Should North America join the EU ?

[MikawaObasan]

I think Canada and the United States should have the UNITED STATES AND PROVINCES OF NORTH AMERICA or the PAN American dollar. Now, if both Canada and the US were willing to change it to a different kind of a dollar, I think it would be game. Each country will stay distinct as it is now, although access will be made the same as EU rules.

I wonder if Canada asked to Join the EU, if Europe would accept? What about US and Canada together? That will be two more stars on the European North American Union. Old and New World currency. Now if this occurred, Britain will give up its pounds and jump into the Pan American Euro currency.

[Maciamo]

The European Union is European and thus limited to Europe. Canada and the USA have no place in them, and are not even so close in terms of shared history system and culture. => see the thread What makes Europeans similar compared to the Americans. Anyway the US and Canada couldn't even agree to form a single country between them, and the gap between the US and Europe has been widening for over 50 years, so I really don't see that happening.

[Sukotto]

What ever happened to NAFTA?
The EU began as an
European Economic Union and not political at first as well.

Afterall,
capitalism philosophy bases on the idea of the free movement of capital
as well as the free movement of labor.
(Just, for now, ignore that that philosophy's origins didn't have the modern day form of the corporation)

Author John Ross has written
Annexation of Mexico: From the Aztecs to the IMF with an interesting sounding title.

[Mycernius]

If the EU is willing to accept Turkey and even entertain the idea of Russia entering 5the EU then it is possible for it to expand beyond the borders of Europe. After all both Turkey and Russia have more land mass in Asia than Europe. More to the point, despite Cyprus saying is is European , it is closer to Asia and should really be conuted as an Aisan island rather than a European one. It is only because of its contections with greece that it become European. I could envision Canada would be up for it, but not the US. After all the US couldn't even change to the metric system despite saying so, when Mexico and Canada did.

[Duo]

I think the only plausible scenario of having the EU join is some kind of politico-economic union with north america would be if a third world war or a major world wide conflict began involving the west on one side and a common enemy...

[Berkut]

The European Union is European and thus limited to Europe. Canada and the USA have no place in them, and are not even so close in terms of shared history system and culture. => see the threadAnyway the US and Canada couldn't even agree to form a single country between them, and the gap between the US and Europe has been widening for over 50 years, so I really don't see that happening.

That seems a somewhat silly statement - of course North America and Europe share common history and culture. I can compare citizens of Minnesota vs New York and find many dissimilarities. The fact is the US or American culture is not distinctive to this continent and was basically taken from teh settlers, colonizers home culture (almost predominantly Northern European). Did you forget it was settled and founded by Europeans? As for EU expansion into North America, I cannot see that happening, however perhaps a North Atlantic Trade Union as has been proposed a very times.

[Strettger]

With regards to Canada, yes I can see them joining the EU. Their main trading partner is the USA, and in second place is the UK. It appears to me that they need to seriously consider just how long their relationship with the USA can continue given the new economic realities (ie Monopoly money in the US economy being routed out).

The EU would gain a culture that is European, it is a European colony after all and has a Parlaiment and National Health Service. Contrast with the USA's exploitative Health system.

The EU would also gain one of the G8 members into the fold and we could see Sarah Palins house from British Columbia!

[Chris]

Global inter-dependance is partly what created the worst global recession since 1945. Less is more, in my view.

[Barros Serrano]

Yes, while Canada could probably be assimilated by the EU, I fear the USA remains too socially backwards.
We "progressives" in the USA can see the advantages to the socially more advanced character of nearly every other developed nation... but we languish due to the backwards reactionism of much of the population which thinks we're still in the days of the self-sufficient pioneer or cowboy. We don't need no dang gubmint helping us...
Much of the brunt of the economic inequality fostered by USA corporations falls on Mexico. It would be nice if some advancement could be made based on NAFTA (a bad idea in the first place), so that the USA could find a better arrangement than to maintain its huge neighbor as a cheap labor camp.
EU... I wish. If I currently had the money, which I don't thanks to the lovely economic mess we're in, I'd move with my family to Spain in a moment. Frankly I have fairly well given up on the USA, though I'm stuck here.

