6 ms·

Not outlandish, Morocco applied in 1987 but it was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Membership_application https

Not outlandish, Morocco applied in 1987 but it was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Membership_application https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union...

mardifoufs 2y ago
The difference is that Morocco has a lot to win by joining europe, whereas Canada doesn't.
- skissane 2y ago
  Canadian GDP per capita is 15 times that of Morocco. The EU would much rather admit a wealthy country than a relatively poor one. So there are clear economic reasons to treat the two differently. Canada is a longstanding liberal democracy with a distant and purely symbolic constitutional monarchy. Morocco is a constitutional monarchy in which (until recently at least) the monarch played an active political role, there is still a widespread expectation among the population that he ought to do so, multiparty democracy is young and weak, and security agencies engage in repressive behaviour. [0] So there's political reasons too. If Canada really wanted the EU and the EU really wanted Canada, they'd fudge the whole geography issue–probably won't happen but not completely impossible. But no way the EU is going to want Morocco any time this century, so they won't do it for them. [0] https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing-crisis-of-governance?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing...
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Yes, but why would Canada want the EU? it's just a complete fantasy from the economist, I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US. It makes as much sense as Norway wanting to join NAFTA when most of its trade is in Europe.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US. Reducing the degree of dependency on the US would be one obvious reason.
    - senko 2y ago
      > it's just a complete fantasy from the economist It's par for the course for Charlemagne (the column in The Economist). It's not meant to be an actual realistic analysis and reporting (the way their non-columnist articles are, even if they all have an editorial streak). Mostly it comments on the topic of the week/month in some irreverent way[0], or entertains a modest proposal[1] like this one, in a "ha ha wait a minute" sort of way. [0] https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/19/we-need-to-talk-about-europes-kevins https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/19/we-need-to-talk-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gmueckl 2y ago
The rejection was expected. The EU and its associated organizations are only open to countries on the European continent by their current rules. Canada would have to broker a hell of a deal to get even partially in. EFTA membership might be a possible goal.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > only open to countries on the European continent Cyprus would like to have a word. As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Re: Cyprus, the rule may be being on the same tectonic plate, which AFAICT, Cyprus is (the Eurasian plate).
    - sach1 2y ago
      Canada directly borders France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) so if we ignore dragging in the geologists, that's as good an argument as any.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Canada also directly borders Denmark via Greenland on Hans Island.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        ncruces 2y ago
        Neither Greenland nor St. Pierre et Miquelon are part of the EU (they are “Overseas Countries and Territories”).
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
SllX 2y ago
It’s pretty outlandish. One of the core tenants of EU expansionism and the politics around it is that the applying nations are considered European enough and physically located in Europe in addition to being willing to cooperate with the EU in meeting the general requirements of a member nation. But just because you’re at least partly in Europe isn’t enough in some cases depending on who you are, and this was used in the aughts as a way to defer any potential membership by Turkey (which at least started the process of joining back then) and Russia (something European politicians didn’t want to even consider) by pointing out how much of their territory is in Asia. Morocco’s self-proclaimed justification was that Spain has a couple of cities in Northern Africa wholly surrounded by Moroccan territory, but Morocco still doesn’t make the cut for EU politicians. However the Republic of Cyprus is entirely on continental Asia, not wholly in control of the island it claims as its sovereign territory, but considered “culturally European”, so it got in. Canada is probably more of a Morocco than a Cyprus in this case, not physically in Europe, not even physically proximate to Europe the way at least Cyprus and Morocco are, and probably not considered European-enough. If this all sounds like crazy EU politics, that’s kind of what it is, but in defense of the crazies here, you have to be a bit crazy when you’re trying to build some kind of weird supranational cultural identity in a place like Europe.
- jopsen 2y ago
  Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. Both of these territories are parts of existing EU member nations. I guess with brexit it won't help Canada to claim they are a British territory :) In either case, if a well functioning oil producing nation wanted to join the EU, I think we should accept them. In fact I think we should accept any wealthy democratic country with strong institutions, free press, etc. I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc. If anything, I don't think people want another Hungary in the EU. That said, eastern Europe was probably a project the EU had to undertake.
  - SllX 2y ago
    > I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc. The entire idea has been deader than disco even on the Turkish side since Erdogan took power, but that was part of it, however I would turn your attention to former French President Nicolas Sarkozky’s comments on the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/world/europe/25iht-union.5.6325879.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/world/europe/25iht-union.... That said, you are also not wrong the issues around the Armenian Genocide were part of why member states campaigned against Turkish membership, as well as the issues around Cyprus and North Cyprus. The differences in law are less pressing though, and things you address during the negotiations for admission, but the process was halted long before it really got to that stage over political issues. As for Morocco, the reason was much much simpler: > The application was rejected on the grounds that Morocco was not considered to be a "European country" and hence could not join. This geographic membership criterion has been part of the EU's and its predecessors' treaties since the Treaty of Rome (Article 237 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community) and was later also included among the Copenhagen criteria. The rejection was expected as the King had sent feelers two years prior and received such a response. So going back to your lead-in: > Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. The EU has not made any of this black and white, but at least in the case of French Guiana, the fact that you are referring to it as a mere territory is reflective as to why it is complicated and negotiated through the core treaties that form the EU and the ascension treaties of new member states. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and its citizens are Danish and EU citizens, but the country itself actually voted to leave the European Union after it was afforded a higher degree of autonomy and self-government by the Kingdom. French Guiana on the other hand is an overseas département. It is physically located in South America, but its status as a département puts it legally on par with any département in France. It is considered as integral to the French Republic under French laws as Paris, and this applies to the other four overseas départements as well, but does not apply to all of France’s territories. For the Americans reading this thread, consider the detached nature of France’s overseas départements to be more similar in legal status to Hawaii or Alaska than to Puerto Rico or Guam. The nature of these territories is also why Ceuta and Melilla are able to be admitted to the EU under Spanish sovereignty despite Morocco which wholly surrounds them being rejected and between the Danish, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, even Norway and formerly under the British when the UK was a member, there’s a lot of external territories that are or were considered part of the EU to varying degrees from wholly part of it to having no real part in it at all, although its people might still be considered EU citizens since they’re nationals and citizens of member states.

