep, pretty disappointed with our current government, they're not listening at all to the population, just lobbyists and those with $10k for a dinner with the PM. And ON is certainly not the solution either, despite many thinking it is.
To avoid the comming massive risk to human life from climate disruption, I think there needs to be an Australasian / ASEAN open boarder arangement like the schengen area.
Also, speaking as Brit, Australia and Canada getting involved might increase the argument for it being about trade and maybe travel and less about political integration, which the UK was never very keen on.
The Trump admin will be 2 years out of office by the time the Virginia deliveries are slated to start.
If America goes fully fascist by then, then the wisdom of that contract will be the least of our problems (or to put it another way: what's the alternative? Because if you're serious about the threat it's "crash course nuclear weapons and a delivery vehicle" if you want to guarantee our sovereignty).
That's a brilliant move by von der Leyen and Mark Carney (I guess he's in on it as well).
There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.
Just calling it a "unique alliance" or "deepening of their relationship" wouldn't have had such a public effect.
Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.
Trump even said when the Canada joins the EU as associate member, it could be considered a hostile act.
All that for a status nobody knows yet what it will entail. More than a simple trade deal, for sure, but also a lot less than a proper membership.
> There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.
See perhaps Article 217 of TFEU:
> The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.
> Association is already an established form of EU external relations. The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Morocco entered into force on March 1, 2000. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement entered fully into force on September 1, 2017. Their substantive commitments and institutional structures differ, reflecting the relationships negotiated by the respective parties (Council of the European Union, 2000; European External Action Service, 2017).
> Article 217 does not prescribe a uniform degree of integration. Depending on its provisions, an association agreement may establish economic commitments, regulatory cooperation, joint institutions, and procedures for implementing shared objectives. The associated country's rights arise from the agreement rather than from a standardized legal status conferred by Article 217 itself.
While there isn't an official "associate member" status, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland all have custom deals with the EU so this just codifies what already exists in an ad-hoc form.
The only bit the EU is rowing back is that they mentioned during BRExit that there would be no more custom deals so this simply a case of the realpolitik winning out.
I'm sure the UK will be looking at this very carefully as well.
You forgot Turkey as well. Yes, the EU is open in general for specific treaties. If possible they want to do broad treaties (see the EEA). But Switzerland is almost as big a partner as the UK. If it is big enough, they'll do custom deal.
There is not much trade with Canada at the moment but with some special treaties this might change.
Then there's the political edge to this "associate member" status and if it can work as a blueprint for more countries, they'll certainly will be open to do it.
> The only bit the EU is rowing back is that they mentioned during BRExit that there would be no more custom deals so this simply a case of the realpolitik winning out.
This isn't _really_ what they said. In practice, if the UK wanted similar status to Norway, it could have had it. The EU is cautious of specifically the Switzerland situation, which is a huge complex mess of treaties.
There is this Venn diagram[1]. Canada could shift into the Council of Europe like Georgia or join Schengen with an independent currency like the Swiss. The latter would be a nice arrangement for Canadian passport holders.
Canada doesn't share a land border with any Schengen countries, so I'm not sure how valuable passport-free travel would be - you're already taking a transatlantic flight, it's not like passport control is a huge additional hassle.
However, I could see a big argument for a labour mobility agreement similar to the NAFTA model, where EU citizens in a long list of professions have the right to work in Canada and vice-versa.
The Council of Europe is strictly speaking not an EU thing at all, though all EU countries are required to be members of the Council of Europe, and, confusingly, they share a flag. The UK is still a member of the Council of Europe, for instance, as was _Russia_ until 2022.
Consent makes all the difference. Trump's talk of forcing Canada to become the 51st state via economic pressure stiffened the spines of Canadians and made it impossible for the Carney government to accept the same sort of deal other countries were getting. At the same time, it made closer relations with Europe look like a solution.
The reality is that the joining the EU as full members involves too great a sacrifice of sovereignty for middle powers like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.. Brussels is too far away and the EU itself barely functions with the members it already has. There is, however, broad will among middle powers to work together more closely than they do now. This associate EU member thing needs to strike a balance where countries who join it can cooperate and contribute without feeling like the EU is becoming another U.S..
> Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.
I mean, it's a very, very different type of offer.
I believe this will turn around. The mood is a sign of the times and the general dislike of the man in the White House.
But he won't be there forever yet Canada will always be the U.S.' Northern neighbor, biggest trading partner and cultural big brother.
Carney is simply looking elsewhere for friends after being insulted by Trump who treats him like a subordinate and not someone of equal standing. He may even be foolish enough to cozy up to China.
As for Australia, I don't understand the vibe here. Trump hasn't mentioned Australia becoming a U.S. territory in any speeches I've heard. Again, maybe it's a general dislike for the man and his roughshod policies.
The trouble is, Pandora's box has been opened. It turns out that the president of the US can act like a crazy post-Soviet-style dictator, and that the mechanisms which are supposed to prevent that are simply not fit for purpose. Even if in 2028 the US elects the most sensible, rule-of-law-oriented president imaginable, allies will still have to look to 2032. Fixing the problem would require constitutional change, which in the US is virtually impossible.
The powers granted to the U.S. President are meant to be used in times of war or situations that threatens the security of the United States. Trump is using it nilly-willy for just about everything. It will, however, be difficult to come up with a law that would put a stop to this without harming the Executive Branch's effectiveness in a time of need.
But so far I'm pretty satisfied how Congress and the judiciary are putting reins on his powers. He recently threatened to halt all trade with Europe over Canada's associate EU membership. There's no way he can do that. Congress would step in.
I don't know why you think Congress would step in. Perhaps if they had Democratic majorities in both houses, but so far they have been pretty steadfast in refusing to curtail any of his moves so far.
> But so far I'm pretty satisfied how Congress and the judiciary are putting reins on his powers. He recently threatened to halt all trade with Europe over Canada's associate EU membership. There's no way he can do that. Congress would step in.
Would it? It didn't step in on the tariffs; that had to wait on extremely slow Supreme Court action, and he went right back to attempting them by other means.
As far as I can see almost nothing he's done in his second term has been subject to timely oversight (it was a bit different in his first, where the judiciary _did_ shut some of the most batshit stuff down quickly).
I love Australia. Amazing country. Great people. I'd move back in an instant if given the opportunity. As an American, I always felt welcome there, but haven't been there since 2016. It'll be interesting seeing how attitudes have changed when I'm back visiting in 2028.
It's because the British heritage involved committing huge crimes against the indigenous folks that we haven't really acknowledged and haven't dealt with. We can't move on until we do. So we're kinda stuck.
I think it's fairly well acknowledged, but there is no 'dealt with' that fits into any kind of reality I'm familiar with.
My purely observational understanding is that there are fundamental incompatibilities between aboriginal and 'western/British' culture. "Ownership" of land as probably the primary example. I don't know how that gets 'dealt with'.
I don’t know the discussion in Australia, but in Alaska (also having an indigenous population with land ownership) they found solutions. Regional “native corporations” were given large amounts of valuable land, natives were given preferential resource rights (fishing, etc).
Not everything is perfect (far from it), but a lot has been done.
I think Australia is a great country and Australians should be proud of our British heritage, institutions and culture. I don't think that's incompatible with reparations or whatever you have in mind for the Aboriginals.
Yeah true to an extent, but that wasn't what the parent was talking about. There's a huge ongoing discussion about Australia's national identity, most recently fuelled by the rise of Australia's home-grown MAGA mob, One Nation.
If they get their way (though there's a lot of doubt whether, similar to UK's Reform, this is all just talk and if they ever get into power they'll just feed the rich, like Trump did), they'll sever trade connections with Asia and strengthen ties with the US and EU, because racism.
As an Australian, I don't think our 'heritage' is of much consequence. Current constituency and overall stability matter more, to me.
If you mean 'our British heritage' as in, the percentage of the Australian population with British backgrounds, then that counts towards 'current constituency' in my definition.
This is unfair to the aboriginals, however, and that's a circle I believe is impossible to square.
As yes, I was wondering when my Federal government’s sense of FOMO would compel it to needlessly yap into the void like anybody cares. I see today was the day.
This and Canada are just kneejerk reactions against the chaos of the Trump administration. While that makes sense, my prediction is that in the short-term it won't amount to much. In the long-term, history books will write about these years as redefining the world order that's existed largely since 1945.
As for Canada, nobody really knows what associate membership means. Given that EU freedoms are reciprocal I just don't see this going anywhere. Plus there's been a free trade deal with the EU on the table for a decade that hasn't been ratified.
As for redefining the world order, that's what this war of choice in Iran will amount to. In the short-to-medium term it's going to redefine the Gulf security architecture. The refusal to restrain Israel probably means Russia will swallow the eastern chunk of Ukraine they occupy.
And of course the big winner in all of this is China who have had to do absolutely nothing.
Empires don't die overnight and they die violently. This is going to be bad but I honestly see no way the US can restore its position as the global hegemon. It's influence has peaked. And I don't believe anything will reverse that.
So I don't know what this means for Australia. It has operated essentially as an American colonial outpost since the Cold War. The geography was once much more important to cover the sky for receiving satellite communications.
Selling raw resources is ultimately untenable for an economy (IMHO) but Australia has gone down the path of turning the entire economy into a massive Ponzi scheme of housing, like almost every other developed nation. When housing is the only logical investment, it dominates capital and lending and productive output falls off a cliff, which is exactly what happened.
