5 ms·

EU Floats Canada Becoming the Bloc's First 'Associate Member'

72 points by helsinkiandrew 18d ago

drgo 18d ago
Thanks Trump
gizajob 18d ago
[flagged]
- phoronixrly 18d ago
  You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state. She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic... They get appointed by the democratically elected parliament.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    Her doublethink and doublespeak needs repeated illumination. She has never been part of any democratic process to put her in that role. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister is an elected minister who leads his or her party. Von der leyen is a technocrat. “Demos” means “the people” en masse.
    - cromka 18d ago
      Sounds like you're moving goalposts here
  - vrganj 18d ago
    Or the President of the US, which is also appointed by the democratically elected Electoral College...
    - phoronixrly 18d ago
      LMAO, right, just as representative! Get this Brexit-era disinfo off my screen...
    - gampleman 18d ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector - this is actually pretty interesting.
  - lou1306 18d ago
    To be frank, it is a quite eccentric way to appoint an executive leader: imagine POTUS being chosen by state governors. > She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic Well I would say this is arguable. Sure, her power is ultimately resulting from a popular mandate. But, if your country elects the head of state directly (say, France) then there are two "hops" between a popular mandate and the head of the EC. Whereas, if you are in a parliamentary system, it's three "hops" (MPs -> head of State -> EC president).
  - ExoticPearTree 18d ago
    > You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state. It does not matter who elects the EU commission, there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. What we have today in EU is pure BS: every country gets a commissioner based on that country's influence within the bloc and every time a new country joins the EU, a new commissioner role just happens to be created. I want to be able to choose from a number of candidates who should run the EU, not the prime minister or the president of a member country. Everybody who holds even a little power in the EU construct needs to be voted by EU citizens, not appointed by who knows who. This second- or third-hand "democracy" is not a democracy at all.
    - ben_w 18d ago
      If this is your standard, that's fine. The US (electoral collage and 2 senator seats per state) and the UK (government ministers don't need to be MPs) also fail at this definition, and I would like them to be better in general too.
    - scrollaway 18d ago
      > there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic. I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing. Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
      - ExoticPearTree 18d ago
        > Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic. No, I really believe everybody with a shred of power in an office needs to be elected, especially at the EU level where their decisions can affect hundreds of millions. Again, second- or third-hand democracy is not really democracy. > I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing. Well, maybe they should. And should also limit their mandates from life to maybe 4-8 years. And no, it does not mean that if I vote for someone I will trust that someone completely. They will, at some point, take some decisions that are contrary to my interest but in their own political interest. So they do not really have a desire to represent me fully, just enough. > Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point. No, they need to be voted in. This is how we get in situations where unelected officials, like the EU commission is, make decisions that affect my life without any consequences for them. The system needs to be tied to the people's wish at every corner, and if the people don't like someone, they should be able to vote them out on a recall vote just as easy as ordering pizza. I would like to see a system where confidence votes are cast every six months or so for everyone (parliament, president, prime-minister - you name it). And if they fail, they get booted out the next day and fresh elections are held in the next two-three weeks. And the cycle repeats. Either they work for the people to keep their jobs or not. Super simple.
  - CodesInChaos 18d ago
    The appointment of the commission president is quite different from how the German chancellor is determined: 1. The majority of representatives in Bundestag represents (up to rounding issues) the majority of voters. 2. Parties advertise their chancellor candidate before the election, and voters take that into account when choosing which party to vote for. Being chosen democratically isn't a black and white thing. It becomes gradually less democratic as you separate voter intent and outcome further. This isn't just a function of how the election process itself works, but also voters being informed. Practically no voter would have predicted von der Leyen becoming commission president when they cast their vote, making her appointment not very democratic.
  - rbehrends 18d ago
    This is incorrect. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, not the European Council. In fact, von der Leyen narrowly squeaked through in 2019, getting 383 votes with 374 votes required (with her making it being attributed to her hawkish stance on Russia to an extent, which supposedly earned her additional Eastern European votes). The European Council does nominate the candidate and infamously in 2019 overrode the informally agreed on spitzenkandidaten process, by which the nominee of the political group (EU Parliament equivalent of parties) with the most seats should have gotten the nomination. That said, the EU Parliament is not bound by the nomination. It can very obviously reject any candidate it doesn't like, though of course the dynamics of candidate selection are heavily influenced by the European Council's nomination power. But yes, there's nothing per se undemocratic about it and I'm a bit bewildered by people asking for direct election of the President rather than cleaning up the existing process, given that most EU member states elect their heads of government indirectly.
