| ▲ | rdm_blackhole a day ago | |
> signing away sovereignty is not reversible Signing away sovereignty is exactly what happens when you get in bed with the EU. That's even the prerequisite to become a member as EU laws take precedence over your own laws by default. They make it also extremely hard to leave once you are in it. If your concern was to keep your sovereignty you should have chosen to play the game like India and basically stay in the middle without picking a side while all sides compete for your trade dollars. You do know that the end goal of the EU is to form some sort of super state like the US of Europe right? You may not end up being the 51st state of the US but you could very well end up as the 28th province of the EU commandeered by Brussels. | ||
| ▲ | beloch a day ago | parent [-] | |
Carney is pursuing what he calls "associate membership", which has yet to be defined[1]. If the EU wants to form the backbone of a group of middle powers that can hold their own against superpowers like China, as Carney has suggested in the past, they are motivated to offer a deal that doesn't include unacceptable loss of sovereignty. If they can do that, other nations might follow Canada's lead. One thing the EU has not done is threaten to use economic coercion to force annexation, as the U.S. has done repeatedly. If becoming an associate member of the EU involves some loss of sovereignty, it will probably be less than we'd surrender by choosing not to diversify our trade away from the U.S.. ___________________ [1]https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/carney-pushes-idea-ma... | ||