As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.
And it's not even "novel" in the sense that this group already exist, except so far it was gravitating around the US, and it might just reorient to gravitate around someone else.
Mostly a semantic concern in the name given the shared interests and concerns both have in a number of things including the Arctic. It's more a "North Atlantic" group of nations view both sides seem to be taking, but you know, without the US.
I suppose. America is a much more mixed bag, while Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French. Enough cities have a certain sterile and organized appearance more common in Europe than the US. Not sure how else I'd describe it, but maybe Canada is a bit more "monolithic"?
You could argue even more effectively that it was British by founding and a British colony, with a big influence from the French. And we know what happened with Britain and the EU.
Who knows, maybe after all the doom and gloom the EU might just win by default because the other world powers have become so unattractive the rest of the world rallies around them?
Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
If I’d said to you last year “Hey! I bet Canada is going to join the EU! No, of course not as charter-violating full member, as a newly invented ‘associate member’!” You’d probably have said “That’s both crazy and oddly specific, the chances of that have to be approaching zero”.
Yes but also "associate member" is, despite specificity, less surprising than full membership would have been.
Same as economic gravity meant that Brexit didn't disconnect UK from EU it only made trade harder, neither this kind of deal nor full membership can be much more than a band-aid for Trump's BS, it won't fully compensate for the harm he and his administration are doing to Canada.
I think the world would be jumping into alignments like this if the US hadn't spent the last 80 years building a "nuclear umbrella" for the "western alliance" with itself in the centre.
I bet many countries would prefer to disassociate with US foreign policy right now if they weren't security dependent.
I expect after this destructive episode in history has played out, if we're all still alive and free in another decade then there will be alternative umbrellas.
I live here. I talk to older people. They tell me about the horrors of WW2 and how glad they are the EU succeeded as a peace project. Before the EU, we had centuries of cruelties between what are now members of the same block.
It might be good to expand your perspective a little. Standard of living isn't just the economy.
I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.
And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already.
I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.
Reality doesn't need to be plausible; we're all characters in each other's first-person narratives, with no access to the voice of an omniscient narrator.
I mean, it's only what the US is doing that's strange.
It's a country with tons of raw resources and a large consumer market, they're the "dream partner" for the large blocks (USA/China/EU, and Japan/India a bit behind). You buy their resources, they make a lot of money from it, you turn it into a final product and you make a lot of money from the value added, everyone is happy.
It's really weird that the US is suddenly not happy about this arrangement, and for resource-starved EU it's a golden opportunity; of course we will happily buy if the US doesn't want to anymore. That's why there is so little friction showing up (there will be more later, of course, but relatively little), why Canada can get so many deal quickly with everyone during this turnaround, it's that obvious of a win for everyone involved.
(as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, even more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
> (as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, eve more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
I mean food/dairy/autos (which is also a major EU issue) have been 90% of the issues with Canada/USA trade for decades too so I have my doubts of them figuring it out any better.
I guess Canada is way more motivated then ever before as rapid souring of the relationship with the USA from this point would be a near economic collapse for them.
CETA (the existing EU/CA one) is also being bogged down in some country including my own (France) because of some food issues, so I think everyone involved knows.
And while you're correct about Canada being extra motivated at the moment; so is the EU. It's such an absurd situation that we know the "urgent pivot need" might slow down a lot if adult come back in charge in the US. Same reason why so many want to sign so quickly, it's like gold on a platter AND Canada win too, you don't spit on that offer.
The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.
The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it.
Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen.
Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
From what I read about what they wanted Canada to sign (the "new deal" Canada walked out of), they want to give them strict conditions and no abilities to make new deals with someone else to make them fully dependant. So the goal was not really military conquest but economic stranglehold. All the while apparently asking to tone down their minorities including the french one.
There is an alternate timeline where Canada signed that, and it looks much bleaker for them down the road.
It's a two way street; sanction on big tech is also the big weapon the EU has against the US if need be and that we kept threatening but never activating.
Which doesn't mean it's easy or won't hurt like hell, but this is a continent that just cut most of the gas cord lines in record times despite massive pain and cost, if it came down to it we would simply because if it comes down to this and we don't then we're done.
Short time it would damage us pretty hard, but long term it would be another net loss for the US.
This “at the stroke of the pen” idea is fantastical. Actual Canadians would have next to no interest in this. Whole provinces of Canada don’t even want to be part of Canada so their appetite for having the EU parliament and Commission anywhere near them would be slim to none. Having 250million Europeans eligible to migrate to Canada would similarly be dead in the water even if a few people in Toronto and Quebec might warm to the idea of going the other way.
It was the same way with Australia becoming eligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, .. and yet here we are today with that thoroughly normalised.
The context in the podcast was that EU was too picky in their reform criteria for inclusion for current candidates on the European continent, but that Canada as a modern country would sail past and pass the exam. The ease with which these experts concluded it would make sense for Canada to join struck me, because impact on geopolitical relationship with US was imho too easily overlooked. It is a sentiment I hear more often now, in the news.
Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anti aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like it is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
This seems to be what Canada and Europe want from each other. Both have interests in repelling other powers that deserve to have their economic and military capabilities weakened, and both seem to be able to help each other on expanding economic base, energy security, food supply, and resource availability/manufacturing capability with existing intellectual and trade property that will distance them from the US MIC.
> But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it.
You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults.
Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that).
The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.
You seem extremely confused. Why do you want your ex partner to treat you nicely when you yourself stated you hate them? Do you want to force a relationship again despite the other party not wanting you or even you yourself wanting it? You seem completely incoherent and absurd. Make up your mind whether you want to join a voluntary membership organization or not.
The main confusion here is your use of unsuitable metaphor - people choosing that a political bloc is not behaving in a way that they believe represents their interests is in no way analogous to an abusive partner beating his/her significant other, and it is pretty addled to even make that comparison. Yet paradoxically sensible, because it demonstrates why the political process stalled as that framing really is what is in the minds of the EU bureaucrats towards the UK now. You’re also overlooking that 49% of the voters in the UK voted to stay in the EU.
Elsewhere you are saying you disagree with the way the EU is structured, which makes it even more absurd why you want to join it. Don't like it, leave it. Like it, put a vote to join. Like some aspects, dislike others, then state specifics and come to a discussion.
Some of the benefits of being in the EU are very nice but the way it is now structured politically and financially and even ideologically mean that it is not an entity which any sensible country with anything to lose could willingly join. And the main thing lost is the right to have any impact on its decision making process. Hence why Switzerland, Norway and more recently Iceland aren’t members, and it lost the UK.
Your country chose to divorce of its own will, the EU didn't kick you out. It is not a forcible organization like being a citizen in a country, its completely voluntary. So why the hell are you whining about the EU ignoring you when you yourself divorced from it. Nobody is stopping you from insulting or hating anyone you want. What is absurd to then also want to force them to interact with you and then this absurd heisen stuff of leaving them and then complaining they don't want you in when there is nothing stopping you from making the request to be let in. You should make up your mind, why should the EU have to give you an invite when you were the one who left it and now you want to join/not-join. I think if the EU sent a request and the mood in your populace was anti eu then it would worsen not improve relations for example. The homework is on the UK to measure if it's population wants to join the EU or not before making any requests. If you want to join, say it clearly and put a vote in the UK, or if you don't want to join then make it clear, otherwise it doesn't make sense t be complaining about the EU not wishing to entertain your unstated requests.
I suggest you don't participate if you cannot discuss calmly the opinion that the EU should be more inviting towards the UK, even if you consider the opinion absurd.
How can EU be the one expected to be inviting when they didn't kick the UK out in the first place? The UK is the one that left on its own. The EU doesn't have to do anything, I think they are quite open to the UK or anyone else in the continent joining. I just find it absurd a British person is complaining without the UK first doing the homework and showing joining EU is something tenable from their side via an internal vote about joining.
If you want a disclaimer, I am neither european nor british if that matters. From outside the situation seems very clear to me.
The UK will likely be welcome back right after everyone's confident Leave (be that Tory, Farage, or whoever the even worse party that Musk now supports are) definitely won't win a general election for at least another generation.
Well the issue there then is that Farage’s Reform party seem likely to win that election. The current ostensibly-left-wing Labour government also have absolutely no appetite for rejoining either. Even the coalition of anti-growth eco-warriors and islamists which is the contemporary Green Party don’t say much which is a real surprise because it seems like such an easy vote-winner for them. Finally, it seems strange that the EU should pretty-well require the governments of its potential members to be left-wing or centrist, especially as this demand is now causing constituents of the EU to start to swing to the hard right too.
If your country initiated a divorce, it makes no sense for the other party to invite you again. You should have to request first and show to them eg with a vote you won't again flake out in a few years.
Carney has said Canada is not looking to become a "member" of the EU. Meanwhile, "associate member" is an entirely new thing that has yet to be defined. These aren't incompatible statements.
It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.
I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.
_________
*NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.
>>> "We're not looking to become a member of the European Union," Carney said Sunday evening on the red carpet of the Toronto International Film Festival. He attended the festival shortly after giving a speech to kick off the two-day Canada Investment Summit, which begins Monday.
>>> "What we are looking — and will begin discussions for — [is] a unique alliance with the European Union. We share the same values, we have the same priorities and we have very complementary strengths."
I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah.
It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.
“A single country” is pretty vague. For some definitions the EU already is one, for other definitions the EU can never be one.
What we do need is doing more things on the EU level. E.g. there’s no point in all member states building a nuclear umbrella or a space program. Some taxes also work better on an EU level because capital flows freely in the union and makes taxation hard for individual members.
Nevertheless that exact plan is in the minds of every higher-up running the EU. Individual counties are an anachronism that will eventually be got rid of if the EU is to continue.
The UK is a "country of countries" - with fairly significant differences between some of the component parts - maybe the EU could become something like that?
The political union of England and Scotland was achieved without bloodshed and largely because folks in Scotland wanted a financial bailout to cover the utterly disastrous Scottish colonial efforts in Darien.
Personally I expect NI to peacefully unify with the Republic of Ireland at some point in the next 20 years? Or maybe not - all depends on how people vote rather than fighting?
I feel like you might not know much about the peace process in NI. If you’d like to see a return to things getting blown up and catholics being gunned down by loyalists, then suggest conducting a vote on joining Ireland and leaving the UK.
I love that argument now parroted all over the Internet. Love it because what these people actually eman is they want an elected president, which would legitimize EU even more, hopefully with its own constitution.
Not necessarily. One can eg want more power to the actually elected part of the EU structure and less power to the commission. Imo electing or not a president does not necessarily help with democracy, as the US example shows. And in europe most countries do not have a strong presidential system, except France and 2-3 others. So I doubt having "strong elected president" is what people actually have in mind for the EU.
People bring this up they may consider EU to be historically a centralized power structure. Whether it can practically be actually democratized or not is a matter of debate. One can bring up the democratic deficit of EU without harbouring actual thoughts or hopes that it can be fixed.
Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).
> It's current legal basis is a series of treaties
But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common.
The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
Believe it or not but the american system isn’t exact a blueprint for actual democracy. Many democratic systems don‘t make the election of the president a vote.
In actual democracy, like ancient Athens, most offices are filled by sortition rather than election.
Election is characteristic of oligarchy, where a few people make decisions for the many. Usually the few are supposed to be more qualified for or deserving of office, and election is a way of deciding which volunteer is most worthy.
In democracies, everyone is assumed to be equally qualified, as governing requires no special knowledge beyond some basic morality. So, lists of volunteers for office are compiled and names drawn from those lists at random, and for every office something like nine names are drawn, so volunteers can split their time between public service and their private affairs. This random selection also prevents the creation of political parties: you can’t get randomly selected by spending more on a campaign.
So, election of officers is oligarchic, rather than democratic. Democracies have votes instead on legislation, declarations of war snd peace, and jury trials.
Not really. In many of them the president is elected through the parliament (which is democratic in the indirect sense only). In quite a few of them they still have kings/queens instead of presidents. So they do put the ones holding the executive power to a vote, but that's not necessarily the president.
BUT in those countries the president (or royal) has mostly a more "decorative" type of role and not actual power. It is the government constituted by the parliamentary majority (or close to that) elected through general elections that holds the executive power. In EU there is no direct election of the president/commission, AND it holds most of the institutional executive power, which is what makes it undemocratic imo.
You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic... They get appointed by the democratically elected parliament.
This is incorrect. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, not the European Council. In fact, von der Leyen narrowly squeaked through in 2019, getting 383 votes with 374 votes required (with her making it being attributed to her hawkish stance on Russia to an extent, which supposedly earned her additional Eastern European votes).
The European Council does nominate the candidate and infamously in 2019 overrode the informally agreed on spitzenkandidaten process, by which the nominee of the political group (EU Parliament equivalent of parties) with the most seats should have gotten the nomination.
That said, the EU Parliament is not bound by the nomination. It can very obviously reject any candidate it doesn't like, though of course the dynamics of candidate selection are heavily influenced by the European Council's nomination power.
But yes, there's nothing per se undemocratic about it and I'm a bit bewildered by people asking for direct election of the President rather than cleaning up the existing process, given that most EU member states elect their heads of government indirectly.
The appointment of the commission president is quite different from how the German chancellor is determined:
1. The majority of representatives in Bundestag represents (up to rounding issues) the majority of voters.
2. Parties advertise their chancellor candidate before the election, and voters take that into account when choosing which party to vote for.
Being chosen democratically isn't a black and white thing. It becomes gradually less democratic as you separate voter intent and outcome further. This isn't just a function of how the election process itself works, but also voters being informed.
Practically no voter would have predicted von der Leyen becoming commission president when they cast their vote, making her appointment not very democratic.
Her doublethink and doublespeak needs repeated illumination.
She has never been part of any democratic process to put her in that role. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister is an elected minister who leads his or her party. Von der leyen is a technocrat. “Demos” means “the people” en masse.
> You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
It does not matter who elects the EU commission, there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. What we have today in EU is pure BS: every country gets a commissioner based on that country's influence within the bloc and every time a new country joins the EU, a new commissioner role just happens to be created.
I want to be able to choose from a number of candidates who should run the EU, not the prime minister or the president of a member country.
Everybody who holds even a little power in the EU construct needs to be voted by EU citizens, not appointed by who knows who.
This second- or third-hand "democracy" is not a democracy at all.
The US (electoral collage and 2 senator seats per state) and the UK (government ministers don't need to be MPs) also fail at this definition, and I would like them to be better in general too.
> there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head.
Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
Everyone in the EU has a smartphone in their pocket and nowadays an afternoon of vibe coding could push out a platform for electing the top EU officials to every single smartphone, for people to pick who they want to govern them.
The solution is potentially as simple as that and still they prefer not to have actual properly-democratic elections.
I’m saying it partly in jest but if you’re in tech then you know yourself that there are ways to conduct an election or at least a direct poll of everyone in Europe who cares if so motivated.
But you’re correct in that it doesn’t need vibe coding or any other kind of solutions because the president of Europe is not and will not ever be democratically elected, so such potential solutions are moot.
> Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
No, I really believe everybody with a shred of power in an office needs to be elected, especially at the EU level where their decisions can affect hundreds of millions. Again, second- or third-hand democracy is not really democracy.
> I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
Well, maybe they should. And should also limit their mandates from life to maybe 4-8 years. And no, it does not mean that if I vote for someone I will trust that someone completely. They will, at some point, take some decisions that are contrary to my interest but in their own political interest. So they do not really have a desire to represent me fully, just enough.
> Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
No, they need to be voted in. This is how we get in situations where unelected officials, like the EU commission is, make decisions that affect my life without any consequences for them.
The system needs to be tied to the people's wish at every corner, and if the people don't like someone, they should be able to vote them out on a recall vote just as easy as ordering pizza.
I would like to see a system where confidence votes are cast every six months or so for everyone (parliament, president, prime-minister - you name it). And if they fail, they get booted out the next day and fresh elections are held in the next two-three weeks. And the cycle repeats. Either they work for the people to keep their jobs or not. Super simple.
Confidence votes are a very different type of vote than electoral votes. There’s an argument to make for them. There’s also an argument that it turns a professional job into a popularity contest.
I know it sounds like the commission is full of buddy-buddy jobs but, living in Brussels and seeing the bubble from up close I can tell you that is seldom the case. I can’t say it never happens but the processes and scrutiny these people go through is extremely high.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s often a lot of incompetence that ends up at the helm. But this isn’t something elections solve. Elections turned the leader of the free world into the leader of incompetence.
Adding elections adds democracy, it does not add expertise. If your issue is with bad decisions being made, your issue is not with how the people got in the position to make those decisions, it’s with the systems that allowed bad decisions to be made.
A bad plane pilot can crash your plane and kill you; the fix isn’t to elect your pilots.
Correct. Which is why there’s no need for that leadership to come out and say “We believe in democracy” when they don’t have it or need it, which was the point I was making.
To be frank, it is a quite eccentric way to appoint an executive leader: imagine POTUS being chosen by state governors.
> She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic
Well I would say this is arguable. Sure, her power is ultimately resulting from a popular mandate. But, if your country elects the head of state directly (say, France) then there are two "hops" between a popular mandate and the head of the EC. Whereas, if you are in a parliamentary system, it's three "hops" (MPs -> head of State -> EC president).
As stated by Carney, this is not exactly true, but something like this has been expected. From a legal and sovereignty standpoint, EU membership of any kind does not make sense. A novel bloc of nations centered around military and economic cooperation that includes the EU and Canada however, does.
And it's not even "novel" in the sense that this group already exist, except so far it was gravitating around the US, and it might just reorient to gravitate around someone else.
It certainly does not make sense seeing as Canada is not in Europe.
The Eurovision song contest includes Australia in its member nations. Mindblowing I know, but it's possible for a thing to transcend its name.
Mostly a semantic concern in the name given the shared interests and concerns both have in a number of things including the Arctic. It's more a "North Atlantic" group of nations view both sides seem to be taking, but you know, without the US.
And a fairly serious geographical one.
One could argue that it is European by founding and history though.
Founded by Europeans, still mostly populated by people of European ancestry, with laws written by Europeans and based on European ideas.
European isn't just a geographic descriptor :-)
I suppose. America is a much more mixed bag, while Canada at its core is still British, Scottish, and French. Enough cities have a certain sterile and organized appearance more common in Europe than the US. Not sure how else I'd describe it, but maybe Canada is a bit more "monolithic"?
You could argue even more effectively that it was British by founding and a British colony, with a big influence from the French. And we know what happened with Britain and the EU.
I think there is a lot of value there for other advanced economies in Asia, namely Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Aus/NZ.
With the US self-destructing these countries need a new plan. They are routinely being pushed around by China and need a counterweight.
Who knows, maybe after all the doom and gloom the EU might just win by default because the other world powers have become so unattractive the rest of the world rallies around them?
Bienvenue aux canucks
Stranger than fiction.
Why? Seems the US doesn't like democracy anymore and the EU for all its faults still does. I can see Japan joining too and potentially South Korea, Philippines, and others who are concerned about the state of the world and want to work together rather than drive the world apart.
If I’d said to you last year “Hey! I bet Canada is going to join the EU! No, of course not as charter-violating full member, as a newly invented ‘associate member’!” You’d probably have said “That’s both crazy and oddly specific, the chances of that have to be approaching zero”.
That’s why.
Yes but also "associate member" is, despite specificity, less surprising than full membership would have been.
Same as economic gravity meant that Brexit didn't disconnect UK from EU it only made trade harder, neither this kind of deal nor full membership can be much more than a band-aid for Trump's BS, it won't fully compensate for the harm he and his administration are doing to Canada.
I think the world would be jumping into alignments like this if the US hadn't spent the last 80 years building a "nuclear umbrella" for the "western alliance" with itself in the centre.
I bet many countries would prefer to disassociate with US foreign policy right now if they weren't security dependent.
I expect after this destructive episode in history has played out, if we're all still alive and free in another decade then there will be alternative umbrellas.
[flagged]
Do you have anything at all to contribute besides mindless EU hate?
The mentally enfeebled only seem to be able to parrot hateful things they don't understand that they read on some social media cesspit.
[flagged]
I live here. I talk to older people. They tell me about the horrors of WW2 and how glad they are the EU succeeded as a peace project. Before the EU, we had centuries of cruelties between what are now members of the same block.
It might be good to expand your perspective a little. Standard of living isn't just the economy.