- DarkNova6 18d ago
  Believe it or not but the american system isn’t exact a blueprint for actual democracy. Many democratic systems don‘t make the election of the president a vote.
  - Telemakhos 18d ago
    In actual democracy, like ancient Athens, most offices are filled by sortition rather than election. Election is characteristic of oligarchy, where a few people make decisions for the many. Usually the few are supposed to be more qualified for or deserving of office, and election is a way of deciding which volunteer is most worthy. In democracies, everyone is assumed to be equally qualified, as governing requires no special knowledge beyond some basic morality. So, lists of volunteers for office are compiled and names drawn from those lists at random, and for every office something like nine names are drawn, so volunteers can split their time between public service and their private affairs. This random selection also prevents the creation of political parties: you can’t get randomly selected by spending more on a campaign. So, election of officers is oligarchic, rather than democratic. Democracies have votes instead on legislation, declarations of war snd peace, and jury trials.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    Well funnily enough, virtually all the constituent countries of the EU do put the election of their president to a democratic vote.
    - freehorse 18d ago
      Not really. In many of them the president is elected through the parliament (which is democratic in the indirect sense only). In quite a few of them they still have kings/queens instead of presidents. So they do put the ones holding the executive power to a vote, but that's not necessarily the president. BUT in those countries the president (or royal) has mostly a more "decorative" type of role and not actual power. It is the government constituted by the parliamentary majority (or close to that) elected through general elections that holds the executive power. In EU there is no direct election of the president/commission, AND it holds most of the institutional executive power, which is what makes it undemocratic imo.
- cromka 18d ago
  I love that argument now parroted all over the Internet. Love it because what these people actually eman is they want an elected president, which would legitimize EU even more, hopefully with its own constitution.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    That would be the next step but they seem to be getting on fine with an unelected president.
  - bawolff 18d ago
    EU already has a constitution (?)
    - mattashii 18d ago
      Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).
      - bawolff 18d ago
        > It's current legal basis is a series of treaties But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common. The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
        mattashii 18d ago
        That's fair criticism. The deeper reason why it's not a constitution is because it's not the cornerstone of legal, moral, and existential rights of the signatory constituent countries. These countries each have their own constitution that they are beholden to, with no higher authority to fall back to. The Treaty of Maastricht (and later, Lisbon) can't be guaranteed to have precedence when called upon if they conflict with the constituent countries' constitution(s), and all legislation covered under the treaties must be implemented separately and completely as locally applicable laws before going into effect. The EU regulations generally prescribe a deadline for implementing such regulations, but a country could (and sometimes does, see e.g. Hungary under Orban) break its obligations under the Treaty and ignore or never implement the agreed-upon regulations, and the EU would be unable to do much to enforce its regulations.
jjgreen 18d ago
Bienvenue aux canucks
Chance-Device 18d ago
Stranger than fiction.
- andy_ppp 18d ago
  Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
  - ExoticPearTree 18d ago
    [flagged]
    - nolok 18d ago
      Even ignoring your point that I massively disagree with ... It's not about joining the EU at all so what are you talking about
      - trolleski 18d ago
        [flagged]
        nolok 18d ago
        I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one. And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already. I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.
        17d ago
bawolff 18d ago
Canadian government seems to be denying this.
- cromka 18d ago
  Carney himself used these exact words couple days ago. This is coordinated.
  - bawolff 18d ago
    Do you have a citation for that? What was the exact quote?
    - cromka 18d ago
      BBC https://www.bbc.com https://www.bbc.com Carney eyes 'unique alliance' with EU as trade war with US intensifies WSJ https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-276f1778 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2... Mark Carney's Audacious Bid to Make Canada an 'Associate Member' of the EU That's the coordination here. Which may have misfired, too: https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908b85?syn-25a6b1a6=1 https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908...
      - bawolff 18d ago
        I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
      - frm88 18d ago
        Not exactly misfired, the title is somewhat clickbaity, 5 diplomats pointed to several aspects of difficulties with Ceta - nobody really "rebuffed" anything. The article is also somewhat hostile to the EU in general, is that a common notion on the FT? Anyways here's an archived link https://archive.is/RtfFb https://archive.is/RtfFb
    - 18d ago
nutjob2 18d ago
