Yes, Canada has a legal path to E.U. membership – but would it want this?

  • The EU requires unanimity among its existing members in order to add a new member. It’s not impossible, but getting Orban to agree to it is, I think, a much bigger stumbling block than the article implies. Any “concessions” Orban demands to accept Canada would themselves have to be unanimously agreed to by existing members.

      • My understanding is no - but a long term suspension might be better anyways, since the effect seems to be that the member state is still forced to comply with EU rules without getting any of the benefits like voting.

        That being said, I wonder if they could suspend Hungary, then have the rest vote and approve an amendment to allow expulsion - which would pass unamiously since Hungary can’t vote against it as it’s suspended, and then they expel Hungary under the new amendment…?

        • It may not be an issue anymore (I don’t recall hearing about it in a while, but I’m not sure how long), but it used to be the case that there were two countries that were often regarded as EU troublemakers, and by working together, even though they didn’t agree much of the time, they could veto any attempts to undermine each other. I think the other troublemaker was Poland, and I think it may have been before their last election, but that’s a lot of unsurity.

          Suspension, fwiw, requires unanimity apart from the country in question, so one single dissenter can prevent it.

    • Orban has to vote for Canada. Why? His regime will be over in 14 days if he does not get the EU money. Orban’s biggest rival is in first place according to the latest polls. If he wants to be re-elected, he cannot sabotage EU policy.

  •  vga   ( @vga@sopuli.xyz ) 
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Sure thing! I hope they drag their old masters in the UK along with them when they arrive. This will stretch the meaning of “Europe” a tad though.

  • I don’t think this is currently possible under the current treaties of the EU. At the very least, there is contention about whether it would be possible. It’s also not really an overnight kind of situation. At the very least, closer ties with the EU are definitely good for the country.

  •  arankays   ( @arankays@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    220 days ago

    Joining the EU would be a massive undertaking that would have pretty big ramifications for our economy. I imagine a lot of companies would flee to the US to avoid all the rules that come with the EU, and that would decimate our economy sadly.

    While I think it would be good in the long term, we’ll have to see what happens with the Orange Fuckhead. If the US descends into a full fascist dictatorship (which let’s be honest, it’s well on its way) then it would be prudent to start the process. If Orange Fuckhead or his cronies don’t get a third term, maybe our relationship can be healed with the US and we can return to normalcy. Hard to say.

    • Why would we want to return to a normal where one guy can wreck our economy. Not to mention, the US will never be the same again. Why the fuck would we want to lash ourselves to an empire that is dying in real time?

      •  arankays   ( @arankays@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        120 days ago

        You misinterpreted. I don’t think we should leash ourselves and be dependent on the US. But we should aim to trade and be friendly with our land bordering countries as that benefits both countries. Obviously we shouldn’t be friendly with them if their values don’t align with us.

        We also need to look inwards and root out the fascists that live among us. There are many traitors. At least 10% of the population are traitors and are sympathetic to the terrorist united states.

        • OK, I don’t disagree with those points.

          The EU would be a massive undertaking, but it removes a vulnerability we have, which is our unfortunate dependence on the United States, which quite frankly, may not exist next year, let alone 10 years from now. Where I disagree is on the need to be friendly. We need not be friendly if they are hostile. We don’t need to be hostile in return, but we shouldn’t endeavour to act like we have in the past. At this point in time, they are a hostile nation engaged in active sabotage against us.

          I’m also not worried about companies fleeing to the US. Firstly, I believe that unless they fix their shit right now, there will not be a US in the near future. Business hates uncertainty, and the stock markets are showing that. The EU has many business that HQ in the EU even under their “stifling” regulations. That would continue to be true for many Canadian businesses especially when those markets open up entirely to them, without the worry of currency imbalance affecting their ability to sell.

  •  Kinperor   ( @Kinperor@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    119 days ago

    I’m not in favor of this.

    We don’t need more super-national institution telling us what to do. I’m on board for good relations and for taking ideas from them, but we need to stop giving power to distant institutions that aren’t truly invested in our success.

    • So. Just cooperation at the provincial level, which we’re excelling at? People cooperate, neighbourhoods, zones, towns, districts, regions, provinces and then no! Stop there! Is that the arbitrary line you’ve drawn?

      •  Kinperor   ( @Kinperor@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        219 days ago

        I don’t know man, the north Atlantic ocean isn’t that arbitrary. I’m just saying that our population has been burned out worrying about super high level stuff that doesn’t impact them as much as neighborhood activism.

        I’m not accusing you of being a trumpist, but Trump literally called the US-Canada border an arbitrary line, so maybe try a different talking point for this topic?