Neither Greenland nor Hans Island are a part of the EU. The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three "constituent countries"; metropolitan Denmark, Faroe Islands, and Greenland; and out of them is only metropolitan Denmark part of the EU, while Greenland; which includes Hans Island; is not.
hokori616
joined 2 weeks ago
It is definitely fully possible that a way could be found in which a membership could be mutually beneficial. I personally do not think so, but that of course does not mean that it is not possible.
However, regarding smuggling do I wish to clarify that my big worry are ships. If a ship comes to Rotterdam from Amsterdam or if it comes to Rotterdam from Dublin or Porto does not really matter, both are inside the single market so are treated as internal. Everything on board those ships are already assumed to follow the rules of the single market and just a few spot checks are made. However, if it comes to Rotterdam from Montreal so is it checked much more thoroughly, as it is external. If Canada were to become a member of the EU would that change and Montreal would be checked as little as Dublin or Porto, meaning as long as you get something into Canada is it in the EU and will likely not be caught. The only solution would be to keep on treating the ship from Montreal as external, but in that case would Canada already be excluded from one of the biggest benefits of being a member.
How would you address them and what would those economic benefits be, that would not be lost while trying to address the issues and that would outweigh the costs of addressing the issues?
Well, if neither side would benefit from a membership so is there no point to it. And regarding land border, do you mean St Pierre and Miquelon (which almost have a land border) or Hans Island? If so so is neither really a part of the EU and have a small respectively no population, so are somewhat irrelevant.
In short, geography. The EU is more than just an economic union and is just growing tighter. Hence, were Canada an EU member would they need to fund projects that they would have limited benefit from and follow rules that do not make sense to them. Meanwhile the EU would more than double its external border, which would make smuggling even easier, and with limited benefits as the real hindrance to trade is the distance. The only solution would be to give Canada so many exceptions that they would barely even be members.
I'm fully for trade deals and cooperation on areas of common interest. But a full membership would not benefit either side.
To put "(future EU member)" on Canada but nothing on Turkey, who despite negotiations currently being frozen still are a member of both the EUCU and the CoE, is definitely a choice. I'm not a fan of Erdogan and personally do not think that Turkey, nor Canada for that matter, should ever become EU members. However, given the point of the group does it seem pointless to make political statements that are completely off topic. Turkey is closer, not just geographically, to the EU than what Canada is; whether we like it or not.
I agree. While I hope Hungary will change path after next year's election and that both UK and Ukraine will be members within my lifetime (I'm still young, so there is hopefully time left) so do I agree with the main point. There should be a lot of opportunities to get closer and cooperate with countries outside of the EU, without membership, and Canada is already one of the closest countries to the EU and I want the EU and Canada to get as close as makes sense (and I'm certain there are many areas, including those you list, on which it makes sense to get closer).