The EU thread

[Zanza]

But give me the really obscure stuff that I'm not even thinking of that would throw Canadians heads for a loop...  EU vehicle regulations would prohibit our pick-up trucks?

Why would (Canadian) pickup trucks be prohibited? You mainly see "smaller" pickups in Europe, e.g. Ford Ranger, Ram 1500, Toyota Hilux etc. But as far as I am aware that's mainly due to practicality and for heavier trucks, you might need a commercial driver's license.
An exception might be the Cybertruck as there are doubts whether its sharp nose fulfills EU pedestrian safety regulation.

[Barrister]

But give me the really obscure stuff that I'm not even thinking of that would throw Canadians heads for a loop...  EU vehicle regulations would prohibit our pick-up trucks?

Why would (Canadian) pickup trucks be prohibited? You mainly see "smaller" pickups in Europe, e.g. Ford Ranger, Ram 1500, Toyota Hilux etc. But as far as I am aware that's mainly due to practicality and for heavier trucks, you might need a commercial driver's license.
An exception might be the Cybertruck as there are doubts whether its sharp nose fulfills EU pedestrian safety regulation.

Just for fun...

https://f150europe.com/en/own/rebuilding-the-f-150-for-europe

So F150 is available but had to go under reasonably significant modifications to meet European regs.



But I'm not an EU regulatory expert - which is why I was wondering if there were some goofy to us Canadian regs that a Canada-in-the-EU would have to follow.

For entertainment purposes only.

[Zanza]

Sheilbh can probably express it better: EU regulation often aims at abstract risks and has something called the precautionary principle, where things are prohibited until they are shown to be safe. Obviously US regulation approach is different and things are allowed until shown to be harmful. Not sure where Canada sits on that spectrum.

[Barrister]

Sheilbh can probably express it better: EU regulation often aims at abstract risks and has something called the precautionary principle, where things are prohibited until they are shown to be safe. Obviously US regulation approach is different and things are allowed until shown to be harmful. Not sure where Canada sits on that spectrum.

As in so many things - closer to the US than to Europe, but we do have more regulations and restrictions than the US, generally speaking.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Not to be alarmist or anything...

Russia could start a major war in Europe within 5 years, Danish intelligence warns
An updated threat assessment warns of the consequences of a divided NATO and an absent U.S.

With what?  They're resorted to donkeys and camels for logistics in Ukraine, and they're sending wounded and crippled men back into the meat grinder.  They're Mad Max-ing naval weapons onto land vehicles.  They're deathly afraid of putting their new toys, the Su-57 and T-15, anywhere near combat.  Putin would have to be suicidal to start a major war against Europe.

[Jacob]

With what?  They're resorted to donkeys and camels for logistics in Ukraine, and they're sending wounded and crippled men back into the meat grinder.  They're Mad Max-ing naval weapons onto land vehicles.  They're deathly afraid of putting their new toys, the Su-57 and T-15, anywhere near combat.  Putin would have to be suicidal to start a major war against Europe.

So as I understood the assessment it's saying that:

1) If the conflict is Ukraine is frozen; and
2) If Trump disengages from NATO/ Europe; and
3) EU continues as is without additional production increases; and
4) Russia continues with its current level of production and purchases;

Then, in a few years it should be capable of fucking with individual neighbouring countries. And in about five years, it'd have produced enough materiel to be ready to engage in a broader military conflict in Europe.

So the short answer is "with materiel it'll build and buy, and with units it'll constitute in the intervening five years."

[Valmy]

Not to be alarmist or anything...

Russia could start a major war in Europe within 5 years, Danish intelligence warns
An updated threat assessment warns of the consequences of a divided NATO and an absent U.S.

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-war-threat-europe-within-5-years-danish-intelligence-ddis-warns/

If Europe believes that, maybe European countries should enter the war on Ukraine's side now. Waiting around for Russia to recover from its losses might be a bad idea.

[Tonitrus]

With what?  They're resorted to donkeys and camels for logistics in Ukraine, and they're sending wounded and crippled men back into the meat grinder.  They're Mad Max-ing naval weapons onto land vehicles.  They're deathly afraid of putting their new toys, the Su-57 and T-15, anywhere near combat.  Putin would have to be suicidal to start a major war against Europe.

So as I understood the assessment it's saying that:

1) If the conflict is Ukraine is frozen; and
2) If Trump disengages from NATO/ Europe; and
3) EU continues as is without additional production increases; and
4) Russia continues with its current level of production and purchases;

Then, in a few years it should be capable of fucking with individual neighbouring countries. And in about five years, it'd have produced enough materiel to be ready to engage in a broader military conflict in Europe.

So the short answer is "with materiel it'll build and buy, and with units it'll constitute in the intervening five years."

We shouldn't underestimate it...