Between the US and China, the EU is the future, but they need to federalize then leverage that to implement a top notch military and economy. Carney can see this and wants a piece of the action. The question is if the EU can escape its parochial myopia and see it. Hopefully Russia will do something even stupider and precipitate the existential crisis that the EU desperately needs to get off its ass.
- tick_tock_tick 18d ago
  > but they need to federalize That's not happening or if it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
  - preisschild 18d ago
    > If it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it. As a federalist, that would be fine for me. Make a two speed europe. EU stays primarily a trade block that the "federal EU" is in.
  - nutjob2 18d ago
    Go ahead, make my day.
- iLoveOncall 18d ago
  > they need to federalize "Shit Americans say" The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah. It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    Nevertheless that exact plan is in the minds of every higher-up running the EU. Individual counties are an anachronism that will eventually be got rid of if the EU is to continue.
    - 18d ago
rapnie 18d ago
The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.
- hardbass 18d ago
  Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anti aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like it is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
  - ocd 18d ago
    This seems to be what Canada and Europe want from each other. Both have interests in repelling other powers that deserve to have their economic and military capabilities weakened, and both seem to be able to help each other on expanding economic base, energy security, food supply, and resource availability/manufacturing capability with existing intellectual and trade property that will distance them from the US MIC.
- WinstonSmith84 18d ago
  The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it. Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen. Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
  - rapnie 18d ago
38388484 18d ago
[flagged]
ocd 18d ago
As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.
- gizajob 18d ago
  It certainly does not make sense seeing as Canada is not in Europe.
  - ocd 18d ago
    Mostly a semantic concern in the name given the shared interests and concerns both have in a number of things including the Arctic. It's more a "North Atlantic" group of nations view both sides seem to be taking, but you know, without the US.
    - gizajob 18d ago
      And a fairly serious geographical one.
  - dcminter 18d ago
    The Eurovision song contest includes Australia in its member nations. Mindblowing I know, but it's possible for a thing to transcend its name.
  - vrganj 18d ago
    One could argue that it is European by founding and history though. Founded by Europeans, still mostly populated by people of European ancestry, with laws written by Europeans and based on European ideas. European isn't just a geographic descriptor :-)
    - ocd 18d ago
      I suppose. America is a much more mixed bag, while Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French. Enough cities have a certain sterile and organized appearance more common in Europe than the US. Not sure how else I'd describe it, but maybe Canada is a bit more "monolithic"?
deleted 18d ago
[deleted]
zyphr 18d ago
[dead]
gizajob 18d ago
Would it not make sense to perhaps invite the UK to be an associate member first? We’re right on the doorstep.
- Tomte 18d ago
  You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults. Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that). The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    The way you paint it sounds like the EU is a hardline communist state where dissent and even insult must be punished. Why does Canada get a free pass to pleasantries just because the Canadians haven’t had a chance to insult the EU and its federalist technocrats yet?
    - hardbass 18d ago
      You seem extremely confused. Why do you want your ex partner to treat you nicely when you yourself stated you hate them? Do you want to force a relationship again despite the other party not wanting you or even you yourself wanting it? You seem completely incoherent and absurd. Make up your mind whether you want to join a voluntary membership organization or not.
      - gizajob 18d ago
        The main confusion here is your use of unsuitable metaphor - people choosing that a political bloc is not behaving in a way that they believe represents their interests is in no way analogous to an abusive partner beating his/her significant other, and it is pretty addled to even make that comparison. Yet paradoxically sensible, because it demonstrates why the political process stalled as that framing really is what is in the minds of the EU bureaucrats towards the UK now. You’re also overlooking that 49% of the voters in the UK voted to stay in the EU.
david-gpu 18d ago
[flagged]
- Tomte 18d ago
  We could call it The Donald J. Trump Alliance for Prosperity in Europe and Canada, and we‘d have many Americans rooting for us.
- dang 18d ago
  Please keep nationalistic flamebait off HN, regardless of how provocative the topic is or you feel it is. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
  - david-gpu 18d ago
    I agree with your moderation in general, but this time I need some help to understand what did I say that was nationalistic. People from different nationalities are broadly approaching this subject of international cooperation according to their country of origin. And that is flamebait?
    - dang 18d ago
      Generalizations about people from countries A, B, C are almost certain to end in flamewar. Opinion is certain to be split in every country, and you can't know where all the commenters are from, even if a few people happen to say so. I'd also say that "I think it is telling" (without saying what the tell is) and "while Americans explain to us" have flamebait overtones that point in a polarized, if not hostile direction. This is not the curious conversation we're trying for here.
      - david-gpu 17d ago
        I wrote a reply linking to some recent polls, but deleted it in favor of this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "

drgo 18d ago

Thanks Trump

gizajob 18d ago

[flagged]

phoronixrly 18d ago
You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state. She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic... They get appointed by the democratically elected parliament.
- gizajob 18d ago
  Her doublethink and doublespeak needs repeated illumination. She has never been part of any democratic process to put her in that role. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister is an elected minister who leads his or her party. Von der leyen is a technocrat. “Demos” means “the people” en masse.
  - cromka 18d ago
    Sounds like you're moving goalposts here
- vrganj 18d ago
  Or the President of the US, which is also appointed by the democratically elected Electoral College...
  - phoronixrly 18d ago
    LMAO, right, just as representative! Get this Brexit-era disinfo off my screen...
  - gampleman 18d ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector - this is actually pretty interesting.
- lou1306 18d ago
  To be frank, it is a quite eccentric way to appoint an executive leader: imagine POTUS being chosen by state governors. > She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic Well I would say this is arguable. Sure, her power is ultimately resulting from a popular mandate. But, if your country elects the head of state directly (say, France) then there are two "hops" between a popular mandate and the head of the EC. Whereas, if you are in a parliamentary system, it's three "hops" (MPs -> head of State -> EC president).
- ExoticPearTree 18d ago
  > You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state. It does not matter who elects the EU commission, there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. What we have today in EU is pure BS: every country gets a commissioner based on that country's influence within the bloc and every time a new country joins the EU, a new commissioner role just happens to be created. I want to be able to choose from a number of candidates who should run the EU, not the prime minister or the president of a member country. Everybody who holds even a little power in the EU construct needs to be voted by EU citizens, not appointed by who knows who. This second- or third-hand "democracy" is not a democracy at all.
  - ben_w 18d ago
    If this is your standard, that's fine. The US (electoral collage and 2 senator seats per state) and the UK (government ministers don't need to be MPs) also fail at this definition, and I would like them to be better in general too.
  - scrollaway 18d ago
    > there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic. I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing. Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
    - ExoticPearTree 18d ago
      > Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic. No, I really believe everybody with a shred of power in an office needs to be elected, especially at the EU level where their decisions can affect hundreds of millions. Again, second- or third-hand democracy is not really democracy. > I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing. Well, maybe they should. And should also limit their mandates from life to maybe 4-8 years. And no, it does not mean that if I vote for someone I will trust that someone completely. They will, at some point, take some decisions that are contrary to my interest but in their own political interest. So they do not really have a desire to represent me fully, just enough. > Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point. No, they need to be voted in. This is how we get in situations where unelected officials, like the EU commission is, make decisions that affect my life without any consequences for them. The system needs to be tied to the people's wish at every corner, and if the people don't like someone, they should be able to vote them out on a recall vote just as easy as ordering pizza. I would like to see a system where confidence votes are cast every six months or so for everyone (parliament, president, prime-minister - you name it). And if they fail, they get booted out the next day and fresh elections are held in the next two-three weeks. And the cycle repeats. Either they work for the people to keep their jobs or not. Super simple.
- CodesInChaos 18d ago
  The appointment of the commission president is quite different from how the German chancellor is determined: 1. The majority of representatives in Bundestag represents (up to rounding issues) the majority of voters. 2. Parties advertise their chancellor candidate before the election, and voters take that into account when choosing which party to vote for. Being chosen democratically isn't a black and white thing. It becomes gradually less democratic as you separate voter intent and outcome further. This isn't just a function of how the election process itself works, but also voters being informed. Practically no voter would have predicted von der Leyen becoming commission president when they cast their vote, making her appointment not very democratic.
- rbehrends 18d ago
  This is incorrect. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, not the European Council. In fact, von der Leyen narrowly squeaked through in 2019, getting 383 votes with 374 votes required (with her making it being attributed to her hawkish stance on Russia to an extent, which supposedly earned her additional Eastern European votes). The European Council does nominate the candidate and infamously in 2019 overrode the informally agreed on spitzenkandidaten process, by which the nominee of the political group (EU Parliament equivalent of parties) with the most seats should have gotten the nomination. That said, the EU Parliament is not bound by the nomination. It can very obviously reject any candidate it doesn't like, though of course the dynamics of candidate selection are heavily influenced by the European Council's nomination power. But yes, there's nothing per se undemocratic about it and I'm a bit bewildered by people asking for direct election of the President rather than cleaning up the existing process, given that most EU member states elect their heads of government indirectly.
DarkNova6 18d ago
Believe it or not but the american system isn’t exact a blueprint for actual democracy. Many democratic systems don‘t make the election of the president a vote.
- Telemakhos 18d ago
  In actual democracy, like ancient Athens, most offices are filled by sortition rather than election. Election is characteristic of oligarchy, where a few people make decisions for the many. Usually the few are supposed to be more qualified for or deserving of office, and election is a way of deciding which volunteer is most worthy. In democracies, everyone is assumed to be equally qualified, as governing requires no special knowledge beyond some basic morality. So, lists of volunteers for office are compiled and names drawn from those lists at random, and for every office something like nine names are drawn, so volunteers can split their time between public service and their private affairs. This random selection also prevents the creation of political parties: you can’t get randomly selected by spending more on a campaign. So, election of officers is oligarchic, rather than democratic. Democracies have votes instead on legislation, declarations of war snd peace, and jury trials.
- gizajob 18d ago
  Well funnily enough, virtually all the constituent countries of the EU do put the election of their president to a democratic vote.
  - freehorse 18d ago
    Not really. In many of them the president is elected through the parliament (which is democratic in the indirect sense only). In quite a few of them they still have kings/queens instead of presidents. So they do put the ones holding the executive power to a vote, but that's not necessarily the president. BUT in those countries the president (or royal) has mostly a more "decorative" type of role and not actual power. It is the government constituted by the parliamentary majority (or close to that) elected through general elections that holds the executive power. In EU there is no direct election of the president/commission, AND it holds most of the institutional executive power, which is what makes it undemocratic imo.
cromka 18d ago
I love that argument now parroted all over the Internet. Love it because what these people actually eman is they want an elected president, which would legitimize EU even more, hopefully with its own constitution.
- gizajob 18d ago
  That would be the next step but they seem to be getting on fine with an unelected president.
- bawolff 18d ago
  EU already has a constitution (?)
  - mattashii 18d ago
    Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).
    - bawolff 18d ago
      > It's current legal basis is a series of treaties But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common. The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
      - mattashii 18d ago
        That's fair criticism. The deeper reason why it's not a constitution is because it's not the cornerstone of legal, moral, and existential rights of the signatory constituent countries. These countries each have their own constitution that they are beholden to, with no higher authority to fall back to. The Treaty of Maastricht (and later, Lisbon) can't be guaranteed to have precedence when called upon if they conflict with the constituent countries' constitution(s), and all legislation covered under the treaties must be implemented separately and completely as locally applicable laws before going into effect. The EU regulations generally prescribe a deadline for implementing such regulations, but a country could (and sometimes does, see e.g. Hungary under Orban) break its obligations under the Treaty and ignore or never implement the agreed-upon regulations, and the EU would be unable to do much to enforce its regulations.