> This and Canada are just kneejerk reactions against the chaos of the Trump administration.
As a Canadian, I can promise you that this not a "knee jerk reaction".
Replacing TRUMP with a democrat isn't going to solve it. Canadians have realized that relying on United States is a national security risk, hence the government been building larger trader alliances with both EU and China.
Any American thinking that this is just a TRUMP thing is missing the forest for the trees.
We shall see. But Russia's invasion of Ukraine way predates the recent wars in the middle east. It's more like the inability to restrain Russia's aspirations in Ukraine have led to instability in the rest of the world. More generally the failure to sustain a more free and democratic Russia or China is perhaps the source of all the other instabilities which all involve political, military and financial support from the China/Russia axis.
I wouldn't write off the US quite yet but it's definitely more of a multi-polar world with the US and China the major powers vs. the brief single polar world that followed the fall of the USSR. Arguably the quietest and most prosperous period ever, the largest number of people worldwide rising up from poverty etc. We're gonna miss it.
By the summer of 2023 when Ukraine's big counteroffensive had failed my own view was that the situation was stalemated and Russia will wait until the West gets bored or the situation changes and Russia's geopolitical position improves. Russia has that option available to it in a way the West doesn't.
Sanctions in general don't work. They don't work against enemies. Arguably they only work against allies (eg apartheid South Africa). Sanctions were never going to work against Russia and Russia has more manpower to throw at the meat grinder than Ukraine does.
And that changing situation has come to Putin with the Iran War. The US has lost. It has been strategically and militarily defeated by a lesser regional power. It's just a matter of time before it accepts this loss.
Because of attacks from Ukraine on Russian energy infrastructure, Russia has changed from a net diesel exporter to banning diesel exports and arguably being a diesel importer. That's a big problem that we're all about to learn. China too has banned the export of refined petroleum products (including diesel) for months now. Diesel prices are about to go way up and the US is now considering a ban on diesel exports. All this "energy nationalism" is going to torch Europe, Asian economies and South America. Just you wait.
By foolishly attacking Iran, Trump has made Russia's position much stronger. So yes, the Ukraine war predates the Iran war but the Iran war has made the Ukraine war much better for Russia. That's the point.
Or maybe the lesson to Russia is that if the US can't win against Iran how is it going to win against Ukraine? Another angle to look at it is through who does China support (Russia and Iran?).
I think your perspective is interesting and not wrong. The weakness of the US (and the west) is emboldening Putin. I do still think the order of events starts with Russia, China and Iran's challenge the post USSR collapse status quo. In a parallel universe if Russia was able to embrace democracy and become a free country, and if China kept opening up and didn't reverse course, then we wouldn't have the Iran war at all (likely the regime in Iran would have long fallen). The world seemed to be on a course to more freedom, democracy, and prosperity, and less wars, when the Berlin wall fell. And then at some point we went backwards.
As to Putin and Russia it doesn't seem like he has a path to anything that looks like a win. How long he's going to persist is a good question. What is Iran's path forward here is also far from clear. I wouldn't want their sort of "win" myself. It's like Afghanistan's win against Russia maybe. None of these wars have a conclusive win so hopefully a lesson there (to China?) is to think twice before going to another war. Though those lessons seem to be forgotten too quickly.
I am puzzled why do you think the level of democracy in Russia has anything to do with the war in Ukraine. The US being democracy has not stopped them from kidnapping the foreign leader, plundering the country by stripping it of its oil resources and to unleash the war in the Middle East.
Russia had a clear theory of victory for the Ukraine war. It's tiered.
The ideal outcome was to install a puppet regime in Ukraine (like there used to be and is in Belarus). They have failed in this.
Failing that, secure a land bridge to Crimea. If the war ends today, Russia has succeeded in this goal. My estimation is that Putin is waiting for this to happen.
It's hard to get good information on the state of the Ukraine war because there is too much bad information out there. NATO Atlanticists and US imperialists push the narrative that Ukraine is on the verge of winning. Likewise, there's Russian propaganda that Ukraine is about to collapse. Consider this: we've heard that the Russian economy is on the verge of collapse for over 4 years now.
IT's funny that you mention Russia not embracing democracy because the West is responsible for that. When the former Soviet states sought guidance from the West, Western banks and governments simply enabled the looting of the former USSR creating the oligarchs we have today. State industries were sold to friends for a pittance (eg [1]).
Russia's theory of victory is easy: just hold onto eastern Ukraine.
The US has no theory of victory in Iran. None. Iran just has to survive.
> Iran war has made the Ukraine war much better for Russia
I think that from a geopolitical perspective it is far more advantageous to let Ukraine lose the war, than to allow a situation in which, in 20 years, Muslims will destroy the world with nuclear weapon.
Putin has the same choices Trump had: face the music or start a new song.
Trump was under pressure about the Epstein files, so he started a war. So far, so normal. It's what politicians do. He thought it would be a simple war, but that turned out not to be true. He's now under pressure from that war, so he's eyeing up Cuba.
Putin was under pressure, so started the Ukraine war. Again, he though it would be a simple quick war, but that turned out not to be true. He's now under pressure from that war, so he's eyeing up Poland.
I'm coming to agree with the folks who think Europe has to actually do more than fight the proxy war in Ukraine. It has to actually hurt Russia for this to resolve. Putin cannot recognise his loss any more than Trump can, so he's just going to continue hurting people.
This hardly seems knee-jerk. Relations with USA has been deteriorating for a while now. At this point, i think most people no longer view this as a trump related fluke but the bew status quo, which is why canada is scrambling for alternatives.
> As for redefining the world order, that's what this war of choice in Iran will amount to. In the short-to-medium term it's going to redefine the Gulf security architecture. The refusal to restrain Israel probably means Russia will swallow the eastern chunk of Ukraine they occupy.
I couldn't disagree more. The cornerstone of American foreign policy in the middle east has been based around Israel for decades now. Despite how much they all hate each other, if the gulf monarchies see USA withdrawing from Israel, they are likely to worry they might be next.
That's not to say i think USA is being smart about the war - they clearly went in half-cocked without a plan or objectives. However totally ignoring the situation would have likely drawn the region into China's hands too.
I'm not sure how you are connecting the war in iran to the middle east. Increased oil prices? The link seems tenous.
Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Australia can sell raw materials anywhere but the Red Sea being closed makes it take longer and be more expensive and who is really going to demand raw materials in Europe when the energy crunch hits? And we're bouldering towards that energy crunch (both natural gas and diesel). One of Australia's biggest competitive advantages in selling raw materials to China has always been relative proximity. Lower shipping times and costs.
Yes, the US has used Israel as a weapon in the Middle East (since ~1967) but what kept Gulf powers in line was the supply of weapons (to prop up unpopular regimes) and the free flow of trade. This war has shown that the US cannot defend its own bases in the Gulf let alone any of its client states (sorry, "allies").
I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era). The quagmire of Afghanistan was a huge factor in the collapse and breakup of the USSR. This isn't like Vietnam, which we could simply walk away from. Iran won and the Israeli state in its current form is doomed.
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Its going to be painful no doubt, but you can do lots of painful things when you don't have a choice. I think its ultimately up to the US if they force the issue.
> I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
Its the middle east, so anything is possible, but i think that is unlikely. Its on friendlier terms now with the gulf monarchies than at any other point in its history. Its big external threats (hezbollah, hamas, iran) took their swing - they did draw blood but they aren't really in a position to do it again. Its not all roses. Israel burned through massive amounts of soft power and is suffering a brain drain due to war, but their geopolitical position seems pretty good on the whole.
That is not to mention long term dynamics with increasing renewable deployments. What does oil market look like in 10-20 years? That alone could potentially reshape the middle east.
I suspect if Israel collapses it will be due to internal conflict. It seems like their political culture is becoming more and more factionalized.
> The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
I dont think we are at the point where that is inevitable. Obviously this isn't going amazing for USA, but still at the end of the day, USA can keep this up for a long time. Its not clear that Iran can.
>So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era)
Hardly. USA is not spending anywhere near as much money and lives as USSR was in Afghanistan. The biggest impact of this conflict is price at the pump and its not even that high. Without that, would the american public even notice?
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
So in 1960, 70% of Ireland's exports went to the UK. By 2000, it was about 25%. It's now about 8%. It's _possible_ to break over dependency on the big neighbour.
Today, 75% of Canada's exports go to the US.
My view would be that this is a very unhealthy situation, and even in the absence of Trump should be something that Canada should be trying to address.
So in 40-66 years Ireland decoupled its economy from the UK? That's a pretty long timeframe.
Also, the two countries have a very different mix of exports. Canada's primary export is probably energy (it's at least top 3). A small part of that is, say, exporting electricity to northern states (eg from Quebec). You can't really send that anywhere else. The rest of that sector is really crude oil. A relatively small amount is exported by port from Vancouver. The rest goes to US refineries via pipelines.
You're talking a decades-long project to send that elsewhere. And for what? Oil is a global commodity. You'd be selling it to someone else and the US would be buying from somewhere else. What have you really achieved?
Canada also produces raw materials and, in particular, lumber. Now this is important for the US construction sector, particularly building houses. So who are you going to sell that to? US and Canada use lumber because it's cheap. In a lot of other places they don't because it's not readily available or there are other factors that disfavor lumber construction.
