Its a very good deal for Denmark too, especially on the long term with a more sane person than Trump in charge. The benefit are good for both parties and gives Denmark a role of exclusive ally to US in the region, something like South Korea in the East Asia, before Trump broke with them too.
The US are selling more gas and more weapons to Europe. They have pretty much a monopoly on AI and data centre hardware, too, and pretty much tech in general. So the US have got this favourable deal and Europe has become more dependent on them, too...
> The EU has become ever more dependent on the US in the past few years, notably on energy and AI.
Energy yes, particularly since the Iran war started. AI, not really. Like most Europeans are using US models, but the switching costs are so low here that they could easily swap these out for Chinese models.
It's the cloud/hyperscaler dependencies that are the real problems here.
Yes, they run US models on US hardware and there is no alternative. In principle there are indeed Chinese models, but in practice there are also political considerations.
Europe pretty much does not exist in AI and the political considerations at this point push it towards overwhelming dependency on the US.
> Yes, they run US models on US hardware and there is no alternative. In principle there are indeed Chinese models, but in practice there are also political considerations.
Just to be clear, there's actually more of a dependency when using US models, as the vast majority of Chinese models can be self hosted.
And I would have taken the point about political considerations much more seriously pre January 2025.
Chips developed and controlled by the US. Taiwan is controlled by the US. Europe has no leverage.
Europe does not exist in AI. That is the sad truth, no need to try to pick hole in reality... It's quite healthy to listen to EU noise less because otherwise people tend to drink the kool-aid and believe that the EU (and Europe) is anywhere in most strategic developments (AI and related chips are particularly dire but also missed the boat on EV, struggling on renewables, nowhere in smartphones, etc). Yes, there is Arm so that's that (not in the EU).
I think this is also another occurrence of the "innovato's dilemma" applied to the car industry. None of the incumbents have negotiated the shift to EV very well with similar patterns as we've seen previously in other industries, in this case combined with the huge investment and industrial capabilities of China.
This was bluster by Von Der Leyen and apparently even EU countries are not happy with her dropping this "associate member" bombshell [1]. The term does not mean anything, either.
So I guess the US are responding woth more bluster.
Are you suggesting that the US plan to bomb the EU by comparing them to Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
We really need to stick to calm and reasoned commentaries instead of what seems to be a contest of outrageous claims like in many media or by many politicians these days.
Canada is not going to be an "associate member" of the EU (which, again, is not something that exists or that has any meanings), that is the outrageous claim here, and it'd be more interesting to discuss what might the game under play be rather than feeding the frenzy (which I suspect is what they want on both sides).
Not the EU. The brotherly nation bordering them, just like Putin did.
It's not my suggestion either [0] and I'm not the only one worried about it. [1]
Putin's invasion didn't happen without years of prep work. Things like gradually worsening relations and trying to paint a picture of Ukranians as hostile [2] , as opposed to the close neighbors they were initially perceived as.
Why do you think the alliance with the Ukraine, to make millions of drones per year for them, the most highly sophisticated drones designed by the most battle-hardened country on the planet, is important for Canada?
Those drones won't just be protecting the Ukraine.
In very heavy traffic conditions I suspect that roundabouts can gridlock all directions in a worse way than a standard intersection with a yellow box because everyone tries to enter the roundabout then they get stuck in it, and then the whole traffic is brought to a halt, including directions that should be unaffected. This happens very often where I live.
It has to be like Norway/Switzerland/Iceland or more to get any free movements of goods and services. Level of access goes hand in hand with integration in term of regulation, etc.
"Associate member" actually sounds like TIGHTER integration than Norway/Switzerland/Iceland, which are not members at all. Switzerland is not even in the EEA. It is a very bad term, actually as Canada cannot be an EU member (it isn't in Europe) and if they don't want or can't join the EEA then that leaves a Switzerland-like deal, which is purely bilateral.
It's the law and it should be very strictly enforced because otherwise it'd open the door for the Middle East and North Africa... But I don't think Canada would want to join the EU, it's anti-Trump bluster.
Turkey, only a tiny part of which is geographically in Europe, is a candidate (though talks are suspended in practice until, at least, Erdogan is out of power), and Cyprus is geographically in Asia/Middle East, not Europe. The rules could certainly be loosened further with agreement.
But also, yes, Canada probably does not want to be a full member, at least in the near-term; they want some sort of alignment not amounting to full membership. I wouldn't be totally amazed if we look back on this as the start of the (long-suggested) two speed EU system.
Middle eastern or North African countries can’t join because the member states don’t want them to join and they need unanimous agreement. See Turkeys failed bid for example. Even a country with positive general public appeal like Ukraine is very unlikely to join in the next 10 years
Yes, unanimous agreement is required once a country has applied, as part of the process of accepting the application.
However Article 49 of the European Union states: "Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting
them may apply to become a member of the Union".
So Middle Eastern and North African countries (and Canada) cannot apply in the first place.
I think Turkey is in the grey area that allows some wriggle room as it spans both Europe and Asia.
Canada does not want to join the E.U. as a full member and that is not what is being offered.
Canada very much is not “blustering” when it comes to Trump. A big majority of Canadians see sovereignty and less reliance on the US as a massive issue. Canada has embraced China in a way that was unthinkable 5 years ago in a deal intended to hedge against the US. The Canadian Conservative Party lost an election it was thought to have a guaranteed win from and has continued losing seats since then in large part due to their half hearted response to Trump.
I'll go back to my first comment above: What is an "associate member"? We don't know because it's a concept that does not exist but the very name suggests something stronger and tighter than anything that exists with non-members that have very close ties (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland).
Hence I think it is safe to say that this is a lot of bluster, or ar least hyperbole, considering what Canada and the EU might really want and the long and complicated treaty process to define and create an "associate member" status.
Bluster has a connotation of empty threats and loudness for the sake fo loudness.
Canada has been making real moves, and doing it quietly. In the past year non-US exports have grown by a record 11%. New trade and defense deals have been signed with more than 20 countries.
Whatever is going on in Ottawa, bluster is not the word for it.
Not Canada, it is Von Der Leyen who took upon herself to use this "associate member" term and even EU countries are surprised not least because of basically whhat I explained earlier [1].
Ah. I thought you were saying that Canada's pivots outside the US were anti trump bluster.
No idea about the EU side rhetoric, but it may not be bluster considering that Canada has huge potash and oil/gas reserves that could replace Kremlin aligned sources in the EU (and the defense deal that Canada just announced with Ukr.).
Yes they can because that's very typical of the power of farming unions in France. Various subsidies happen all the time and 1 billion is not that much in the sea of government spending on about anything and everything they have... that is, if they don't go broke (which is a real possibility at this point).
France's public finances are really going badly to the point that mentions of looming financial crisis are becoming more frequent and serious. The country has high debts and high deficit but also high taxation, however successive governments have never taken the political risk of cutting spending.
The end may be nigh [1] but in general farming subsidies are seen as strategic and as mentioned farming unions are superpowerful (writing as a Frenchman).
reply