While the article covers things well and has good analysis, but it also doesn’t give the whole picture.
The EU Council is governed by laws and is a form of federalized government for the EU. So having legal definitions is a big requirement. The same with Canada’s federal government, we would not want it putting out laws that are not clearly defined.
Ukraine makes the argument particularly entertaining. Friedrich Merz previously proposed associate membership as a way to bring Ukraine closer to the EU while it pursued full membership.
It makes sense to give Ukraine associate membership because Ukraine has a pathway to becoming an EU member. This sets the precedence that Associate Membership is for EU membership (or at least the premise of why it exists).
Canada, on the other hand, does not have a pathway to membership as much as we’d like it to be true. One of the main rules of EU membership is that the country is part of Europe. Though to be fair, it’s also a political designation (like recognizing that Georgia and Armenia are part of Europe).
So giving Canada an associate membership that is supposed to be a pathway to EU membership is against the governing rules of the EU commission.
Then comes the fear of precedent. Other countries might want a similar arrangement.
That’s very true and not wrong. Which other countries would want associate membership and where does it stop? What does associate membership become?
DW does a decent summary because they’re using quotes from the member states
While the article covers things well and has good analysis, but it also doesn’t give the whole picture.
The EU Council is governed by laws and is a form of federalized government for the EU. So having legal definitions is a big requirement. The same with Canada’s federal government, we would not want it putting out laws that are not clearly defined.
It makes sense to give Ukraine associate membership because Ukraine has a pathway to becoming an EU member. This sets the precedence that Associate Membership is for EU membership (or at least the premise of why it exists).
Canada, on the other hand, does not have a pathway to membership as much as we’d like it to be true. One of the main rules of EU membership is that the country is part of Europe. Though to be fair, it’s also a political designation (like recognizing that Georgia and Armenia are part of Europe).
So giving Canada an associate membership that is supposed to be a pathway to EU membership is against the governing rules of the EU commission.
That’s very true and not wrong. Which other countries would want associate membership and where does it stop? What does associate membership become?
DW does a decent summary because they’re using quotes from the member states
https://www.dw.com/en/canada-eu-mark-carney-ursula-von-der-leyen-associate-membership/a-79791601