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Should North America join the EU ?

A better question might be: "Should North America be allowed to join the EU?" The answer ought to be: Heavens NO!

If the EU is willing to accept Turkey and even entertain the idea of Russia entering 5the EU then it is possible for it to expand beyond the borders of Europe. After all both Turkey and Russia have more land mass in Asia than Europe.

"More land mass" is a long way from "geographically TOTALLY excluded". Anyway, I may be an idiot but my gut tells me that a great part of being EU is being NON-American.
There is comfort in the thought of being less influenced by the U.S. - though I´m definitely only dreaming to consider it being anything resemling reality!

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Very bad idea for many reasons: cultural, economic, geographic. Same reasons why Turkey should not become a member. The E.U. already contains member countries that really do not fit "European categories". But, who am I to say...

[Marianne]

Very bad idea for many reasons: cultural, economic, geographic. Same reasons why Turkey should not become a member. The E.U. already contains member countries that really do not fit "European categories". But, who am I to say...

Very true...

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Very true...

Somehow, I knew you´d agree with that about Turkey, Marianne.

Personally, I like the Turks and I don´t care knows it!

[Marianne]

Somehow, I knew you´d agree with that about Turkey, Marianne.

I guess because Im Greek?

I personally have no hate towards Turkey and our friends the Turks for the 400 years of slavery by the Ottomans. I wasn't alive back then and now that I am I never had any problem with any of them.

So I just consider the facts and those are that: Turkey, except for the Constantinople area is an Asian country. Turks are muslims and not christians. They don't even have pure democracy, the army runs the country. Women clearly are considered inferior, even by the religion, so even if they change their laws they will never change their mind. All in all the way of thinking of the people and their religion is way more Asian than it is European.

So I don't understand why Turkey's entry in the European Union is even on consideration. The way I see it, a major role in the unity of the EU plays the religion and the geographical position of the countries-memebers and Turkey is neither European nor Christian. I also don't understand why, because of USA's interests in the Middle East, EU and especially UK must accept Turkey in the EU.

I also don't like the current propaganda, of websides refering to Turkey as a European country and of Turkey taking part in European surveys and contests (Eurovision song contest, sports contests etc).

When I was at school, at geography class, our books had (and still have from what I see) Turkey in Asia and in brackets was written that a very small part of Turkey, where Constantinople is, belongs to the European continent.
Since countries don't change position overtime and Turkey is still in the same place in the map where I left it when I was at school, I don't see why I and everybody else should start calling a clearly Asian country a European one just because some have money/military interests in the area.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I have nothing against Turkey or its people but they do not belong in Europe, for the reasons discussed by my friend Marianne and myself...

[Miss Marple's nephew]

Parts of France are in South America and Africa (Guyane and Djibouti), parts of Portugal are in Africa and Asia (Madeira and Macao), and well .... whether or not countries like Bulgaria are in Europe or Asia depends upon supersticious, political-ethnic map makers of ancient times. The fact that any country is "Christian", "Muslim" (or whatever) is quite simply due to the majority remnants of earlier conquerors whims.

I don´t know, but I often think about how it would be if the map were drawn up today, for the very first time. I don´t believe that it would resemble this one. How would you draw it up? For example, would you cut through, leaving all Slavik-speaking people to themselves? Or would you consider Euro-Asia one continent? I mean, why cut through the Bospherous at all? Would the concept of "continents" even be born if it were all done today?


Answering a question with another question is probalby boring and tedious but I must ask anyway: How many countries of the Euro Song Contest are actually non European and how many NATO member-countries are not in the North Atlantic?

In English, one talks about North and South America being two distinct continents whereas in Swedish we consider both of them one, single continent.

