AHC/WI: Australia becomes part of the EU?

[hirsch91]

Since Australia is regularly a participant in the Eurovision Song Contest, I wondered, what if it was part of the EU. What would be needed to make it part of the EU and what would the implications of Australias membership be both on the EU and Australia but also on the world?
To make this happen, a colossal shift in policy would be needed. Australia was since WW2 pretty much always aligned with the US. Making it leave the US' sphere and become part of the European sphere would require the EU to be the more attractive option. The EU would need to be a viable military force to project power in the Asia-Pacfic region and guarantee Australian security.
An enourmous point of contention might be the EUs protectionist agricultural policies. With Australia in the Union, European farmers would not be able to compete with cheap Australian agricultural products which might lead to said farmers becoming workers in labor shortage sectors instead. Would Australia being part of the EU bind Britain to it or would a hypothetical Brexit make Australia leave too? Imo Australia leaving once in the EU is unlikely since the Union would be too lucrative for both sides.

 

[Jellico]

Australia's alignment with the US isn't that simple. Geography meant that Australia had a lot of links with the US, even back to the 1800s. As Australia industrialized in the 1900s it is using US methods simply because they are the better methods at the time. But it is hard to understate just how English Australia was and remains. The local government broadcaster basically replays the BBC. Humor and cultural touchstones are more in line with the UK than US.
So... up until about 1973 Australia (and a bunch of other Commonwealth countries) were part of a trading block with the UK. In 73 the UK joined the EEC, screwing over Australia. It was one of those Singapore moments that forced Australia to understand the UK didn't' really care about them. You could visibly see the effect as UK designed/built vehicles disappeared from the market in the 80s. Australia's efficient farming sector is because they had to compete without easy access to the UK. Opps.

Having established all of that, lots of people in the UK didn't want to cut off Australia. Family ties, Empire, and all that. But the coin to be made in the EEC was too great. Your PoD would probably have to be the UK negotiating to get select Commonwealth countries into the EEC in the 1960s. This is in the middle of immigrants from Southern Europe, so there is no real connection there. Heck, many Australians are going to be racist about Europeans and Europeans dismissive of colonials. Australia is riding on the sheep's back in competition with Europe's farmers. The mineral wealth is only just being exploited and shipped to Asia.

Which brings up the elephant in the room for a modern joining of the EU. Australia's links to Europe and Eurovision are through the 50s-70s immigration. Australia makes its money through selling rocks and schooling to Asia. Trade deals with the EU are nice to have, but the real money is Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia. of course China, but there is no chance of a trading block there. An Australia in the EU would have acted as a gateway to Asia and vise versa, as the UK acted as a gateway to Europe. Australia would have its own opinions on the EU and Brexit would be basically irrelevant.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

But it is hard to understate just how English Australia was and remains. The local government broadcaster basically replays the BBC. Humor and cultural touchstones are more in line with the UK than US.

The funny thing is that many American and Asian visitors to Australia feel Australia has much more in common with America than it does with the UK.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW Morocco applied to join the then EC in 1987 and the application was rejected because Morocco wasn't in Europe. So Australia's application would have been rejected for the same reason. However, having Australia in the EU is an entertaining idea .

 

[Avrorrange]

FWIW Morocco applied to join the then EC in 1987 and the application was rejected because Morocco wasn't in Europe. So Australia's application would have been rejected for the same reason. However, having Australia in the EU is an entertaining idea .

Are we really sure Morocco wasn’t rejected because it’s culture, religion and economy was thought to be incompatible with Europe? I felt like they were just finding an excuse. I wonder if Australia would be able to join by claiming it was still under Britain or some shit and join like how Guyana etc joined as part of France or something. Prior to the 1980s, Britain still had legislative rights over us. If we are joining, we most likely drag the Kiwis along.

 

[Rhymehouse]

Due to geography and other factors, it makes no sense for Australia to join the European Union. Considering the UK wasn't the biggest fan of the EU and even left it, that even further lowers the chances of Australia joining the EU.

That said, I think what could work is some type of EU-Lite or even Western-lite organization that countries outside of the European Union can join. Countries that could easily join the EU if they were actually European like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and maybe even USA, Israel, and Chile as well can join the western-lite union. Other capitalist democracies that don't feel comfortable with the EU like Norway and Iceland can also join the western-lite union (which would effectively be a larger G7). This EU-lite union wouldn't have as many privileges as the European Union, but it could still have easier trade between member states, easier migration between member states, and even a common defense article (that would mostly be redundant thanks to NATO).

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Are we really sure Morocco wasn’t rejected because it’s culture, religion and economy was thought to be incompatible with Europe? I felt like they were just finding an excuse. I wonder if Australia would be able to join by claiming it was still under Britain or some shit and join like how Guyana etc joined as part of France or something. Prior to the 1980s, Britain still had legislative rights over us. If we are joining, we most likely drag the Kiwis along.

Kiwis doing what Australians do?
Off to the ASB room with you!

 

[Avrorrange]

Kiwis doing what Australians do?
Off to the ASB room with you!

They want to keep trading with the Brits and were caught equally flat footed when the Brits ditched us. Given the choice, they'd probably join the EU as well.

 

[Jellico]

They want to keep trading with the Brits and were caught equally flat footed when the Brits ditched us. Given the choice, they'd probably join the EU as well.

Even more flat footed. It was a huge punch in the gut for a small country with such limited options.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Are we really sure Morocco wasn’t rejected because it’s culture, religion and economy was thought to be incompatible with Europe? I felt like they were just finding an excuse.

At the time the British media said the application was rejected because Morocco wasn't in Europe.

The reason you give is what the Wikipedia entry on it says. Strictly speaking it says that it wasn't considered a European country in the geographical sense, but I think what the people who rejected the application also thought it wasn't a European country in the cultural, religious & senses. Wikipedia also says that Turkey (most of which isn't in Europe) applied to join the EC in 1987 too.

On 14 April 1987, Turkey submitted its application for formal membership into the European Economic Community. The European Commission responded in December 1989 by confirming Ankara's eventual membership but also by deferring the matter to more favourable times, citing Turkey's economic and political situation, as well its poor relations with Greece and the conflict with Cyprus as creating an unfavourable environment with which to begin negotiations.

However, I've been told (in a thread on Secret Projects) to ignore anything that I read on Wikipedia because the original entries are usually very wrong.

Cyprus isn't in Europe but it was allowed to join the EU in 2004 despite its political problems and being further away from Europe than Morocco & Turkey.

And I made my comment half as a joke and half-seriously in the first place.

 

[Lascaris]

FWIW Morocco applied to join the then EC in 1987 and the application was rejected because Morocco wasn't in Europe. So Australia's application would have been rejected for the same reason. However, having Australia in the EU is an entertaining idea .

Well in the case of Morrocco one suspects the "you are not geographically in Europe" was a convenient excuse hiding other issues from racism and fear of migration, to the share of development funds that would have to go to Morocco, to the territorial disputes with Spain. None of that applies to Australia.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I wonder if Australia would be able to join by claiming it was still under Britain or some shit and join like how Guyana etc joined as part of France or something. Prior to the 1980s,

They could, but Australia & New Zealand were independent countries with strong economic, cultural & historical ties to the UK and also happened to have the same head of state as the UK. While French Guyana and the other overseas departments were part of the French Republic.

Britain still had legislative rights over us.

I didn't know that the UK still had some legislative rights over Australia i the 1980s. Was it the same as Canada before 1982?

If we are joining, we most likely drag the Kiwis along.

Kiwis doing what Australians do?
Off to the ASB room with you!

They want to keep trading with the Brits and were caught equally flat footed when the Brits ditched us. Given the choice, they'd probably join the EU as well.

Even more flat footed. It was a huge punch in the gut for a small country with such limited options.

"New Zealand's joining the EEC."​

"Aussie coercion?"​

"No it went of its own accord."​

FWIW New Zealand wanting to join the EEC feels less implausible to me than Australia because I've anecdotally been lead to believe that the Kiwis were a lot more pro the "Mother Country" than the Aussies in the 1970s and continued to be very pro-British into the 1990s. (As late as 2015 56% of them voted to keep the Blue Ensign flag.) Is that correct?

An enormous point of contention might be the EUs protectionist agricultural policies. With Australia in the Union, European farmers would not be able to compete with cheap Australian agricultural products which might lead to said farmers becoming workers in labour shortage sectors instead.

From the BBC website.

The UK opposed the ECSC, insisting "the Durham miners won't wear it"

ITTL

The French farmers say "Non"

Would Australia being part of the EU bind Britain to it or would a hypothetical Brexit make Australia leave too? Imo Australia leaving once in the EU is unlikely since the Union would be too lucrative for both sides.

My guess is that it could go either way because I think many Australians (& New Zealanders) would have been Eurosceptic too and therefore would be electing Eurosceptic governments.

Having 2 or 3 openly Eurosceptic members of the EU and its predecessors instead of one may retard the creeping political & economic integration so it remains the Common Market for longer which in turn would reduce support for leaving the EU completely.

If the UK still left the EU then Australia (and New Zealand) might leave via the domino effect.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well in the case of Morrocco one suspects the "you are not geographically in Europe" was a convenient excuse hiding other issues from racism and fear of migration, to the share of development funds that would have to go to Morocco, to the territorial disputes with Spain.

Further down the thread I wrote.

The reason you [@Arrovange] give is what the Wikipedia entry on it says. Strictly speaking it says that it wasn't considered a European country in the geographical sense, but I think what the people who rejected the application also thought it wasn't a European country in the cultural, religious & senses. Wikipedia also says that Turkey (most of which isn't in Europe) applied to join the EC in 1987 too.

On 14 April 1987, Turkey submitted its application for formal membership into the European Economic Community. The European Commission responded in December 1989 by confirming Ankara's eventual membership but also by deferring the matter to more favourable times, citing Turkey's economic and political situation, as well its poor relations with Greece and the conflict with Cyprus as creating an unfavourable environment with which to begin negotiations.

Therefore, if the EU was prepared to let Turkey (a country with more of the characteristics that you note because it had more people) join eventually, racism, fear or migration and sharing development funds were probably less of an issue than you suggest.

None of that applies to Australia.

Point taken, but all of what you wrote applied to Turkey and the EU was prepared to let that country join eventually.

 

[Avrorrange]

They could, but Australia & New Zealand were independent countries with strong economic, cultural & historical ties to the UK and also happened to have the same head of state as the UK. While French Guyana and the other overseas departments were part of the French Republic.

I didn't know that the UK still had some legislative rights over Australia i the 1980s. Was it the same as Canada before 1982?

Yes.

 

[Ramontxo]

FWIW Morocco applied to join the then EC in 1987 and the application was rejected because Morocco wasn't in Europe. So Australia's application would have been rejected for the same reason. However, having Australia in the EU is an entertaining idea .

The POD should be the UK as founder of the UE and making France and (then) West Germany accept both Australia and New Zealand to be members maybe grouping them with the UK as "The Commonwealth Joins the UE". Of course it is not the whole Commonwealth (not even the whole 'White" Commonwealth as I don't see Canada joining this)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The POD should be the UK as founder of the UE and making France and (then) West Germany accept both Australia and New Zealand to be members maybe grouping them with the UK as "The Commonwealth Joins the UE". Of course it is not the whole Commonwealth (not even the whole 'White" Commonwealth as I don't see Canada joining this)

From the BBC website ITTL.

The UK supported the ECSC, insisting "the Durham miners will wear it"

I'm not being sarcastic. It's my sense of humour.

I don't see South Africa being allowed to join or if it does is expelled from the EEC (as it was at the time) when IOTL it became a republic and had its application to re-join the Commonwealth rejected.

