Yes, Canada has a legal path to E.U. membership – but would it want this?

  • Zagorath
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • NewDay@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • 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…?

        • Zagorath
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Thanks so much. Food for thought. Latent consequences to be searched out and explored.