EU should expand to 40 states – including Canada
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Would people in the EU be generally keen on the largest EU country being a not quite white enough Muslim majority country? Would they like EU borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria?
He implies its the threat posed by Russia. The EU is not a military alliance. There is a reasonable argument that Europe needs a military alliance that is not dependent on the US, but the EU is not it.
In many ways enlargement weakens the EU, as does "ever closer union". Both create more internal division. The UK would not have left if the EEC if it had remained the same organisation it was in the 80s.
You do know Eurovision Asia begins this November and was announced as part of the telecast? And that Canada is expected to be part of Eurovision next year?
(Yes, I do know you were making a joke and don't particularly care! ;) )
It would be more natural to add Turkey than Canada, provided that Erdogan dies or otherwise loses power. (At this moment, I don't believe in him losing power peacefully.) At least it is contiguous with Europe and even though majority Islamic, the population isn't fanatic about it and there is a clear cultural continuity with Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus.
Canada as a EU member makes as much sense to me as Australia or Argentina, so much less.
Yes. In fact we would not be the first to call Turkey “Europe”. In ancient Greece they used the name “Europe” to refer to part of Thrace that is now in Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(consort_of_Zeus)#Conti...
I'd take the GDPR burden any day.
I'd take the GDPR burden any day.
And people don't know how GOOD the EU is for warranty. Picture this: you have "costco return" on amazon and for 2 years instead of one. And this is valid for every shop actually.
Of course you would take the GDPR burden. The direct cost isn't to you and the way it extremely negatively affects you isn't directly obvious immediately, it happens slowly over time with much larger effect than you realize. The mechanism is less quality company growth, more large company stagnation, lower pay over your life time and higher taxes because the tax base doesn't grow as much as people choose to develop the next big thing elsewhere and don't create as many competing companies in the other economic areas.
The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to.
Russia is economically tiny. If the EU wanted, they could flood Ukraine with enough firepower to reverse Putin's invasion, even without intervening directly. They don't do that because not all member states agree, and without consensus, the EU cannot act.
In some ways, America is the opposite: it acts before it has consensus. One administration invades Afghanistan; the next one pulls out. One administration signs a treaty with Iran; the next one bombs it. It's the move-fast-and-break-things of foreign policy.
China and Russia are dictatorships. They pursue their interests and they act consistently. Despite their economic disadvantages, they get their way internationally because they are not afraid to act.
As an American, I would rather have a strong EU that sometimes disagrees with us, than a weak EU that cedes the field to China and Russia. But a bigger EU isn't the solution. The EU needs to act as one, or it will become irrelevant.
The difference between “We the people” and “The King of the Belgians + 20 other leaders” is stark: one is united, the other is not.
No one wants Europe to be authoritarian, but it could stand to act more united.
From my perspective, the US has a remarkably consistent foreign policy despite some occasional initial wobbles when a new president comes in (which usually ends up being all or mostly talk). Obama talked about closing Guantanamo Bay and pulling out of Iraq, but he didn't do that, did he? And it was obvious for a long time that Afghanistan was a quagmire. Ultimately, the US only pulled out of Afghanistan two presidents later... conveniently freeing up resources for the big war in Ukraine that had been threatening to start for years, but only somehow really got going once Afghanistan was no longer a major drain on resources.
No, it seems to me that even a president as volatile as Trump is unable to just do what he wishes. I remember how often in his first term he announced and even ordered that the US would leave Iraq, but ultimately that didn't happen, and everyone who buys Iraqi oil still has to pay the US Treasury for it, which then sends some percentage of the money to Iraq, higher or lower depending on how happy they are with the Iraqi government.
The people who run US foreign policy long term seem pretty good at persuading the temporary occupants of the US White House not to do anything "too rash". As for what the methods of persuasion are, who knows? Perhaps they're just very good at making the political case, or maybe there's more to it.
At least in the case of the recent Iran War, there might be "more to it".
Also the US rarely ratifies treaties. There have been six since the year 2000.
Economically, the Soviet Union and China were historically dictatorships, with command economies, but their modern operations are fascist, with the state exercising ownership or control over organizations operating in competitive markets.
What would have been better is if the politicians who started the whole thing to settle party politics didn't bugger off the moment things didn't go their way and instead did a follow up referendum with the options for leaving. I don't necessarily think the eventual deal would have been different, but it would have stopped a lot of the bickering. And maybe have exposed what leaving meant to a greater number of people.
I don't live in the UK any more, but I do enjoy reading the stories along the lines of "I voted for brexit and now my business has gone to shit" of which there are a surprisingly large number. The whole "we didn't want them telling us what to do but didn't think they'd apply rules to us like we weren't in the EU" crowd.
Graph: https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/202...
Article: https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/peter-kellner-an-anti-brexit-m...
As opposed to a 20-ish% lead for Rejoin at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_re-accession_of_the_...
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/15767-final-eve-vote-brexi...
So, despite liking various countries in the EU as places to visit, I have to ask what benefit would Canada get from joining such a structure at this point?