mardifoufs 2y ago

The difference is that Morocco has a lot to win by joining europe, whereas Canada doesn't.

skissane 2y ago
Canadian GDP per capita is 15 times that of Morocco. The EU would much rather admit a wealthy country than a relatively poor one. So there are clear economic reasons to treat the two differently. Canada is a longstanding liberal democracy with a distant and purely symbolic constitutional monarchy. Morocco is a constitutional monarchy in which (until recently at least) the monarch played an active political role, there is still a widespread expectation among the population that he ought to do so, multiparty democracy is young and weak, and security agencies engage in repressive behaviour. [0] So there's political reasons too. If Canada really wanted the EU and the EU really wanted Canada, they'd fudge the whole geography issue–probably won't happen but not completely impossible. But no way the EU is going to want Morocco any time this century, so they won't do it for them. [0] https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing-crisis-of-governance?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing...
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Yes, but why would Canada want the EU? it's just a complete fantasy from the economist, I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US. It makes as much sense as Norway wanting to join NAFTA when most of its trade is in Europe.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US. Reducing the degree of dependency on the US would be one obvious reason.
  - senko 2y ago
    > it's just a complete fantasy from the economist It's par for the course for Charlemagne (the column in The Economist). It's not meant to be an actual realistic analysis and reporting (the way their non-columnist articles are, even if they all have an editorial streak). Mostly it comments on the topic of the week/month in some irreverent way[0], or entertains a modest proposal[1] like this one, in a "ha ha wait a minute" sort of way. [0] https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/19/we-need-to-talk-about-europes-kevins https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/19/we-need-to-talk-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gmueckl 2y ago

The rejection was expected. The EU and its associated organizations are only open to countries on the European continent by their current rules. Canada would have to broker a hell of a deal to get even partially in. EFTA membership might be a possible goal.