In any case, it´s a bit like a strict, 3 movement concerto. It eventually went on to 4 movements - but is still called concerto. It´s all about definition and how (or if) it´s allowed to progress. Personally, I find the importance of continents (particularly euro-asia) rather childish.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Parts of France are in South America and Africa (Guyane and Djibouti), parts of Portugal are in Africa and Asia (Madeira and Macao), and well .... whether or not countries like Bulgaria are in Europe or Asia depends upon supersticious, political-ethnic map makers of ancient times. The fact that any country is "Christian", "Muslim" (or whatever) is quite simply due to the majority remnants of earlier conquerors whims.
I don´t know, but I often think about how it would be if the map were drawn up today, for the very first time. I don´t believe that it would resemble this one. How would you draw it up? For example, would you cut through, leaving all Slavik-speaking people to themselves? Or would you consider Euro-Asia one continent? I mean, why cut through the Bospherous at all? Would the concept of "continents" even be born if it were all done today?
Answering a question with another question is probalby boring and tedious but I must ask anyway: How many countries of the Euro Song Contest are actually non European and how many NATO member-countries are not in the North Atlantic?
In English, one talks about North and South America being two distinct continents whereas in Swedish we consider both of them one, single continent.
In any case, it´s a bit like a strict, 3 movement concerto. It eventually went on to 4 movements - but is still called concerto. It´s all about definition and how (or if) it´s allowed to progress. Personally, I find the importance of continents (particularly euro-asia) rather childish.

BTW, Portugal no longer controls Macao as it was turned over to China in 1999. Madeira is technically listed as an Atlantic island and does not form part of any continent, per se. It has autonomy status although it is legally part of the Portuguese Republic.

Turkey is a VERY poor fit for the E.U. on many levels. Current member Cyprus is also not a good fit (only in for political reasons). The main problems with some other E.U member countries like Bulgaria and Romania are general backwardness and rampant corruption.

[Miss Marple's nephew]

The main problems with some other E.U member countries like Bulgaria and Romania are general backwardness and rampant corruption.

Indeed. For those reasons I´d rather see Turkey IN and those two countries OUT.

[Strettger]

To be honest, I beleive that the momentom of the EU is slowly being transfered to Romania and Bulgaria. EU money goes in with conditions, conditions are slowly met and institutions are built up with the economy. Then we lock it into the Eurozonw with currency union and political union converges naturaly.

If we have any luck, Britain will be joining the Eurozone before too long, given how it is regarded by the rest of the world due to Londons trade power, the shockwaves will be palpable all over the stockmarkets methinks.

With regards to Turkey.... they just aren't Europeans, they are a self contained civilisation and have little in common with our Civilisation-State.

[FireIron]

Wouldn't you all like to see the EU becoming more then just Europe? A way of bringing peaceful democracy to other nations. As the 21'st century comes rolling in I would like to see it uniting nations peacefully instead of that of conquest. The EU being the revolutionary idea it is should not be limited by the continent it is on. The EU was created to make peoples lives better.

Peace wont happen in our life time but the only way things are going to get better is if a few people take the first steps to make other lives better.

[Michael Folkesson]

I haven't seen this topic before, and even though it is an old thread, I think it is thought provoking and as such an inspiring subject for discussion.

Addressing the OP, I think that this is not the purpose of the European Union, as it is built on basic values and principles in direct conflict with such an idea. Keeping in mind the influence by the First nations and non-European people immigrants and slaves, it is somewhat a viable thought, as the American nations are founded by Europeans making it an extension of our European culture and peoples. The same goes for great many colonies, Oceania non the least. From that point of view, most of the world might be considered becoming members of the EU. We have left a rather large and often brutal civilizational footprint lingering globally.

But - without going into the founding and enlargement principles of the EU - one might wonder why non-European nations like the US and Canada would benefit. FTAs and other trade agreements as well as political agreements can be met without submitting North America under European law and government. I think it would be a rare thing to find people who would support such a development on either side of the pond.

As previously brushed by Strettger, the world is slowly both dividing and coming together in the simplexity and formation of Civilization States. This tender path of the European Union that was treaded 60 years ago has developed so very carefully and in it's own time constantly under the sword of Damocles and against the horns of antagonism, rivalry and vile and misguided nationalism. Were there any such development to be made for the US, it would presumably be with it's neighbor states and major cultural and economical partners, forming a North American Union. Considering that the whole of North America is made up of only three countries does set it apart from the other large continents of the world, making them already large unions and economies. The position of the US globally and it's strong identity and nationalism, I am not sure that would be realistic to hope for a North American Union in the foreseeable future. Even though things change in the system of the world, the US is and will be the big dog of the pack for quite some time. It doesn't seem as if there are any real incentives for that to happen. So far and in future expectations.