jjgreen 18d ago

Bienvenue aux canucks

Chance-Device 18d ago

Stranger than fiction.

andy_ppp 18d ago
Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
- ExoticPearTree 18d ago
  [flagged]
  - nolok 18d ago
    Even ignoring your point that I massively disagree with ... It's not about joining the EU at all so what are you talking about
    - trolleski 18d ago
      [flagged]
      - nolok 18d ago
        I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one. And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already. I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.
        17d ago

bawolff 18d ago

Canadian government seems to be denying this.

cromka 18d ago
Carney himself used these exact words couple days ago. This is coordinated.
- bawolff 18d ago
  Do you have a citation for that? What was the exact quote?
  - cromka 18d ago
    BBC https://www.bbc.com https://www.bbc.com Carney eyes 'unique alliance' with EU as trade war with US intensifies WSJ https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-276f1778 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2... Mark Carney's Audacious Bid to Make Canada an 'Associate Member' of the EU That's the coordination here. Which may have misfired, too: https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908b85?syn-25a6b1a6=1 https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908...
    - bawolff 18d ago
      I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
    - frm88 18d ago
      Not exactly misfired, the title is somewhat clickbaity, 5 diplomats pointed to several aspects of difficulties with Ceta - nobody really "rebuffed" anything. The article is also somewhat hostile to the EU in general, is that a common notion on the FT? Anyways here's an archived link https://archive.is/RtfFb https://archive.is/RtfFb
  - 18d ago

nutjob2 18d ago

Between the US and China, the EU is the future, but they need to federalize then leverage that to implement a top notch military and economy. Carney can see this and wants a piece of the action. The question is if the EU can escape its parochial myopia and see it. Hopefully Russia will do something even stupider and precipitate the existential crisis that the EU desperately needs to get off its ass.

