European Union member states have blocked a proposal by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to grant Canada a special status as an “associate member” of the bloc.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and several other EU leaders pushed to remove the term from a draft declaration ahead of a two-day EU-Canada summit beginning Thursday in Montreal, according to diplomats cited by the dpa and AFP news agencies.
Instead, the revised document calls for a plan to establish “closer ties” between
From what I’ve read and seen I think Carney just wants closer ties as well, not some sort of official status. EU shouldn’t worry however, Canada will most likely share access to the arctic, which I believe is what this is really about.
Closer ties - it’s still something ig? just not so much not too fast as many would wish. But no big drama ig?
It was bold move from the start, such needs taken lots of care. Still good they going nice direction of growing, even if slower.
I’m so sick of merz and his stupid face.
I’m so sick of Ursula’s double standards and hypocrisy.
the eu doesn’t have anything called “associate membership” so if this passed they would have had to actually define what that means. makes sense to change the wording to something less formal but equally signifying.
Pretty much everyone agrees they should simply be part of EEA (economic area) like Norway, not an associate. If you’re going to do this, do this right instead of making up some new terminology for specific country that no one really knows what that even means.
Right now it just looks like posturing.
do this right instead of making up some new terminology for specific country that no one really knows what that even means
Have you seen any European international agreements? There isn’t a single god damn treaty that doesn’t have some vague country-specific exceptions.
exactly.
less formal but equally signifying.
…that’s an oxymoron? The formality is what gave it significance.
I feel like the significance is in the terms of the deal and not the wording. It sounds like it’s to avoid never ending linguistics bureaucracy.
An associate member could have many of the benefits of being in the bloc without paying adequate dues or holding enough responsibilities. It needs hashing out.
Ya, I think they wanted to avoid the hashing out when it wasn’t part of the deal to begin with from what I understand.
“closer ties” is a statement of intent. “associate member” is a category of member.
If you do the manager’s duties and get called the head lackey, it’s not very formal but still significant.
The main negative of the EU has always been their ability to disagree about the most mundane and inconsequential things making every decision like wading through treacle.
There are people there intent to only mess things up. Isn’t that all orban did for like the entirety of his rule of hungary, and Im pretty sure turkey was doing it too for awhile.
It’s just about the wording, doesn’t change the plan of very close ties.
Cowards.
Same deal, different name. “Associate membership” does open a can of worms.
Really, it’s not that big a deal, it was kind of a silly semantics game to call it “Associate Membership” anyway. It was more about headlines provoking the Coppertone Fascist. That a trade deal is cut is the important part.
the proposal raised questions among member states because existing EU treaties do not provide for such a status.
Diplomats said several governments were concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding the proposed arrangement and insufficient consultation between the European Commission and EU member states.
Germany, France and Italy were among the countries that raised objections, although they broadly support closer cooperation with Canada.
Germany, France and Italy…
is it jwst a coincidence that these countries who objected are also the ones flirting with far right movements?
yes. all of europe is doing that.
“Genocide buddies” would be more honest. Free Palestine and Land Back.
Not everything has to do with
AmericaPalestineIf you think the U(K)SA & Germany are the only complicit countries, I have a bridge for sale, etc.
Dude, this has nothing to do with middle east. What did even France or Italy do for you to call them genocide-buddies and how would Canada be mixed up in this? Why are you insulting so many countries and people?
Close
redditlemmy and touch grassYou’ve been corrected on this already. Both entities are responsible in part for what is opening in Palestine. How can you possibly not be aware of that?
Both entities are responsible in part for what is opening in Palestine
The question is about how is that relevant to multiple countries veto’ing the associate aggreement
It is not the question. It’s your question.
Countries vetoing this agreement are complicit in genocide currently and historically. Countries like that collaborating is not a good thing.
Ask anyone appealing to these governments to stop facilitating genocide. They use their interrelationships to point to each other and shirk responsibility. It’s a very big problem.
Naah, I think it’s because those countries historically were involved in slave trade. I think slave trade is the real reason diplomacy in Europe is’t going smooth. And no, you cannot ask me why as that is not the question, you cannot deny that slaves didn’t exist so it all fits
This is how you sound like. I’m not even continuing this.
France and Canada both supply weapons to Israel. While Italy backed off new arms shipments they are still providing supplies AKA material support for genocide.
So inconvenient to bring up genocide, I know.
But why are you bringing up Palestine war instead of Ukraine war, which is far deadlier and actually affects countries in this article? That one affects Europe much more directly, including the talks about Ukraine also becoming an associate member, just like Canada?
In other words - why the hell are you talking about Palestine under this article and then even claiming “so inconvenient to bring up genocide” while not even inconvenient, just really, really random
I didn’t bring this up, OP of this thread did. You commented and I commented. It is called a conversation. No one is forcing you to get “off topic” if that is really what you believe.
I honestly did not see where OP brought it up, article does not mention it and OP’s body text does not either.
This does though
Nope, you’re wrong.