That said, I still agree that there is cause and room for flexibility regarding any geographic criteria for what is to be seen as a European nation and much welcome any challenge and discussion as to the outer borders of Union enlargement. I think that we can consider several levels of Europe. The geographic boundaries, European cultures and peoples, and what is in the "European Sphere". What to include in the criteria for future membership is a fundamental part of defining of what the Union is and will become.

I think that we must also recognize and appreciate that the enlargement of the Union is the greatest foreign policy tool of democracy, peace and stability we have; more powerful and effective than any other international policy seen to date globally. Bearing that in mind, it would not be uncalled for to consider the Mahgreb as well as part of the Mashriq becoming integrated and possibly members. Even though unlikely, it would be very beneficial and make sense from a European perspective - non the least considering the ancient common historical as well as cultural legacy we share with these regions; Maghreb maybe the most.

But that is the European Sphere, and it is unlikely that these countries will become future members; they are simply not European nations. The non-European Mediterranean countries will without a doubt continue to co-operate in the ENP and the Union for the Mediterranean.

But these countries might integrate on a deeper level with their neighbors in the principles of the EU forming a Union of their own - be it a part of the AU, an Arab Union or otherwise. Hopefully we might see an Arab Union springing from the Arab League - as of the Yemenite proposal - maybe based on the institutions of the GCC.

But then again - in the perspective of European cultures and peoples - with the precedent of Cypriot membership it is not unlikely the Cape Verde islands might find sufficient support for membership, being the only part of Macaronesia outside the EU. Armenia is perceived as a European nation even though outside of the perceived border of the continent. There are exceptions and there often are.

But a North American membership into the EU is just not realistic. It might have been if the EU was about building a modern empire, a global house of power reasserting Western dominance of the world. But if that is the perception of the European project, I think that one lacks understanding of the idea and the principles of the Union, why the EU is something new and different in history, and why the success of our project is of great importance for more than us Europeans.

[FireIron]

I like your insight Michael. With all the democracy changes that are happening in the Arab speaking world I guess it is becoming more possible for a Arab Union. I could see Canada becoming a Union with the U.S. but the U.S. as a people don't like Mexico very much .

What is the future relationship of North America and Europe?

[Reinaert]

I like your insight Michael. With all the democracy changes that are happening in the Arab speaking world I guess it is becoming more possible for a Arab Union. I could see Canada becoming a Union with the U.S. but the U.S. as a people don't like Mexico very much .
What is the future relationship of North America and Europe?

I don't believe in more democracy in the Arab world.

The future between Europe and the USA will be not very friendly.
The USA is an economic disaster.
Europe wants stability in the world, the USA is busy to create instability wherever they can.

I think Canada is more European minded, so perhaps Canada could cooperate with the EU on some level.

Further more, Europeans don't like the idea of a European Empire.
There will never ever be such a thing as the United States of Europe.

[Regulus]

Yes, the US is pretty close to being an economic disaster. We have not seen the worst of it yet.

[Johnny Neptune]

Honestly, it would be in the European Union's best interest to allow the U.S. to join the EU. European countries have some of the highest amounts of debt for industrialized countries in the world, with external debt to GDP percentages of 3,443%(Luxembourg), 1,103%(Ireland), and 400% (UK) just to name a few.[1] The U.S. as a country sits around 99-100% external debt to GDP. However, a good amount of this foreign debt owed, is owed to the U.S. and has been owed since WWI. Countries like (UK)400% borrowed high amounts of debt during and after WWI and WWII in order to rebuild.

Some of these debts have been paid by some countries, however others like the UK have failed to pay any of the debt, and are not only unable to pay interest on the loans but are in outright default. Which is why all European countries dropped the Gold Standard and use it as a reserve currency like the U.S. Western European countries continue to add eastern European countries into the EU, not because they feel an obligation due to ethnic or cultural background, but because they need cheap labor and their gold and resources to help pay off western European debt burdens. Misery loves company as they say.