Another sector is auto parts that go to Big Three auto makers in Michigan. Where's that going to? Particularly with China eating that sector alive. 99% of cars would be Chinese if it wasn't for trade barriers.
Well, I mean, realistically in 50 years oil exports presumably won’t really be a thing anyway. Canada is likely going to need to at least somewhat reorient away from resources.
Obviously decoupling from the US would take time. But the best time to start is now.
Canada is just trying to encourage Europe to invest in Canada which is fine I suppose… all the power to Europeans if they want to invest their money here instead of the US… but I am not holding my breath
US GDP is mostly imaginary and not tangible. It's dependent on both international respect for intellectual property laws (reason for the anger toward China), and the natural resources of other lands (that have had their governments blamed by the current administration actively misleading US citizens about provenance of what is needed to sustain American life)
Intellectual property laws being recognized, US fiat currency, etc. vs. the hard value of natural resources of these other countries (that the US would prefer to try to annex and loot since the former is not a base you can build on)
When you're deciding on long term trade and economic policy, are you thinking about fabricated valuations of US tech companies, or whether you have energy, minerals, and food supply that have an actual value attached?
GDP is not "imaginary" or "not tangible" anymore than an accounting statement of profit and loss is imaginary. It is a very real thing but you have some subtle approaches about how you measure things like depreciation or what accounting rules you follow. The fact that a lot of people don't understand this stuff doesn't mean it is arbitrary or has no meaning. There are also huge teams of accountants that spend tens of thousands of hours getting these statistics, and their work is much maligned by the smarmy internet posters who think they know better at how to determine profit and loss.
GDP is just national value added, and was developed in the early 20th century and broadly used during the Great Depression to measure economic activity. It is good at what it does. People have taken it to measure military power, wealth, success, happiness, capability to build a specific thing, fertility, etc. That is the fault of people not understanding what GDP is or what it was meant to measure, it's not the fault of the metric itself, or the carefully developed system of accounting conventions that were developed over a hundred years of refinement.
I really think there should be mandatory accountancy training in universal education to get people to understand this stuff. The millions of hours saved in online arguments alone would make this a good investment.
Having said that, the valuation of tech companies is based on market sentiment, not accountancy rules. I don't pretend to understand how many of the companies on the equities exchanges are valued, they all seem to be too pricey for me. That, too, has nothing to do with GDP.
As an Australian, I have noticed a shift personally in feeling like I identify more with "European" culture, compared to 10 years ago I felt like we were the 51st state and I felt very close with the US.
This seems to be shared by others, I remember reading there was a survey that asked Australians who they felt our closest international friend was. The US was the top answer for over a decade, having stolen the crown from the UK I think in the late 90s or something. Recently though, it switched to New Zealand.
From the American side it felt like we had more cross-pollination with Australia in the 90s than in the decades following. Disney even had a studio out there that animated some of the TV shows it aired in the US (and presumably in Australia too).
Not sure what changed.
There was a really great writeup by someone who worked in that Disney animation shop on a blog I once stumbled on - he wrote about how he took on the 'job of a lifetime' as a teenager while his mother was terminally ill and how that impacts your priorities.
Incredibly moving read that I unfortunately can't find now, but it covered how the Sydney office ended, from memory it was a combination of CGI changing the industry, and cost - Australian wages weren't cheap and the studio was mostly used for producing direct-to-video sequels which was a market that dried up.
The actual big influence on the Australian-American cross pollination though, I suspect, was Rupert Murdoch's expansion into the American film and TV industry. For all his faults, he was a big champion of talent from his homeland in both his movies and Fox TV network. Even the infamous Simpsons Australia episode was likely influenced by the big influence of Australians at Fox at that time.
Was it James Baker?
https://www.james-baker.com/news/the-inbetweener/
Apart from the "Crocodile Dundee" and "Men at Work" phenomena in the late 80s, there is no real cultural pollination between Australia and the US, as far as I can tell. It's too far away and there are no real reasons for Americans to visit, nor are there enough internationally notable Australian music brands, films, or products that give visibility to the country, which is one price of being a commodity producing nation rather than finished goods. We know about Japanese and British prodigious cultural output, Japanese manufactures, German cars and Swiss machine tools and watches, but what product makes Australia stand out? Coal, copper, etc.
Didn't Australia used to have an auto industry? I kinda feel like Australia stopped producing culturally relevant output in the late 80s or 90s.
Haven’t Australians just moved to US - Keith Urban, Chris Hemsworth, Russel Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie and the list goes on … it’s not the same way as Japanese’s or Korean output, because English as the native language makes the transition seamless and doesn’t stand out.
Oh! I forgot JIRA and Atlassian are Australian too :D Now you really can’t deny you haven’t felt the Australian influence in your life. Lol
That's a good point, the US might just be sucking all the culturally relevant output out of the country.
I think Australia imports too much American culture. So we want to participate in the same culture. So the stars try and get work in Hollywood.
At least singers participating in K Pop bands is within the region.
It’s too bad because Australia produces some really good stuff and most of it never gets the attention it deserves, not even from Australians.
Canva, Blackmagic Design.
Wifi, actually, was developed there (CSIRO patents)
rsync, seL4, Google Photos and Maps, Jira and Confluence
Blackmagic Design is it very good company no excuses. They support all three platforms.
>Wifi, actually, was developed there (CSIRO patents)
Ehhh thats more like CSIRO patent trolls for wifi.
My recollection is that the particular trick they patented was already in use in CDMA networks, the CSIRO did it using 2.4GHz on a low power device and called it a new invention. But honestly it reeks of Microsoft pursuing anyone using a file allocation table
Most are probably on the west coast California, Washington, Oregon and Canada (British Columbia). And let’s not forget Hawaii.
That is a relatively recent change.
In the 80-90's, the most popular destination for Australians was the UK: Nick Cave, Kylie Minogue, Lisa Gerrard (of Dead Can Dance fame) and many others moved up there.
You rely heavily on Australia for both blockbuster and character actors. If they aren’t already British or Irish or Canadian, they are likely Aussies (or New Zealanders - sometimes seems like you barely have any actors of broad ability who you haven’t imported).
Margot Robbie, Geoffrey Rush, Hugh Jackman, Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, Chris Hemsworth (all three Hemsworths!), Toni Collette, Hugo Weaving, Eric Bana, Rose Byrne, Naomi Watts, Simon Baker, Judy Davis, Anthony and Jonathan LaPaglia, Poppy Montgomery, Rachel Griffiths, Miranda Otto, Portia De Rossi, Jacob Elordi… the list goes on and on and on (and includes the late Heath Ledger and Errol Flynn). These are just the easiest ones to name!
Directors: absolutely loads of them actually but notably Baz Lurhmann, Peter Weir, Bruce Beresford.
Films: Mad Max series, Gallipoli, Dead Calm, Muriel’s Wedding, Priscilla Queen of The Desert, Walkabout, Picnic At Hanging Rock, Sirens, The Piano, Rabbit Proof Fence, Lantana, Moulin Rouge, The Babadook, Daybreakers, The Great Gatsby. (Baz Lurhmann obviously ranks high here)
Again just the easiest ones.
(Also if you have never seen it: Mary & Max. Thank me later)
Also: Bluey!!!!
Now stop making me defend Australians, I’m British. There’s a rivalry to maintain here for both our sakes.
>Pom >Almost but not quite able to finish the post without whinging.
Checks out.
^^ spot the bogan ;-)
No grasp of when to quit while you're ahead.
If I'd wanted to score a negative point I would have listed the trans-national bigot Mel Gibson (only American by birth) along with Mad Max.
(Though that reminds me — in the films list I forgot to mention his debut film Tim, which is a lovely film that definitely had a US distribution and a US co-star)
> "Men at Work"
I was confused for a little while:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_at_Work_(1990_film)
I think it might be https://youtu.be/XfR9iY5y94s
Holden, truly an incredible brand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Ute
Oh nice! I follow automotive youtube, and Tavarish recently worked on one of those: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfR9iY5y94s
found the bogan
Don't forget Bluey :)
(which like most good Australian innovations only became global when it was licensed to another country, in Bluey's case the BBC/UK)
US Childrens television is full of Commonwealth media. TVO in Ontario is an absolute childrens media powerhouse.
This cultural sharing and integration has been a massive strength, and I'm horrified that we have people that want to throw it away.
Re autos, IIRC Holden shut down in the late 2000s. But the Australian economy (and Canadian, for that matter) is just houses and holes.
Canada’s tech, finance, agriculture, and energy industries would like a word.
We prefer rocks and reef tours thank you.
Trump.
Also the GOP. They stopped being "conservative" a long time ago and became performative terrorists.
Australia's alignment with the US was a major consequence of World War 2 and the aftermath of that.
Pre WW2 we were basically in lockstep with the UK. However after Singapore fell to the Japanese it became increasingly obvious that the UK could not be relied upon to defend Australia. At the time most of the elite Australian troops were fighting in North Africa (El-Alamein, Tobruk etc). and there was a genuine perceived threat that Australia could be invaded. PNG which was Australian territory at the time was invaded. The Japanese bombing of Darwin only intensified this.
Almost overnight our foreign policy swung behind the US instead. Post WW2 this led to things like the ANZUS Treaty. It is the reason there are US military bases in Australia and the reason why we have followed the US into all of their wars which we arguably had no business involving ourselves in (Vietnam, Iraq etc.).
Personally I feel the recent actions of the US are not beneficial to Australia's interests at all. Trump has squandered an awful lot of accumulated goodwill already, even if another government is elected in US a lot of damage has already been done.
I've been thinking the silver lining of the current situation is that we'll be less inclined to send troops to aid US in their latest Middle East boondoggle, in the expectation of reciprocation in the future.
In other online spaces, I've seen some conservative commenters from the US asserting that America is so powerful, the rest of the world has no choice but to go along with them, and therefore there is no need to maintain good relationships and the US should do what most immediately benefits itself at all times. Certainly, there are some areas where we simply have to play along with the US, but I think they are underestimating the amount of things where they will no longer be our first choice to deal with.
The problem with deciding you're so powerful you can force everyone to follow you is you actually have to force everyone to follow you and it turns out that's super expensive and costs you a lot of power in terms of committed assets to do it.
>Almost overnight our foreign policy swung behind the US instead.
We still had dual citizen brits running government departments making pro UK decisions until like the 70s or 80s. The UK/US have sort of shared us until the 90s. We let the poms nuke SA.
I'm surprised - aren't AU & NZ super close culturally and aligned politically? I would have thought the US, CA, et al would be vying for a distant second.
NZ is always the correct answer but is rarely given because it's taken for granted.
If they'd only just admit they didn't invent Pavlova, it would definitely be obvious. But the Kiwis are a stubborn bunch...
Not need to claim you didn't invent it when you did.
Not only close, but NZ was originally slated to join Australia and is indeed named in the original Australian Constitution (that created federation) as one of the original 7 states.
NZ isn't big enough to think about. Don't tell them because they get very upset.
Australians and New Zelalanders don't need a visa to travel either way.
In NZ, I approached the immigration desk with my American partner at the time, they stamped her passport with a visa but said to me I didn't need one.
Not just travel. Australians can live, work and own real estate there last I checked
As an American, I identify more with European culture compared to 10 years ago.
The election of MAGA ten years ago changed US culture in strange ways.
New Zealand and Canada felt the same way in some respects. Move on and become stronger countries.
As an American, because of Trump's actions, I identify more with "European" culture and feel I am a stranger in my own land.
As a German guy who backpacked through Australia for a while when I was studying the drinking culture definitely made you guys seem European I can you tell you that much, I didn't feel far from home
Having spent a lot of time in the UK, EU and US, I feel Sydney is way more like California than say London or European cities, in terms of living, shopping and culture. Even things from the US are coming here, like the growth of Halloween.
If you walk into a shop, the US is much more like Australia in terms of service and attitude (even though retail staff are paid vastly differently).
I always thought this was due to TV and Australia having remote branches of many US retail chains.
Outside of California, it's similar but diverges a lot in areas like socialism. In the recent 20 years Australia has pretty much become more like the EU in terms of socialism.
I agree. Since moving back from California a decade ago, Australia has felt more and more American.
Big cars, the slow incursion of American sports, more American brands popping up (including Starbucks actually getting a foothold), Gen-Z using American terms like math and trash, and a rise in the “screw you” style of American individualism.
I don’t think any of this is making Australia a better place to live.
> Even things from the US are coming here, like the growth of Halloween.
Halloween is nearly 100% Irish/Scottish. The only American contributions are using a pumpkin, and sometimes holding it in a parking lot.
I've always felt that Australia felt like a British version of California. Though California is itself a bit exceptional in the context of America. The two places have a lot in common though - not withstanding the fact that everyone drives on the wrong side of the road and uses different power cables.
Brisbane is like Miami if it was full of British people. (Except richer and with sunburns.)
Melbourne is like Seattle if… actually it's literally just Seattle except they think they invented it.
But you can bend the pins of the power cables and make them fit. :)
True. You can also drive on the right side down there, but the police are quite stuffy about it.
Well, socialism died out in Europe around 1989. When the iron curtain fell. Currently there is not a single country that has socialism in it's constitution. In the EU, but also in exactly zero non-EU european countries.
To educate: socialism has nothing to with how influence the execute or legislative has. Nor has it anything to do with health insurance.
The central point of the ideology called "socialism" is that control of the state (not of private owners) over the "means of production". Like capital, land, workforce. To gain this control, socialism is keen to use force. They call it e.g. "dictatorship of the proletariat". Usually this leads to heavy oppression of the people, to some sort of police state. If you look at any real socialist country (like GDR, USSR, Yugoslavia, Cuba, North Korea) you'll always find it to some sort. Even in today's China the banks are still under government control, so "the party" has the ultimate say in everything.
You usage of "socialism" doesn't fit that at all. Perhaps you meant something that isn't fully libertarian?
My guess is the US people are badly educated these days. And thus easily influenced with false factoids coming from libertarian oligarchs like the Koch brothers.
And also it seems like they never heard about "social market economy" ... I mean, there is a spectrum between a fully socialist country like e.g. North Korea and a fully capitalist like ... actually we don't have one that is purely capitalist. Not even in the USA does the "market regulates everything".
And also I think that quite a few people never pondered about the idea that there are two words ("social" and "socialism") for a reason.
The irony of this post is truly off the scale.
The term socialism wasn't defined by Marx. That's the heart of why you don't understand the definition of that word. There are a half dozen different branches with different definitions, all of which predate Marx. The only reason that you think that is that Lenin made him famous. But you can have socialism without any of the things you mention. It still doesn't work but its different. Think Finland in the 1970s or Sweden in the 1980s. Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions. They also don't work.
PS Now a serious question, do you think your country is worth defending? If not, why should another country think it is?
> Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions.
... Er, no, Britain is not a socialist society by its own definitions, or anyone else's (unless you want to stretch the term so far that it encompasses Labour's fairly minimal social democracy, but at that point the term is becoming almost meaningless). Where are you getting that?
> The central point of the ideology called "socialism" is that control of the state (not of private owners) over the "means of production".
> Usually this leads to heavy oppression of the people, to some sort of police state.
And EU are doing all of that (through bureaucratic regulations and control over the media).
> there is not a single country that has socialism in it's constitution
But it matters what it is in a political reality, not what has been write down in some papers.
As an American, I hope you can identify strongly as an Australian. Why bother telling yourself you’re something of a European?
In any case, I hope countries form ties with Europe. Europe needs be economically stronger than it is. Better for the world, so long as they can slow their tendencies toward government control and censorship.
FYI I don’t think anyone is accepting American critique on government control and censorship right now. Maybe leave it for a decade or two.
MAGA wishes it had the control over industries and speech that European governments have. Give me a break
It's, ah, not that simple. So for instance, on speech, see things like https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/20/texas-ken-paxton-elo... .
In the US, some states are politically... out there (Ken Paxton there, you almost wouldn't believe he existed, he's like a caricature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton#Legal_issues). And they can have an impact over the whole union; in this case, a DC journalism non-profit has to take this nonsnse seriously, and had to spend resources defending itself.
In the EU, some countries are politically... out there. For instance, see Hungary, particularly before they managed to dump Orban. But media organisations in, say, Denmark, don't really have to care at all about what Hungary thinks about their reporting; the sort of interstate anti-speech lawfare above simply doesn't really happen in Europe.
I mean — Brendan Carr seems to be able to bully the TV industry pretty successfully on behalf of MAGA. Trump shakes down businesses for a government cut — Intel for example. You are deporting foreigners based on their opinions. Trump shook down most of the major law firms for pro-bono work based only on a false perception of his mistreatment. He's pursued and pretty successfully harassed major universities into various forms of consent decree. People lost their jobs for exercising their free speech over Charlie Kirk (most of whom did not really see any kind of restoration). Trump extracted settlements from major news networks for content he didn't like based on his own fantasy misunderstanding.
The list goes on and on and on — Europe as a whole does not act in this thuggish, extrajudicial, capricious way.
People identify with other places, people, policies, and cultures — along with their own, or wherever they're originally from. Sometimes they don't even identify with their own, or say, feel alienated. It's perfectly fine, and in fact a very healthy state of being.
But there's whole communities of Americans who identify as Irish, or Anglo-Saxon, or whatever.
The civil national identity is wasting away. I'm less and less inclined to call myself Australian, as opposed to English, because Australia now is for everybody. An Australian doesn't even mean a funny accent anymore. It doesn't mean anything.
You're native American or why do you say something like this?
Censorship? Do you mean the fact that we hold platforms accountable if they post hate speech or misinformation, or is this something else?
> Censorship? You mean when we censor people for speech we don't like?
uh, yeah.
Speech inciting hatred, violence, or plain misinformation is harmful and so should be illegal or restricted.
Cool idea, feel free to run your police state of a country that way.
I'll continue enjoying my 1st and 2nd amendments though.
I like the small % of nutcases in my country. We also consider disinformation a national security threat. That way a foreign adversary cannot push the public into voting for an incompetent, ignorant and arrogant criminal narcissist. I don't want my country to turn into an idiocracy.
And concerning your 2nd amendment, I also own guns. The difference is that only sane, non-violent people can have guns in my country, and crazy people not. You know, crazy people that would take their guns to schools and start shooting.
Enjoy your freedom!
What a weird thing that we ever felt this way as our way of living has nothing in coming with Americans (except for big trucks driving through empty lands).
Our labour laws, minimum wage, holidays, our Medicare system etc etc is a lot more socialist European than megacorporist American
I don't believe that. Can you find this survey you were talking about?
Basic web search for “australia survey closest international friend” returned https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australias-best-friend...
Right, so the US had a high of 35% and then dropped and has never been higher than that.
I just wanted to check the OPs survey because it could have been something different i.e.: that supports the claim
This may be partially why the US dispatched the LA Rams and the SF 49ers. Even though McDonald's has hundreds of US bases in Australia, the corp lacks a rushing and passing game. I don't see the NFL being successful there, but time will tell. Interesting note, in SE Asia, I watch NFL commentators based in the UK. It's strange seeing NFL talk with a British accent. And TIL. I always thought the Hungry Jack's was a Burger King knockoff, but apparently it's actually Burger King with a different name.
It is an interesting position we are in here, I suspect we will do the usual thing and walk the middle road. Australia, is part of the Commonwealth, huge trade partner with Asia and allies with the US. Why not throw Canada into the mix some more.
This setup is why I call this place an equal opportunist whore. If we can do business with you, we will. I also call it the worlds largest Mining town, but that just acknowledging the reality of the place a little.
As much as many are going against the US, I don't think there is much constitution at the top here to make such a bold move. We will just be pottering around down here hoping all the bad stuff passes us by as nobody notices us.
I'm Australian and am increasingly ok with this approach. I'm growing slowly out of a protectionist mindset, toward one of cautious, and considered collaboration. Singapore follows this approach and it has worked well for them so far.
I've never really understood the protectionist mindset. It kinda only makes sense to me as a fading shadow of WWII paranoia. The invasion of Australia by a foreign adversary has never been something I've worried about (but, maybe, that's _because_ of the alignment with the US). I've also struggled with the practical logistics of it.
100%. The only conceivable threat of invasion would be China, and they can just buy Australian resources [0] for far cheaper than it would cost them to invade us.
I don't understand who the cookers think we're defending against.
[0] https://shunculture.com/article/what-australian-companies-ar... it's about 2% in 2025
It is said that if you are resource rich it is best to sell your resources to others than to hoard them even if you sell them basically at cost.
It is better to have an economic alliance than a potential enemy.
Singapore is a city, Australia is a continent. Singapore is a poor analog for pretty much every other country. It was founded precisely because it sits near a busy sea route. It makes sense for Singapore to be very open to trade. That does not mean it works for Australia.
(I'm not arguing that the reverse is true, just that Singapore proves nothing.)
What do you reckon would work well for Aus?
its not just a city
its an island and a country on it's own.
but its posistioning is relevent yes.
You'd be surprised at how many equal opportunist whores there are on earth. These are the countries that I believe Mark Carney referred to when he said "middle powers".
It is simply the most rational choice for countries who wish to thrive to play all sides, taking none and survive the disruptions.
Carney saying 'middle powers' really is the most polite way of saying this.
India does the same. They try to be friendly (or at least on business terms) with as many countries as they can and stay out of global conflicts as much as possible. They were buying oil from Russia well after the Russia-Ukraine war started. It also worked well for India as they were able to get rock bottom prices.
From a purely economic standpoint, this would make sense. Not sure what to feel about the ethics of it though - at least part of the Russian war bill was footed by the money India paid for Russian oil. One can argue the Ukraine's problems are not India's problems. One could also argue it would be nice to not fund shitty wars, even a little, even indirectly.
Geopolitics is a complex subject I suppose, for a layman like me.
> at least part of the Russian war bill was footed by the money India paid for Russian oil
It's weird India gets held to this standard. Don't European countries still buy some natural gas from Russia?
Russian natgas is laundered through third parties, whereas India is laundering Russian oil. Not saying I support any of these sanctions or tariffs, but India is making bank selling Russian oil to Europe right now, so there is going to be some political blowback. Malaysia also.
> India is making bank selling Russian oil to Europe
So...Europe is buying Russian oil and gas? Bit counterproductive, no?
> Geopolitics is a complex subject I suppose, for a layman like me.
It helps to be familiar with realism in international relations theory starting with Machiavelli and Hobbes, and postwar realism which developed over the Cold War. The ethics have been debated for centuries and the mainstream interpretation is that leaders have a fiduciary obligation to the population they are responsible for, which fundamentally changes ethical considerations.
It’s a completely different moral question when you’re responsible for a billion people, many of whom may suffer or die due to the cost of fuel. It is in principle a violation against their own people for Indian leaders to prioritize Ukraine’s people over their own.
Russian crude made up 35-40% of India's oil imports in 2024. I'm sure it is not much different at present. Although a bill just passed through congress that will allow Trump to put up to a 100% Tariff on Indian imports.
It's 2026 now, and their oil production has dropped 28% due in the last month, they stopped exports (at least temporarily) and were buying oil from Turkiye and Kazakhstan, military police are stationed at fuel stations and people are fleeing crimea due to no fuel and other conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4zI_oNsdgg
With the strait of Hormuz closed, Russia now accounts for more than 50% of India's oil imports. If the tariffs work, the strategic petroleum reserves of the rich countries will deplete even faster, and when the reserves are gone, those rich countries will pay more for non-Russian oil than India can, so India is going to eventually have to buy the Russian oil and take the tariff hit.
But there's also no fundamental need for a bold move either. Country relationships are almost entirely based on trade. It's 'nice' when there are ideology and policy overlaps, but they would get overlooked if there were serious trade disputes (although it's less likely to happen as it's easier to form trade agreements with the like-minded).
The relationship with the US is deteriorating entirely due to trade. The Iran war is an example of this because it completely fucks international and internal logistics. I don't think Australia, politically, cares if the US bomb Iran or even commit war crimes there, but the fact it affects trade (via oil prices and all the ripple effects of that) is the reason for at least preparation of an 'exit relationship' stance (and, of course, the other trade circus sideshows Trump is putting on, vis a vis tariffs).
I'm not sure Australia does much trade with Russia, hence Australia can support Ukraine until the cows come home, without risking trade margins.
Which is exactly the sensible plan.
I want a government which does the cost effective thing, not one which tries to make statements with bold headlines.
I want boring government policy which sensibly hedges against future risk in correct appreciation of our unbelievably fortunate geopolitical luck.
Just to be clear on this - Australia is primarily interested in methods of reducing trade barriers, not any sort of political union.
Australia is economically served well by free trade: most of its production is low cost, high quality primary production of mining outputs and agricultural goods (grains, wool and meat) where if price and quality are the primary selection criteria it wins.
The downside of this is that Australia hasn't really got any significant manufacturing or advanced technology industry.
But it has made Australia one of the best performing economies of the past 25 years.
A big part of what makes Australia a better performing economy is maintaining high population growth rate of 1.5%, mostly through immigration.
Has had implications on housing affordability, but it's great for GDP statistics.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/aus...
>Has had implications on housing affordability, but it's great for GDP statistics.
Which high performing economy DOESN'T struggle with housing affordability?
>mostly through immigration
*SKILLED immigration
Not really. Australia is very lax when it comes to bringing in dependents, who outnumber skilled migrants themselves. We also have an oversupply of technically skilled people, with nothing for them to work on, because we got rid of all of our industry. High energy prices and wages means that you'll struggle to get anything that isn't finance, gambling, or real estate related off the ground. I guess defense is the other option, and it's essentially the only game in town if you want to do something hardware related.
I'm one of the lucky few who ended up in a job that really does exercise my technical training, and a big factor in that was COVID shutting the borders and me getting my foot in the door. That one event meant someone was willing to take a shot on me, and I got put in the hot seat and got time next to very senior software engineers, which changed the trajectory of my career. They got something out of it, too, as it turned out that I really was the right guy for that job.
There are currently 3 million temporary visa holders in the country, roughly 10% of the population. Australia also has a birth rate that is below replacement. All of those people need a place to stay, and if a population twice the size of Adelaide were to disappear tomorrow, we'd immediately go into a housing surplus. In fact, you wouldn't be able to get a loan for a house from the bank, because they're not in the business of investing in falling markets. Which is to say, the housing crisis here is entirely by design. It has been engineered by both sides of government for more than two decades, and is primarily kept afloat by our world beating migration rate. It has to end.
> There are currently 3 million temporary visa holders in the country,
It's pretty important to realise that this includes student visas (600K - and education is a major earner for Australia) and graduate visas (200K) and 700K New Zealanders (who have their own special temporary class).
There are also 250K working holiday visas (ie backpackers).
Yes, the largest chunk is students. In fact, ~6% of all international students in the world attend Australian universities, making it the largest per-capita destination for international students by a significant margin. They still require housing, and they still have working rights. Fake students coming over to work without ever attending a class is a well-known rort.
The single biggest justification for our high migration setting (among the highest in the OECD) is ostensibly for skills we need to keep the economy afloat. I've yet to see a skills shortage closed by migration. And of course, skilled migrants are one of the smaller cohorts in our net intake -- we actually bring in more dependents than we do skilled workers.
The high performing economies that didn't make it illegal to build are high performing because of that.
This is why the highest standard of living on the planet, with the highest GDP over the largest population... is in Texas.
The fact the people there aren't pathologically conservative/authoritarian in the "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" sense is the precise reason why that is.
Texas has the world's high standard of living?