The "New Commonwealth" countries in the Caribbean might be allowed to join if they applied, but would they want to join in the first place? Cyprus and Malta joined the EU anyway IOTL.

 

[Avrorrange]

They could, but Australia & New Zealand were independent countries with strong economic, cultural & historical ties to the UK and also happened to have the same head of state as the UK. While French Guyana and the other overseas departments were part of the French Republic.

I didn't know that the UK still had some legislative rights over Australia i the 1980s. Was it the same as Canada before 1982?

"New Zealand's joining the EEC."​

"Aussie coercion?"​

"No it went of its own accord."​

FWIW New Zealand wanting to join the EEC feels less implausible to me than Australia because I've anecdotally been lead to believe that the Kiwis were a lot more pro the "Mother Country" than the Aussies in the 1970s and continued to be very pro-British into the 1990s. (As late as 2015 56% of them voted to keep the Blue Ensign flag.) Is that correct?

From the BBC website.ITTL

My guess is that it could go either way because I think many Australians (& New Zealanders) would have been Eurosceptic too and therefore would be electing Eurosceptic governments.

Having 2 or 3 openly Eurosceptic members of the EU and its predecessors instead of one may retard the creeping political & economic integration so it remains the Common Market for longer which in turn would reduce support for leaving the EU completely.

If the UK still left the EU then Australia (and New Zealand) might leave via the domino effect.

IOTL, the Brexiteers implied that they could reform the ‘White Commonwealth’ as substitute for the EU . If the entire ‘White Commonwealth’ minus Canada is already part of the EU, would eagerness to leave not reduce?

 

[Reflection]

Can non-European countries even join the European Union?

Unless they're overseas holdings like French Guiana, I don't think a non-European country is eligible. I don't see how this could happen unless the rules change.

 

[Avrorrange]

Can non-European countries even join the European Union?

Unless they're overseas holdings like French Guiana, I don't think a non-European country is eligible. I don't see how this could happen unless the rules change.

We are just self-governing parts of the British Empire, our people are all British subjects*, so please let us join./j

*We only got rid of that in 1984.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IOTL, the Brexiteers implied that they could reform the ‘White Commonwealth’ as substitute for the EU . If the entire ‘White Commonwealth’ minus Canada is already part of the EU, would eagerness to leave not reduce?

Maybe or the UK & ‘White Commonwealth’ (minus Canada) leaves with the UK to form a trading bloc of the own.

It all depends upon how the having the ‘White Commonwealth’ (minus Canada) be part of the EU changes the development of the EU. Does the EEC evolve into the EU in the first place? I refer you to the antepenultimate and penultimate paragraphs of the post to which you replied.

My guess is that it could go either way because I think many Australians (& New Zealanders) would have been Eurosceptic too and therefore would be electing Eurosceptic governments.

Having 2 or 3 openly Eurosceptic members of the EU and its predecessors instead of one may retard the creeping political & economic integration so it remains the Common Market for longer which in turn would reduce support for leaving the EU completely.

The following is from the perspective of a person who regarded himself as British first, English second and European not-at-all (and FWIW still does) AND as one of the people who was undecided until the night before the referendum. It seemed to me (and some people that I talked to after the event) that the choice was between keeping the UK independent and the (IMHO overrated) economic benefits of remaining in the EU which sooner or later would become the Federated States of Europe. I voted to leave because I didn't feel European, in the same way that Scottish & Welsh nationalists say they're not British, they're Scottish & Welsh and want to have independent states regardless of the disadvantages.

I might have voted to remain if having the ‘White Commonwealth’ (minus Canada) join the EEC stopped it evolving into the EU and remained the Common Market that the British public was told it was joining. So yes to the Single Market in 1992, but no to the ERM, no to the Social Chapter, no to the Single Currency and make the best of bad jobs with CAP and the CFP. FWIW what happened when the UK was in the ERM and Black Wednesday was what turned me from being a lukewarm supporter of the EU to being a Eurosceptic.

If it doesn't stop the EEC from evolving into the EU and the drift towards European integration then no it doesn't stop the UK leaving the EU.