Yes, Canada has a legal path to E.U. membership – but would it want this?
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t know if full membership is reasonable. Full membership would mean complying with all EU standards, those standards include electrical standards, and Canadian and European electrical standards are completely different. They run on 240V at 50Hz and Canada runs on 120V at 60Hz.
But, a closer alignment would be a great idea. Make it easier for workers to move between the EU and Canada. Harmonize some laws (for example, bring EU privacy and data protection laws to Canada). Require Canada to have more efficient vehicles and appliances.
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?
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?
Yep
Yes
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.
If Turkey can join Canada certainly can
At least part of turkey is on the European continent, or sub confident if you prefer.
French Guiana is in South America yet is part of the EU. Besides, Canada is a former European colony and technically is still run by a European monarch.
But all that aside, both the EU and Canada are stronger together. Any justification needed to make people accept that fact should be used.
French Guiana is part of France. France is part of the EU. There’s a little bit of a difference.
I didn’t have this on my bingo card when the year started, but hey, I’m all for it. Come join us, be one of us. We are all friends, except Hungary. They should just throw their government out.
Putin and Trump want to split the EU and destroy our unity. Let’s make it bigger and better than they ever expected.
I’m in. I’ll miss the Loonie, but Europe’s looking pretty good these days.
Using the euro is optional! Many countries kept their own currency.
Are there any non-founding-member countries that kept their own currency?
I believe it’s mandatory for all new members.
Yes, it is. You can delay it indefinitely, though, and Romania is still on the leu. Other members have blocked them from making the switch, even.
We can still call the coins loonies and toonies, why not?
Pretty sure you get to choose the illustrations on Euros issued in your country so you can continue the theme. Then as it gets mixed in with currency elsewhere the terminology might catch on in continental Europe
Same. I wouldn’t mind switching to the Euro, but our coins are really cool and nostalgic for me. It would be nice if there were a way to keep them.
I mean, you get to put whatever on the reverse of the coins.
Well that’s cool, then. I don’t know anything about EU process or regulations.
The denominations are fixed: 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.50, 1 and 2 for coins, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 for bills (although I’ve read the 200 and 500 had ceased production).
Every country can mint coins with bespoke faces, even limites editions, for commemorations and special events. Spain uses the Sagrada Familia for their lower denomination coins and the king’s image for higher, Greece reproduced an ancient dracma in their 1€ coin, Italy as used the Vitruvian Man, France has the Republic in their coins, etc. Enough room for each country to express their roots and values.
That’s interesting, thank you. I have another question, more for curiosity than anything else: Canada got rid of its 0.01 coin – if we became part of the EU, would we have to bring that back?
And a fun thing to do is to pick through your coins in your pocket and see the designs and where they’re from. I currently live in Italy and we have a lot of Italian designs, of course, but also from all over. I hope one of yours will just have a maple leaf on it.
I’m hoping that, if this all does come to pass, we can put a loon on our 1 Euro coin and a polar bear on the 2 Euro coin. That’s currently our tradition and it would be nice to continue it. Of course, a maple leaf is already on all of our coins so it stands to reason that that would also continue.
All that to say: if we were to join, you would more than likely get your wish. :3
The real thing I’d dread is that Euros are heavy as fuck. You have too much change in like half or less the time it takes here.
That’s true, it seems like the loonie is 6.27g and the 1 Euro coin is 7.5g.
That’s an increase of about 19.6% so that would kind of suck. The 2 Euro coin is heavier than the toonie by an even larger margin. Not to mention that we would also have to get rid of quarters and introduce 2 more coins: 0.20 and 0.02.
Assuming Canada would switch to the Euro, yes. You’re referring to Canada also doing something to “block” the scummy x.99 prices, hence eliminating the 0,01 coin, right?
No, we got rid of the $0.01 (called a cent) because it was costing too much money to mint. I think it cost $0.03 to make $0.01, so we just stopped making them in 2013.
UK did exactly that. They never swapped their pound with euro. I’m all for it!
They were a founding member and got a special carve-out.
Theoretically, there’s nothing stopping any new country from joining getting a carve-out. You just need everyone to agree to it. And tbh, getting them to agree to let Canada continue using the Canadian Dollar is probably a much smaller ask than getting them to let a North American country into the European Union.
Carve-outs of the rules have way more practical implications than just making the EU name slightly ironic, though. Asking for both just seems rude to me, but I could be wrong.
Norweigians are just being weird because of their oil riches. They fear (perhaps legitimately) that we’ll tax those off of them.
At the very least, joining with their economic standards is a path we should move towards.
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.
The EU requires unanimity among its existing members
Wow, that’s a rule that doesn’t scale well. Especially since apparently expelling a country requires unanimity too.
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.
We should just create EU 2.0 without them, with proper rules to handle that bullshit in the future, and… I don’t know, Blackjack maybe.
I mean, we’re already talking about a NATO 2.0, aren’t we?
Of course, that’s their decision to ultimately make.
Not an expert on this, but if Orban is really stubborn about it - and flaunts EU rules generally - couldn’t the suspension clause be used on Hungary? If I’m understanding it right, once voting rights are suspended, they’d no longer have a say in objecting to Canada’s accession during the duration of the suspension.
It already probably would have been for all the other nefarious shit they do, except they’ve had a sympathetic fashy government somewhere else in the EU to block it. It was Poland, now it’s IIRC Slovakia.
I have no clue, but I hope they figure it out soon. This is extremely annoying.
With blackjack and hookers
With blackjack and Canadian hookers
They are all bearded lumberjacks.
Forgot to add this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRdur8GLBM
Can the EU expel member states?
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.
Thanks so much. Food for thought. Latent consequences to be searched out and explored.
I want all of the consumer protections EU citizens get like being able to side load apps on iPhones etc.
Some privacy laws would be nice, eh?
Absolutely. This would be such a boon to both Canada and the EU
Yeah let’s do it
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.
Why the EU? Let’s get back to our real roots and join the African Union.
Cuter girls and better food! I’m in!
