101–110 of 823 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I truly cannot tell whether you're joking. If you're not, I'd love to pick your brain. I'm very interested in what standards you have and why you have them.
The user also calls unions a cancer on society, that tells you everything you need to know.
Not outlandish, Morocco applied in 1987 but it was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union...
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.
Canada will do much better joining US (and distancing itself from declining EU and its disastrous policies). The US is much better managed; the results speak for themselves.
The opposite would be better for the US. If the US joined Canada, they could benefit from universal healthcare, schooling, and responsible gun laws within a short period of time, given the available resources that would be added to the Canadian system.
Having lived on both sides of the border for many years, Canada first needs to improve its version of "universal healthcare" before making a pitch like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> only open to countries on the European continent Cyprus would like to have a word. As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
Re: Cyprus, the rule may be being on the same tectonic plate, which AFAICT, Cyprus is (the Eurasian plate).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> only open to countries on the European continent Cyprus would like to have a word. As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
Redefining Europe to include Canada would be outright ridiculous. The Union would have to redefine its own identity if it wanted to admit Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Factually, the claim of complete loss of sovereignty is just dead wrong. This list details the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states: https://commission.europa.eu/about/role/law/areas-eu-action_... This shows how narrow the responsibilities of the EU actually are.
Instead of reading the documentation, let's answer three questions: 1. Can your country introduce any law without asking the EU for approval? 2. Can the EU mandate your country to implement a specific law? 3. Do you still believe your country is sovereign?
Canada will do much better joining US (and distancing itself from declining EU and its disastrous policies). The US is much better managed; the results speak for themselves.
In the U.S., a cancer diagnosis can lead to bankruptcy, while treatment is free (or close to free) in most EU countries. Education is largely free as well, and you don't see people walking around armed like they’re in the Marine Corps. So, I'm not sure what benchmark we're using to measure this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Factually, the claim of complete loss of sovereignty is just dead wrong. This list details the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states: https://commission.europa.eu/about/role/law/areas-eu-action_... This shows how narrow the responsibilities of the EU actually are.
Wasn't the federal government of the US formed with a very narrow mandate, and then ratcheted up control with the the innocuous sounding Interstate Commerce clause? Disclaimer: I am neither American, nor very educated about what I just wrote.
Also in the last 100 years via the Supreme Court's primacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite would be better for the US. If the US joined Canada, they could benefit from universal healthcare, schooling, and responsible gun laws within a short period of time, given the available resources that would be added to the Canadian system.
> they could benefit from universal healthcare Having lived on both sides of the border for many years, Canada first needs to improve its version of "universal healthcare" before making a pitch like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Factually, the claim of complete loss of sovereignty is just dead wrong. This list details the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states: https://commission.europa.eu/about/role/law/areas-eu-action_... This shows how narrow the responsibilities of the EU actually are.
Instead of reading the documentation, let's answer three questions: 1. Can your country introduce any law without asking the EU for approval? 2. Can the EU mandate your country to implement a specific law? 3. Do you still believe your country is sovereign?
2. Yes, within the areas where the EU has exclusive responsibility and to some extent when it shares responsibility with member states.
3. Yes. Any country is free to leave the EU at any time. See Britain.