tick_tock_tick 18d ago
> but they need to federalize That's not happening or if it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
- preisschild 18d ago
  > If it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it. As a federalist, that would be fine for me. Make a two speed europe. EU stays primarily a trade block that the "federal EU" is in.
- nutjob2 18d ago
  Go ahead, make my day.
iLoveOncall 18d ago
> they need to federalize "Shit Americans say" The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah. It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.
- gizajob 18d ago
  Nevertheless that exact plan is in the minds of every higher-up running the EU. Individual counties are an anachronism that will eventually be got rid of if the EU is to continue.
  - 18d ago

rapnie 18d ago

The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.

hardbass 18d ago
Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anti aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like it is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
- ocd 18d ago
  This seems to be what Canada and Europe want from each other. Both have interests in repelling other powers that deserve to have their economic and military capabilities weakened, and both seem to be able to help each other on expanding economic base, energy security, food supply, and resource availability/manufacturing capability with existing intellectual and trade property that will distance them from the US MIC.
WinstonSmith84 18d ago
The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it. Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen. Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
- rapnie 18d ago

38388484 18d ago

[flagged]

ocd 18d ago

As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.

gizajob 18d ago
It certainly does not make sense seeing as Canada is not in Europe.
- ocd 18d ago
  Mostly a semantic concern in the name given the shared interests and concerns both have in a number of things including the Arctic. It's more a "North Atlantic" group of nations view both sides seem to be taking, but you know, without the US.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    And a fairly serious geographical one.
- dcminter 18d ago
  The Eurovision song contest includes Australia in its member nations. Mindblowing I know, but it's possible for a thing to transcend its name.
- vrganj 18d ago
  One could argue that it is European by founding and history though. Founded by Europeans, still mostly populated by people of European ancestry, with laws written by Europeans and based on European ideas. European isn't just a geographic descriptor :-)
  - ocd 18d ago
    I suppose. America is a much more mixed bag, while Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French. Enough cities have a certain sterile and organized appearance more common in Europe than the US. Not sure how else I'd describe it, but maybe Canada is a bit more "monolithic"?

deleted 18d ago

[deleted]

zyphr 18d ago

[dead]

gizajob 18d ago

Would it not make sense to perhaps invite the UK to be an associate member first? We’re right on the doorstep.

Tomte 18d ago
You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults. Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that). The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.
- gizajob 18d ago
  The way you paint it sounds like the EU is a hardline communist state where dissent and even insult must be punished. Why does Canada get a free pass to pleasantries just because the Canadians haven’t had a chance to insult the EU and its federalist technocrats yet?
  - hardbass 18d ago
    You seem extremely confused. Why do you want your ex partner to treat you nicely when you yourself stated you hate them? Do you want to force a relationship again despite the other party not wanting you or even you yourself wanting it? You seem completely incoherent and absurd. Make up your mind whether you want to join a voluntary membership organization or not.
    - gizajob 18d ago
      The main confusion here is your use of unsuitable metaphor - people choosing that a political bloc is not behaving in a way that they believe represents their interests is in no way analogous to an abusive partner beating his/her significant other, and it is pretty addled to even make that comparison. Yet paradoxically sensible, because it demonstrates why the political process stalled as that framing really is what is in the minds of the EU bureaucrats towards the UK now. You’re also overlooking that 49% of the voters in the UK voted to stay in the EU.

david-gpu 18d ago

[flagged]

Tomte 18d ago
We could call it The Donald J. Trump Alliance for Prosperity in Europe and Canada, and we‘d have many Americans rooting for us.
dang 18d ago
Please keep nationalistic flamebait off HN, regardless of how provocative the topic is or you feel it is. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- david-gpu 18d ago
  I agree with your moderation in general, but this time I need some help to understand what did I say that was nationalistic. People from different nationalities are broadly approaching this subject of international cooperation according to their country of origin. And that is flamebait?
  - dang 18d ago
    Generalizations about people from countries A, B, C are almost certain to end in flamewar. Opinion is certain to be split in every country, and you can't know where all the commenters are from, even if a few people happen to say so. I'd also say that "I think it is telling" (without saying what the tell is) and "while Americans explain to us" have flamebait overtones that point in a polarized, if not hostile direction. This is not the curious conversation we're trying for here.
    - david-gpu 17d ago
      I wrote a reply linking to some recent polls, but deleted it in favor of this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "