COLUMN. The Canadian prime minister has called for an alliance of middle powers to stand up to the world's great powers. This is a compelling idea, and one that Europe has been pursuing for 60 years, writes Le Monde columnist Pascal Riché.

The Canadian prime minister has called for an alliance of middle powers to stand up to the world’s great powers. This is a compelling idea, and one that Europe has been pursuing for 60 years, writes Le Monde columnist Pascal Riché.

  • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    117·
    1 day ago

    As a European, I’d reject Canada joining the EU. It’s not in nor near Europe at all, and bordering the US gives me the creeps.

    An associate membership however, would in my opinion be a fair option. I’m opposed to those monstertrucks being imported and want to protect our farmers - I fear that if we antagonise them too much, we will get the far-right growing. We must first defeat fascism within Europe and walk toward the left, and heavily cooperate militarily with democratic allies.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      21 hours ago

      I don’t like the thought that the EU is limited by semantics. They started out as an alliance of European nations, but why should they be limited to that just because of their name? (Also, I’d argue Canada and the US are European by culture, but not by geography.)

      If you can make an actual argument about it being useful or not then do that. The US proximity thing is the start of an argument, though I’d argue it isn’t a smart, forward-thinking reason. If the US expands (or another antagonistic nation), should membership be rejected or removed to satisfy them? That’s how WWII started.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      20 hours ago

      I think Canada would have to ditch the monster trucks to become a member of EU.
      But I don’t think it will ever happen to be honest. Some sort of associate membership like Norway is way more likely.

    • 87Six@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      21 hours ago

      I don’t know about the last part, but why them is being close to America bad?

      • FreddiesLantern@leminal.spaceEnglish
        2·
        18 hours ago

        I believe the reasoning is that it’ll piss of the orange turd and we don’t wanna step on those toes.

        However, the alternative isn’t better imo.

        Let’s say Canada stays on its own. Inevitably they’ll have Trump using them as yet another Epstein distraction (or whatever his “reasoning” is). Now the EU has the same position. We have to help Canada by choice or by force.

        I say go by choice. It sends a signal that the world is done with the temper tantrum politics and that we stand toghether. Which is a much preferable scenario to waiting it out. Dictators don’t get satisfied, if they eat Canada the next piece of territory is on the menu. Prevent such scenario by cutting it off before it gets the chance to become a reality.

        • 87Six@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          18 hours ago

          If I noticed anything in the world so far it’s that trying to please leaders achieves the opposite

          Ukraine gave up nukes for protection againsnt russia from the USA and now they’re in ruin, for example.

          It seems to me that arming your nation including with nukes, use of force, and threats is the way to go to properly ensure your future, not deals and agreements.

          Look at the Palestine conflict too. They keep agreeing on ceasefires and Isn’treal breaks every single one of them.