A good example would be the Baltic states.  The logistical/supply train from some major start-off points in western RU are pretty short.  They may be short/used up on the equipment there, but a Ukraine-style "meat wave" may still be pretty effective in rolling over their defenses before they could be spun up.

The counter to that, is that any impending invasion is likely to be telegraphed/easy to see well in advance.

I think the biggest mistake the Biden administration made pre-Ukraine war was...we saw it coming a mile away, but we had already written Ukraine off.  We did an admirable intelligence "scorched earth" reveal of everything Russia had planned...but it seems pretty clear we were also fully ready to write them off completely.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh can probably express it better: EU regulation often aims at abstract risks and has something called the precautionary principle, where things are prohibited until they are shown to be safe. Obviously US regulation approach is different and things are allowed until shown to be harmful. Not sure where Canada sits on that spectrum.

I totally agree. Though I slightly worry we're precautionary principling ourselves to irrelevance in Europe.

To keep it going I'd add two complications for Canada in Europe. One which is that I think there is a challenge in implementing a principles based civil law body of law in a common law, precedential jurisdiction. The other is I've no idea how the principle of the supremacy of EU law, including over constitutional law (that is if a constitutional provision and EU law conflicts, then the EU law prevails) would sit with Canada's constitution - which, from this board, I understand is complex.

Practically I think agriculture and fisheries would be very, very significant difficulties - the EU aspires to welcome Ukraine as a member but there are huge challenges for agriculture and the CAP in that (future) conversation.

[Grey Fox]

Hey guys - there's some low-level discussions on a couple of message boards along the lines on "Well if the USA is going to screw over Canada, maybe we should join the EU!"

It's never going to happen (I'm aware of the EU turning down Morocco flat for "not being in Europe") - but just for fun if it was - white kind of effects would that have I'm not thinking of?

I know in typical EU fashion probably fishing rights would be a huge concern.  I mean we already had the cod war with Spain.  CAP would be a nightmare - both because Europeans wouldn't want cheap Canadian grain flooding in, but Canada would have to wholesale take up EU labelling and distribution rights for EU dairy.

There's the "boring" stuff too, like mobility rights and the Euro.

But give me the really obscure stuff that I'm not even thinking of that would throw Canadians heads for a loop...  EU vehicle regulations would prohibit our pick-up trucks?

We're not Morocco tho. There are apparently Euro circles that would like a Anglo population again.

I've heard that we would lose our state run electric companies. I haven't had time to look that up yet.

[Jacob]

If Europe believes that, maybe European countries should enter the war on Ukraine's side now. Waiting around for Russia to recover from its losses might be a bad idea.

I don't know if "Europe" believes that, but there are certainly a number of people who think it's a real risk.

Now whether Europe - the collection of countries and systems and decision-making bodies - can act coherently on it is a different question; especially given the weakness Western societies have demonstrated to social media and political attacks.

[Jacob]

So apparently:

President Donald Trump's administration has told allies in the UK and Europe that it wants them to buy American weapons and military equipment in order to maintain the NATO alliance, European officials familiar with the matter said.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/trump-tells-europe-to-buy-american-weapons-to-keep-nato-strong

[Jacob]

Lithuania seems to agree that Europe is in a weak spot:

Lithuanian defence minister: EU defence capabilities 'not matching' Russia's speed

"I understand also, that there is an agreement in the room, that our own capabilities are necessary, because how can we sustainably help Ukraine if our own defence capabilities are being developed slower than that of the aggressor?", she said, referring to Russia.

"The size of the Ukrainian army and the size of our defence industry, of our own defence capabilities, they do not match the speed of the Russian military industry, the Russian transition from a peacetime to a wartime economy, or the Russian assembly of troops at quite a threatening speed," she added.

https://www.euronews.com/2025/02/13/lithuanian-defence-minister-eu-defence-capabilities-not-matching-russias-speed

[Barrister]

To keep it going I'd add two complications for Canada in Europe. One which is that I think there is a challenge in implementing a principles based civil law body of law in a common law, precedential jurisdiction. The other is I've no idea how the principle of the supremacy of EU law, including over constitutional law (that is if a constitutional provision and EU law conflicts, then the EU law prevails) would sit with Canada's constitution - which, from this board, I understand is complex.

Practically I think agriculture and fisheries would be very, very significant difficulties - the EU aspires to welcome Ukraine as a member but there are huge challenges for agriculture and the CAP in that (future) conversation.

I don't think our Constitution is particularly complex - it's just that it has been a long-standing flashpoint and we like to argue about it.

I have very little how EU law works in conjunction with national law in the first place, so no comment on how it would work with Canada.

[Zanza]

The EU has three types of law: treaties, regulation and directives. Treaties are rarely changed and form the constitutional order of the EU. These are negotiated between the sovereign nation states. They also establish the EU institutions (council = upper chamber, parliament = lower chamber, commission = administration, court). These institutions come up with the regulations (= immediately binding for all member states) and directives (= member states must achieve an outcome with their own legislation).