this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
171 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

9160 readers
2065 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/suspension-clause-article-7-of-the-treaty-on-european-union.html

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 week ago

I have no clue, but I hope they figure it out soon. This is extremely annoying.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago

I mean, we're already talking about a NATO 2.0, aren't we?

Of course, that's their decision to ultimately make.

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With blackjack and Canadian hookers

[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They are all bearded lumberjacks.

Forgot to add this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRdur8GLBM

[–] NewDay@feddit.org 4 points 6 days 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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Can the EU expel member states?

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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...?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week 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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days 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.