I don't know what metric you're using, but it ranks 37th of the 50 states just behind Arizona on the Human Development Index which ranks health, education, income. Texas at 0.917 is above the EU average (0.915) but below many others including the top Iceland (0.972), Norway (0.970), Australia (0.958), Canada (0.939), Japan (0.925) and the US as a whole (0.938)
So while Texas is indeed the wealthiest per GDP per capital (using your "over the largest population" filter) ($91,594 / 31.71M pop), it has a much lower HDI than countries with much lower GDP per capita, like Japan ($35,973 / 123.29M pop). In other words Texas out-earns Australia per head by 38% but trails it by 0.041 on HDI
HDI uses the log of income, so extra dollars count for less, and Texas lags on the life expectancy and schooling components.
For example, if we take the life expectancy in isolation to see the dragging metric, Texas is ranked 46th in the world at 79.1 years (2022 data), just behind 45th Estonia at 79.3 years (2024 data), but a long way behind 6th Australia (84.1 years) and 3rd Japan (84.9 years).
(edit: I used Japan as illustrative of a large population with a low GDP per capital to highlight that GDP isn't everything, and Australia as that's the country of question in this tread)
Per capita GDP is falling with every new migrant. I don't think it's the kind of GDP growth anyone wants to have.
This isn't really right.
GDP per capita is mostly static since a large increase pre-COVID during the explosive China growth years 2005-2020.
Most variations since are exchange rate variations more than actual changes in GPD vs population (GDP is usually denominated in USD)[1],[2]
Low GPD per capita is definitely NOT correlated with high migration, which decreased in the years GPD per population decreased[3]
If anything low migration is inversely correlated with higher GDP over the last 25 years: high immigration is correlated with higher GPD per capita - but I don't think one should draw a causal link here: the cause of GDP growth in AUstralia is generally accepted as increased raw material exports to China, and that has led to higher employment.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-per-capita
[3] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/aus...
For skilled immigration, this is highly unlikely to be the case.
While some are indeed highly skilled and earn well, many are skilled only on paper and end up driving Ubers. Also in the recent past many of the skilled migrants were for low-paid occupations like chefs.
> Just to be clear on this - Australia is primarily interested in methods of reducing trade barriers, not any sort of political union.
So, at a certain point, that gets fuzzy. The EU and Australia already have a free trade agreement which will remove essentially all tariffs when it goes into operation. But selling stuff from Australia to, say, Belgium will still be more difficult than selling stuff from Spain to Belgium due to lack of regulatory alignment. And regulatory alignment is political.
The Australian government has always taken "great interest" in what Canada does in regards to policy - they practically copy Canada all the time, even my Economics lecturer made a point about this. This isn't news.
Australia also has a huge problem with exports. For decades, China had huge demand for Australia's resources, particularly Iron Ore. However China is reducing this, so Australia needs a new plan.
There are many obvious differences, but Canada and Australia share many characteristics and I find myself comparing to Aussies. Similar population, massive landmass, population mostly contained in narrow stripes at the edges, ex UK colony, middle power, etc..
you might be overstating the problem. for sure there's overreliance on China which is decreasing slightly (1-3% from what I remember), but Australian exports are still increasing because of the US, India, Japan and many others
They should resurrect the Commonwealth into a stronger union of sorts instead of just playing sports every four years.
Be deeply ironic if USA revives the British Empire.
I'm guessing Canada and Australia would go for an EFTA 'lite' type deal. As EFTA doesn't require a customs union it's probably the easiest to implement and build up from.
I think they amended EFTA to require free movement which was a no-op as all the EFTA countries had free movement with the EU. I could see the EU agreeing to a NAFTA style workers visa if they really wanted push the freedom of movement side hence the 'lite' bit.
If .ca and .au did arrange free movement in and out of the EU (and with each other?), that would really be the cherry on the Brexit cake.
canada already has CETA for EU trade and CEFTA for trade with the EFTA. it seems like "associate membership" must mean something that goes beyond just a free trade agreement, because that already exists.
And not all EU members have ratified CETA either, so I'm not sure why everyone's getting their hopes up about "associate membership", whatever that is (it's not defined in the EU treaties). They can't even fully ratify a trade deal after almost a decade.
This seems like a careful way to send a message to US Congress about what they're enabling.
Australia is blessed with quite the spineless government at the moment. I doubt very much that they would be doing anything (at all actually) as concrete as forging deeper ties with Europe - at least at the expense of the US. After all, it wasn't so long ago that Australia handed the US $800 million of its citizen's hard-earned for submarines that might not ever get built within an alliance that looks increasingly one-sided.
Yep, pretty disappointed with our current government, they're not listening at all to the population, just lobbyists and those with $10k for a dinner with the PM. And ON is certainly not the solution either, despite many thinking it is.
To avoid the comming massive risk to human life from climate disruption, I think there needs to be an Australasian / ASEAN open boarder arangement like the schengen area.
Do it. Make it less embarrassing for UK to come back too somehow.
Also, speaking as Brit, Australia and Canada getting involved might increase the argument for it being about trade and maybe travel and less about political integration, which the UK was never very keen on.
Australia and New Zealand should definitely do so. If they haven’t figured it out after a year and 3/4 they never will.
Like ordering the submarines from France... again?
At least there's a chance those ones might actually turn up. They'll still be useless, but at least we'd actually have them.
The Trump admin will be 2 years out of office by the time the Virginia deliveries are slated to start.
If America goes fully fascist by then, then the wisdom of that contract will be the least of our problems (or to put it another way: what's the alternative? Because if you're serious about the threat it's "crash course nuclear weapons and a delivery vehicle" if you want to guarantee our sovereignty).
Hope this means less friction for EU/AU tech companies. Navigating different privacy laws is a pain.
That's a brilliant move by von der Leyen and Mark Carney (I guess he's in on it as well).
There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.
Just calling it a "unique alliance" or "deepening of their relationship" wouldn't have had such a public effect.
Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.
Trump even said when the Canada joins the EU as associate member, it could be considered a hostile act.
All that for a status nobody knows yet what it will entail. More than a simple trade deal, for sure, but also a lot less than a proper membership.
> There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.
See perhaps Article 217 of TFEU:
> The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_217/oj/en...
An article going into it:
> Association is already an established form of EU external relations. The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Morocco entered into force on March 1, 2000. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement entered fully into force on September 1, 2017. Their substantive commitments and institutional structures differ, reflecting the relationships negotiated by the respective parties (Council of the European Union, 2000; European External Action Service, 2017).
> Article 217 does not prescribe a uniform degree of integration. Depending on its provisions, an association agreement may establish economic commitments, regulatory cooperation, joint institutions, and procedures for implementing shared objectives. The associated country's rights arise from the agreement rather than from a standardized legal status conferred by Article 217 itself.
* https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/canada-eu-associate-mem... §3
While there isn't an official "associate member" status, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland all have custom deals with the EU so this just codifies what already exists in an ad-hoc form.
The only bit the EU is rowing back is that they mentioned during BRExit that there would be no more custom deals so this simply a case of the realpolitik winning out.
I'm sure the UK will be looking at this very carefully as well.
You forgot Turkey as well. Yes, the EU is open in general for specific treaties. If possible they want to do broad treaties (see the EEA). But Switzerland is almost as big a partner as the UK. If it is big enough, they'll do custom deal.
There is not much trade with Canada at the moment but with some special treaties this might change.
Then there's the political edge to this "associate member" status and if it can work as a blueprint for more countries, they'll certainly will be open to do it.
> The only bit the EU is rowing back is that they mentioned during BRExit that there would be no more custom deals so this simply a case of the realpolitik winning out.
This isn't _really_ what they said. In practice, if the UK wanted similar status to Norway, it could have had it. The EU is cautious of specifically the Switzerland situation, which is a huge complex mess of treaties.
to be fair until we know what associate member means, there might not be any contradiction to the UK position
There is this Venn diagram[1]. Canada could shift into the Council of Europe like Georgia or join Schengen with an independent currency like the Swiss. The latter would be a nice arrangement for Canadian passport holders.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...
Canada doesn't share a land border with any Schengen countries, so I'm not sure how valuable passport-free travel would be - you're already taking a transatlantic flight, it's not like passport control is a huge additional hassle.
However, I could see a big argument for a labour mobility agreement similar to the NAFTA model, where EU citizens in a long list of professions have the right to work in Canada and vice-versa.
It says a lot psychologically to take a 'domestic' flight instead though, gives people more of a sense of togetherness
The Council of Europe is strictly speaking not an EU thing at all, though all EU countries are required to be members of the Council of Europe, and, confusingly, they share a flag. The UK is still a member of the Council of Europe, for instance, as was _Russia_ until 2022.
Schengen doesn't have anything to do with currency. You might have been mistaken it with the European Economic Area?
Consent makes all the difference. Trump's talk of forcing Canada to become the 51st state via economic pressure stiffened the spines of Canadians and made it impossible for the Carney government to accept the same sort of deal other countries were getting. At the same time, it made closer relations with Europe look like a solution.
The reality is that the joining the EU as full members involves too great a sacrifice of sovereignty for middle powers like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.. Brussels is too far away and the EU itself barely functions with the members it already has. There is, however, broad will among middle powers to work together more closely than they do now. This associate EU member thing needs to strike a balance where countries who join it can cooperate and contribute without feeling like the EU is becoming another U.S..
> Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.
I mean, it's a very, very different type of offer.
You understand this. I understand this.
But MAGA people are going the full emotional breakdown "why don't you love us anymore?!?".
I believe this will turn around. The mood is a sign of the times and the general dislike of the man in the White House.
But he won't be there forever yet Canada will always be the U.S.' Northern neighbor, biggest trading partner and cultural big brother.
Carney is simply looking elsewhere for friends after being insulted by Trump who treats him like a subordinate and not someone of equal standing. He may even be foolish enough to cozy up to China.
As for Australia, I don't understand the vibe here. Trump hasn't mentioned Australia becoming a U.S. territory in any speeches I've heard. Again, maybe it's a general dislike for the man and his roughshod policies.
The trouble is, Pandora's box has been opened. It turns out that the president of the US can act like a crazy post-Soviet-style dictator, and that the mechanisms which are supposed to prevent that are simply not fit for purpose. Even if in 2028 the US elects the most sensible, rule-of-law-oriented president imaginable, allies will still have to look to 2032. Fixing the problem would require constitutional change, which in the US is virtually impossible.
The powers granted to the U.S. President are meant to be used in times of war or situations that threatens the security of the United States. Trump is using it nilly-willy for just about everything. It will, however, be difficult to come up with a law that would put a stop to this without harming the Executive Branch's effectiveness in a time of need.
But so far I'm pretty satisfied how Congress and the judiciary are putting reins on his powers. He recently threatened to halt all trade with Europe over Canada's associate EU membership. There's no way he can do that. Congress would step in.
I don't know why you think Congress would step in. Perhaps if they had Democratic majorities in both houses, but so far they have been pretty steadfast in refusing to curtail any of his moves so far.
> But so far I'm pretty satisfied how Congress and the judiciary are putting reins on his powers. He recently threatened to halt all trade with Europe over Canada's associate EU membership. There's no way he can do that. Congress would step in.
Would it? It didn't step in on the tariffs; that had to wait on extremely slow Supreme Court action, and he went right back to attempting them by other means.
As far as I can see almost nothing he's done in his second term has been subject to timely oversight (it was a bit different in his first, where the judiciary _did_ shut some of the most batshit stuff down quickly).
Trump isn't going to mess with Australia.
Fox News is owned by a guy who grew up in Australia.
I love Australia. Amazing country. Great people. I'd move back in an instant if given the opportunity. As an American, I always felt welcome there, but haven't been there since 2016. It'll be interesting seeing how attitudes have changed when I'm back visiting in 2028.
Basically the same. We love seppoes as people [0]. It's just the government we're annoyed at.
[0] though if you could learn to moderate your voices in public spaces, that would be great.
ill swap places with you, if you like, lol
Ok! Why aren't citizenship swaps allowed?
The current government seems to be quite determined to pretend our British heritage isn't a large and important part of us. I don't understand it.
It's because the British heritage involved committing huge crimes against the indigenous folks that we haven't really acknowledged and haven't dealt with. We can't move on until we do. So we're kinda stuck.
I think it's fairly well acknowledged, but there is no 'dealt with' that fits into any kind of reality I'm familiar with.
My purely observational understanding is that there are fundamental incompatibilities between aboriginal and 'western/British' culture. "Ownership" of land as probably the primary example. I don't know how that gets 'dealt with'.
I don’t know the discussion in Australia, but in Alaska (also having an indigenous population with land ownership) they found solutions. Regional “native corporations” were given large amounts of valuable land, natives were given preferential resource rights (fishing, etc).
Not everything is perfect (far from it), but a lot has been done.
Yeah, other ex-British colonies with similar problems are doing great work in reconciling their differences. We could learn from them.
I think in Alaska it helps that the natives have enough votes to be politically relevant.
I think Australia is a great country and Australians should be proud of our British heritage, institutions and culture. I don't think that's incompatible with reparations or whatever you have in mind for the Aboriginals.
That doesn't feel like a topic that impacts trade/mobility deals at the international level
Yeah true to an extent, but that wasn't what the parent was talking about. There's a huge ongoing discussion about Australia's national identity, most recently fuelled by the rise of Australia's home-grown MAGA mob, One Nation.
If they get their way (though there's a lot of doubt whether, similar to UK's Reform, this is all just talk and if they ever get into power they'll just feed the rich, like Trump did), they'll sever trade connections with Asia and strengthen ties with the US and EU, because racism.
So there is some connection to trade policy.
As an Australian, I don't think our 'heritage' is of much consequence. Current constituency and overall stability matter more, to me.
If you mean 'our British heritage' as in, the percentage of the Australian population with British backgrounds, then that counts towards 'current constituency' in my definition.
This is unfair to the aboriginals, however, and that's a circle I believe is impossible to square.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49712186
As yes, I was wondering when my Federal government’s sense of FOMO would compel it to needlessly yap into the void like anybody cares. I see today was the day.
This and Canada are just kneejerk reactions against the chaos of the Trump administration. While that makes sense, my prediction is that in the short-term it won't amount to much. In the long-term, history books will write about these years as redefining the world order that's existed largely since 1945.
As for Canada, nobody really knows what associate membership means. Given that EU freedoms are reciprocal I just don't see this going anywhere. Plus there's been a free trade deal with the EU on the table for a decade that hasn't been ratified.
As for redefining the world order, that's what this war of choice in Iran will amount to. In the short-to-medium term it's going to redefine the Gulf security architecture. The refusal to restrain Israel probably means Russia will swallow the eastern chunk of Ukraine they occupy.
And of course the big winner in all of this is China who have had to do absolutely nothing.
Empires don't die overnight and they die violently. This is going to be bad but I honestly see no way the US can restore its position as the global hegemon. It's influence has peaked. And I don't believe anything will reverse that.
So I don't know what this means for Australia. It has operated essentially as an American colonial outpost since the Cold War. The geography was once much more important to cover the sky for receiving satellite communications.
Selling raw resources is ultimately untenable for an economy (IMHO) but Australia has gone down the path of turning the entire economy into a massive Ponzi scheme of housing, like almost every other developed nation. When housing is the only logical investment, it dominates capital and lending and productive output falls off a cliff, which is exactly what happened.
> This and Canada are just kneejerk reactions against the chaos of the Trump administration.
As a Canadian, I can promise you that this not a "knee jerk reaction".
Replacing TRUMP with a democrat isn't going to solve it. Canadians have realized that relying on United States is a national security risk, hence the government been building larger trader alliances with both EU and China.
Any American thinking that this is just a TRUMP thing is missing the forest for the trees.
We shall see. But Russia's invasion of Ukraine way predates the recent wars in the middle east. It's more like the inability to restrain Russia's aspirations in Ukraine have led to instability in the rest of the world. More generally the failure to sustain a more free and democratic Russia or China is perhaps the source of all the other instabilities which all involve political, military and financial support from the China/Russia axis.
I wouldn't write off the US quite yet but it's definitely more of a multi-polar world with the US and China the major powers vs. the brief single polar world that followed the fall of the USSR. Arguably the quietest and most prosperous period ever, the largest number of people worldwide rising up from poverty etc. We're gonna miss it.
By the summer of 2023 when Ukraine's big counteroffensive had failed my own view was that the situation was stalemated and Russia will wait until the West gets bored or the situation changes and Russia's geopolitical position improves. Russia has that option available to it in a way the West doesn't.
Sanctions in general don't work. They don't work against enemies. Arguably they only work against allies (eg apartheid South Africa). Sanctions were never going to work against Russia and Russia has more manpower to throw at the meat grinder than Ukraine does.
And that changing situation has come to Putin with the Iran War. The US has lost. It has been strategically and militarily defeated by a lesser regional power. It's just a matter of time before it accepts this loss.
Because of attacks from Ukraine on Russian energy infrastructure, Russia has changed from a net diesel exporter to banning diesel exports and arguably being a diesel importer. That's a big problem that we're all about to learn. China too has banned the export of refined petroleum products (including diesel) for months now. Diesel prices are about to go way up and the US is now considering a ban on diesel exports. All this "energy nationalism" is going to torch Europe, Asian economies and South America. Just you wait.
By foolishly attacking Iran, Trump has made Russia's position much stronger. So yes, the Ukraine war predates the Iran war but the Iran war has made the Ukraine war much better for Russia. That's the point.
Or maybe the lesson to Russia is that if the US can't win against Iran how is it going to win against Ukraine? Another angle to look at it is through who does China support (Russia and Iran?).
I think your perspective is interesting and not wrong. The weakness of the US (and the west) is emboldening Putin. I do still think the order of events starts with Russia, China and Iran's challenge the post USSR collapse status quo. In a parallel universe if Russia was able to embrace democracy and become a free country, and if China kept opening up and didn't reverse course, then we wouldn't have the Iran war at all (likely the regime in Iran would have long fallen). The world seemed to be on a course to more freedom, democracy, and prosperity, and less wars, when the Berlin wall fell. And then at some point we went backwards.
As to Putin and Russia it doesn't seem like he has a path to anything that looks like a win. How long he's going to persist is a good question. What is Iran's path forward here is also far from clear. I wouldn't want their sort of "win" myself. It's like Afghanistan's win against Russia maybe. None of these wars have a conclusive win so hopefully a lesson there (to China?) is to think twice before going to another war. Though those lessons seem to be forgotten too quickly.
