[forum_ghost]

Neither Switzerland, Norway, Iceland nor Lichtenstein are in the EU, all are fairly well off to very rich countries.

Also, afaik, the demand was not about joining EU, but NATO?

Austria, Finland, Sweden are not part of NATO, and are doing fine.

Plenty of very poor subservient countries in the EU too, just look at how “nicely” they dealt with Greece. Romania and Bulgaria are also roughly as poor as Ukraine, on the PPP basis.

[nayaketo]

Neutrality means they won't be able to join EU either.

[forum_ghost]

Switzerland, Norway, Iceland nor Lichtenstein are in the EU. They seem to be just fine.

EU comes with some huge strings attached, up to and including loss of sovereignty.

https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/european-union-hits-poland-a...

Ukraine could've just had both sides (NATO and EAEU/Russia) pay for the Ukrainian defence/security, then figure out a side deal with EU, and be part of their economic area and customs union, but not cede sovereignty to EU.

They could've done it. The real question is why that didn't happen, why did they want to cede sovereignty to the EU so bad?

[dane-pgp]

> why did they want to cede sovereignty to the EU so bad?

Signing a treaty (which you can later leave) is not a loss of sovereignty, it is an exercise of sovereignty. If you want to be reductionist about it, a country joining NATO would be a loss of sovereignty too, because they would be committing their foreign and military policy to a supranational body.

Similarly, your proposal of Ukraine promising not to join NATO (presumably as a condition in some treaty?) would also be a loss of sovereignty, by that logic, because a truly sovereign nation is entitled to apply for NATO membership whenever it wants to.

[seba_dos1]

"Loss of sovereignty" is just part of Polish right-wing anti-European propaganda. The rule of law crisis in Poland has been caused by its current ruling party entirely on its own, with no help from the EU. We're talking about people who, among other things, decided not to send the Constitutional Court's ruling they didn't like to printing and pretended that this means it doesn't apply, so take any claims about "sovereignty" from them with a huge grain of salt as this word is unlikely to mean to them what it means to most people.

[forum_ghost]

Sure, it might be an anti-EU meme, but this isn't meritless simply because it's anti-EU.

EU law primacy is a marked departure away from the standard, in which a ratified treaty must be implemented into national law in other to codify that international obligation into the domestic legal system.

I never understood why would one want to be in the EU, if you can simply be part of the EFTA/EEA and the Schengen area?

"In R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that courts in the United Kingdom had the power to "disapply" acts of parliament if they conflicted with EU law. Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty and was fully aware that even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law#...

Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty

Lord Bridge was a British judge, who served as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary between 1980 and 1992. A leading appellate judge, Bridge is also remembered for having presided over the Birmingham Six trial.

Qualified legal experts accept that EU law is a limitation of sovereignty.

What are your legal credentials and experience with the law?