alephnerd 2y ago
> only open to countries on the European continent Cyprus would like to have a word. As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Re: Cyprus, the rule may be being on the same tectonic plate, which AFAICT, Cyprus is (the Eurasian plate).
  - sach1 2y ago
    Canada directly borders France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) so if we ignore dragging in the geologists, that's as good an argument as any.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Canada also directly borders Denmark via Greenland on Hans Island.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - ncruces 2y ago
        Neither Greenland nor St. Pierre et Miquelon are part of the EU (they are “Overseas Countries and Territories”).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

SllX 2y ago

It’s pretty outlandish. One of the core tenants of EU expansionism and the politics around it is that the applying nations are considered European enough and physically located in Europe in addition to being willing to cooperate with the EU in meeting the general requirements of a member nation. But just because you’re at least partly in Europe isn’t enough in some cases depending on who you are, and this was used in the aughts as a way to defer any potential membership by Turkey (which at least started the process of joining back then) and Russia (something European politicians didn’t want to even consider) by pointing out how much of their territory is in Asia. Morocco’s self-proclaimed justification was that Spain has a couple of cities in Northern Africa wholly surrounded by Moroccan territory, but Morocco still doesn’t make the cut for EU politicians. However the Republic of Cyprus is entirely on continental Asia, not wholly in control of the island it claims as its sovereign territory, but considered “culturally European”, so it got in. Canada is probably more of a Morocco than a Cyprus in this case, not physically in Europe, not even physically proximate to Europe the way at least Cyprus and Morocco are, and probably not considered European-enough. If this all sounds like crazy EU politics, that’s kind of what it is, but in defense of the crazies here, you have to be a bit crazy when you’re trying to build some kind of weird supranational cultural identity in a place like Europe.

jopsen 2y ago
Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. Both of these territories are parts of existing EU member nations. I guess with brexit it won't help Canada to claim they are a British territory :) In either case, if a well functioning oil producing nation wanted to join the EU, I think we should accept them. In fact I think we should accept any wealthy democratic country with strong institutions, free press, etc. I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc. If anything, I don't think people want another Hungary in the EU. That said, eastern Europe was probably a project the EU had to undertake.
- SllX 2y ago
  > I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc. The entire idea has been deader than disco even on the Turkish side since Erdogan took power, but that was part of it, however I would turn your attention to former French President Nicolas Sarkozky’s comments on the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/world/europe/25iht-union.5.6325879.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/world/europe/25iht-union.... That said, you are also not wrong the issues around the Armenian Genocide were part of why member states campaigned against Turkish membership, as well as the issues around Cyprus and North Cyprus. The differences in law are less pressing though, and things you address during the negotiations for admission, but the process was halted long before it really got to that stage over political issues. As for Morocco, the reason was much much simpler: > The application was rejected on the grounds that Morocco was not considered to be a "European country" and hence could not join. This geographic membership criterion has been part of the EU's and its predecessors' treaties since the Treaty of Rome (Article 237 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community) and was later also included among the Copenhagen criteria. The rejection was expected as the King had sent feelers two years prior and received such a response. So going back to your lead-in: > Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. The EU has not made any of this black and white, but at least in the case of French Guiana, the fact that you are referring to it as a mere territory is reflective as to why it is complicated and negotiated through the core treaties that form the EU and the ascension treaties of new member states. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and its citizens are Danish and EU citizens, but the country itself actually voted to leave the European Union after it was afforded a higher degree of autonomy and self-government by the Kingdom. French Guiana on the other hand is an overseas département. It is physically located in South America, but its status as a département puts it legally on par with any département in France. It is considered as integral to the French Republic under French laws as Paris, and this applies to the other four overseas départements as well, but does not apply to all of France’s territories. For the Americans reading this thread, consider the detached nature of France’s overseas départements to be more similar in legal status to Hawaii or Alaska than to Puerto Rico or Guam. The nature of these territories is also why Ceuta and Melilla are able to be admitted to the EU under Spanish sovereignty despite Morocco which wholly surrounds them being rejected and between the Danish, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, even Norway and formerly under the British when the UK was a member, there’s a lot of external territories that are or were considered part of the EU to varying degrees from wholly part of it to having no real part in it at all, although its people might still be considered EU citizens since they’re nationals and citizens of member states.