I am puzzled why do you think the level of democracy in Russia has anything to do with the war in Ukraine. The US being democracy has not stopped them from kidnapping the foreign leader, plundering the country by stripping it of its oil resources and to unleash the war in the Middle East.
Russia had a clear theory of victory for the Ukraine war. It's tiered.
The ideal outcome was to install a puppet regime in Ukraine (like there used to be and is in Belarus). They have failed in this.
Failing that, secure a land bridge to Crimea. If the war ends today, Russia has succeeded in this goal. My estimation is that Putin is waiting for this to happen.
It's hard to get good information on the state of the Ukraine war because there is too much bad information out there. NATO Atlanticists and US imperialists push the narrative that Ukraine is on the verge of winning. Likewise, there's Russian propaganda that Ukraine is about to collapse. Consider this: we've heard that the Russian economy is on the verge of collapse for over 4 years now.
IT's funny that you mention Russia not embracing democracy because the West is responsible for that. When the former Soviet states sought guidance from the West, Western banks and governments simply enabled the looting of the former USSR creating the oligarchs we have today. State industries were sold to friends for a pittance (eg [1]).
Russia's theory of victory is easy: just hold onto eastern Ukraine.
The US has no theory of victory in Iran. None. Iran just has to survive.
[1]: https://cepr.net/publications/the-looting-of-russia/
> Iran war has made the Ukraine war much better for Russia
I think that from a geopolitical perspective it is far more advantageous to let Ukraine lose the war, than to allow a situation in which, in 20 years, Muslims will destroy the world with nuclear weapon.
Putin has the same choices Trump had: face the music or start a new song.
Trump was under pressure about the Epstein files, so he started a war. So far, so normal. It's what politicians do. He thought it would be a simple war, but that turned out not to be true. He's now under pressure from that war, so he's eyeing up Cuba.
Putin was under pressure, so started the Ukraine war. Again, he though it would be a simple quick war, but that turned out not to be true. He's now under pressure from that war, so he's eyeing up Poland.
I'm coming to agree with the folks who think Europe has to actually do more than fight the proxy war in Ukraine. It has to actually hurt Russia for this to resolve. Putin cannot recognise his loss any more than Trump can, so he's just going to continue hurting people.
This hardly seems knee-jerk. Relations with USA has been deteriorating for a while now. At this point, i think most people no longer view this as a trump related fluke but the bew status quo, which is why canada is scrambling for alternatives.
> As for redefining the world order, that's what this war of choice in Iran will amount to. In the short-to-medium term it's going to redefine the Gulf security architecture. The refusal to restrain Israel probably means Russia will swallow the eastern chunk of Ukraine they occupy.
I couldn't disagree more. The cornerstone of American foreign policy in the middle east has been based around Israel for decades now. Despite how much they all hate each other, if the gulf monarchies see USA withdrawing from Israel, they are likely to worry they might be next.
That's not to say i think USA is being smart about the war - they clearly went in half-cocked without a plan or objectives. However totally ignoring the situation would have likely drawn the region into China's hands too.
I'm not sure how you are connecting the war in iran to the middle east. Increased oil prices? The link seems tenous.
Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Australia can sell raw materials anywhere but the Red Sea being closed makes it take longer and be more expensive and who is really going to demand raw materials in Europe when the energy crunch hits? And we're bouldering towards that energy crunch (both natural gas and diesel). One of Australia's biggest competitive advantages in selling raw materials to China has always been relative proximity. Lower shipping times and costs.
Yes, the US has used Israel as a weapon in the Middle East (since ~1967) but what kept Gulf powers in line was the supply of weapons (to prop up unpopular regimes) and the free flow of trade. This war has shown that the US cannot defend its own bases in the Gulf let alone any of its client states (sorry, "allies").
I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era). The quagmire of Afghanistan was a huge factor in the collapse and breakup of the USSR. This isn't like Vietnam, which we could simply walk away from. Iran won and the Israeli state in its current form is doomed.
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Its going to be painful no doubt, but you can do lots of painful things when you don't have a choice. I think its ultimately up to the US if they force the issue.
> I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
Its the middle east, so anything is possible, but i think that is unlikely. Its on friendlier terms now with the gulf monarchies than at any other point in its history. Its big external threats (hezbollah, hamas, iran) took their swing - they did draw blood but they aren't really in a position to do it again. Its not all roses. Israel burned through massive amounts of soft power and is suffering a brain drain due to war, but their geopolitical position seems pretty good on the whole.
That is not to mention long term dynamics with increasing renewable deployments. What does oil market look like in 10-20 years? That alone could potentially reshape the middle east.
I suspect if Israel collapses it will be due to internal conflict. It seems like their political culture is becoming more and more factionalized.
> The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
I dont think we are at the point where that is inevitable. Obviously this isn't going amazing for USA, but still at the end of the day, USA can keep this up for a long time. Its not clear that Iran can.
>So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era)
Hardly. USA is not spending anywhere near as much money and lives as USSR was in Afghanistan. The biggest impact of this conflict is price at the pump and its not even that high. Without that, would the american public even notice?
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
So in 1960, 70% of Ireland's exports went to the UK. By 2000, it was about 25%. It's now about 8%. It's _possible_ to break over dependency on the big neighbour.
Today, 75% of Canada's exports go to the US.
My view would be that this is a very unhealthy situation, and even in the absence of Trump should be something that Canada should be trying to address.
So in 40-66 years Ireland decoupled its economy from the UK? That's a pretty long timeframe.
Also, the two countries have a very different mix of exports. Canada's primary export is probably energy (it's at least top 3). A small part of that is, say, exporting electricity to northern states (eg from Quebec). You can't really send that anywhere else. The rest of that sector is really crude oil. A relatively small amount is exported by port from Vancouver. The rest goes to US refineries via pipelines.
You're talking a decades-long project to send that elsewhere. And for what? Oil is a global commodity. You'd be selling it to someone else and the US would be buying from somewhere else. What have you really achieved?
Canada also produces raw materials and, in particular, lumber. Now this is important for the US construction sector, particularly building houses. So who are you going to sell that to? US and Canada use lumber because it's cheap. In a lot of other places they don't because it's not readily available or there are other factors that disfavor lumber construction.
Another sector is auto parts that go to Big Three auto makers in Michigan. Where's that going to? Particularly with China eating that sector alive. 99% of cars would be Chinese if it wasn't for trade barriers.
Well, I mean, realistically in 50 years oil exports presumably won’t really be a thing anyway. Canada is likely going to need to at least somewhat reorient away from resources.
Obviously decoupling from the US would take time. But the best time to start is now.
Canada is just trying to encourage Europe to invest in Canada which is fine I suppose… all the power to Europeans if they want to invest their money here instead of the US… but I am not holding my breath
What money? Their economic growth is half of the US and with strong headwinds. EU GDP is also smaller than the US by far.
You should read more Krugman. There's a whole argument about this.
Krugman :'D
Why not post a reference to the argument?
Let me Kagi that for you...
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/europe-v-america-whos-rea...
US GDP is mostly imaginary and not tangible. It's dependent on both international respect for intellectual property laws (reason for the anger toward China), and the natural resources of other lands (that have had their governments blamed by the current administration actively misleading US citizens about provenance of what is needed to sustain American life)
Intellectual property laws being recognized, US fiat currency, etc. vs. the hard value of natural resources of these other countries (that the US would prefer to try to annex and loot since the former is not a base you can build on)
When you're deciding on long term trade and economic policy, are you thinking about fabricated valuations of US tech companies, or whether you have energy, minerals, and food supply that have an actual value attached?
GDP is not "imaginary" or "not tangible" anymore than an accounting statement of profit and loss is imaginary. It is a very real thing but you have some subtle approaches about how you measure things like depreciation or what accounting rules you follow. The fact that a lot of people don't understand this stuff doesn't mean it is arbitrary or has no meaning. There are also huge teams of accountants that spend tens of thousands of hours getting these statistics, and their work is much maligned by the smarmy internet posters who think they know better at how to determine profit and loss.
GDP is just national value added, and was developed in the early 20th century and broadly used during the Great Depression to measure economic activity. It is good at what it does. People have taken it to measure military power, wealth, success, happiness, capability to build a specific thing, fertility, etc. That is the fault of people not understanding what GDP is or what it was meant to measure, it's not the fault of the metric itself, or the carefully developed system of accounting conventions that were developed over a hundred years of refinement.
I really think there should be mandatory accountancy training in universal education to get people to understand this stuff. The millions of hours saved in online arguments alone would make this a good investment.
Having said that, the valuation of tech companies is based on market sentiment, not accountancy rules. I don't pretend to understand how many of the companies on the equities exchanges are valued, they all seem to be too pricey for me. That, too, has nothing to do with GDP.
Can I move to Asutralia now... please
Spelling the country's name correctly is one of few prerequisites.
Maybe if Australia created very strong trade ties with Taiwan, we would change the name of the country to Asustralia.
I do believe they were talking about Asutralia, not Asustralia. A common misunderstanding. Taiwan might not need to be involved.
But I want to get to know Raygun and learn her styles.
Global breaking just wasn't ready for interpretive dance ...
FWiW, released last month: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/sep/01/raygun-...
as part of Untold (2021) https://www.thetvdb.com/series/407414-untold/allseasons/offi...