Even ignoring your point that I massively disagree with ... It's not about joining the EU at all so what are you talking about
[flagged]
I thank you for this very high level analysis that gives absolutely zero actual content or details because big funny words, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that one.
And on the climate policies in particular, my personnal belief is that we haven't gone far enough fast enough, limit access to our market to product made using climate respecting or restoring ways should have been the rule decades ago already.
I know some people look at the way the world climate is changing and think "ehh so what / it's not really us doing it", but that's not how we see things here.
Reality doesn't need to be plausible; we're all characters in each other's first-person narratives, with no access to the voice of an omniscient narrator.
I mean, it's only what the US is doing that's strange.
It's a country with tons of raw resources and a large consumer market, they're the "dream partner" for the large blocks (USA/China/EU, and Japan/India a bit behind). You buy their resources, they make a lot of money from it, you turn it into a final product and you make a lot of money from the value added, everyone is happy.
It's really weird that the US is suddenly not happy about this arrangement, and for resource-starved EU it's a golden opportunity; of course we will happily buy if the US doesn't want to anymore. That's why there is so little friction showing up (there will be more later, of course, but relatively little), why Canada can get so many deal quickly with everyone during this turnaround, it's that obvious of a win for everyone involved.
(as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, even more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
> (as usual, the key blocking point that will need lots of work will be food, eve more than it is with the US, I wish we could scrap that entire part to get a v1 going quickly but alas it's not how trade deal work)
I mean food/dairy/autos (which is also a major EU issue) have been 90% of the issues with Canada/USA trade for decades too so I have my doubts of them figuring it out any better.
I guess Canada is way more motivated then ever before as rapid souring of the relationship with the USA from this point would be a near economic collapse for them.
CETA (the existing EU/CA one) is also being bogged down in some country including my own (France) because of some food issues, so I think everyone involved knows.
And while you're correct about Canada being extra motivated at the moment; so is the EU. It's such an absurd situation that we know the "urgent pivot need" might slow down a lot if adult come back in charge in the US. Same reason why so many want to sign so quickly, it's like gold on a platter AND Canada win too, you don't spit on that offer.
The other day in a Dutch geopolitics podcast (Boekestijn en de Wijk) it was mentioned that if there's one country that could be added to the EU "at the stroke of a pen", it would be Canada. In terms of state of the democracy, shared values, etc. And I agree with that perspective. But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it. It would be like a mirror image of Russia feeling encroached by NATO, but then in the Western hemisphere. And perhaps a red cloth invitation to the frothing bull(ies) of the Trump administration to invade their neighbor.
The US-Iran war is very unpopular and it's not even that the US is winning it.
Going against Canada would mean .. what? Having tanks roll in Toronto downtown? Assuming it would be a military success, which isn't guaranteed after what happens in Iran,that would be unpopular beyond anything we've seen.
Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
From what I read about what they wanted Canada to sign (the "new deal" Canada walked out of), they want to give them strict conditions and no abilities to make new deals with someone else to make them fully dependant. So the goal was not really military conquest but economic stranglehold. All the while apparently asking to tone down their minorities including the french one.
There is an alternate timeline where Canada signed that, and it looks much bleaker for them down the road.
> Tough words, that's the worse we may expect from the US gov realistically.
Trade wars and sanctions can get very nasty too. I don't know about Canada, but most of the EU runs on US Big Tech to name just one sensitive sector.
It's a two way street; sanction on big tech is also the big weapon the EU has against the US if need be and that we kept threatening but never activating.
Which doesn't mean it's easy or won't hurt like hell, but this is a continent that just cut most of the gas cord lines in record times despite massive pain and cost, if it came down to it we would simply because if it comes down to this and we don't then we're done.
Short time it would damage us pretty hard, but long term it would be another net loss for the US.
America is a big importer of toilet paper from Canada. :-)
This “at the stroke of the pen” idea is fantastical. Actual Canadians would have next to no interest in this. Whole provinces of Canada don’t even want to be part of Canada so their appetite for having the EU parliament and Commission anywhere near them would be slim to none. Having 250million Europeans eligible to migrate to Canada would similarly be dead in the water even if a few people in Toronto and Quebec might warm to the idea of going the other way.
This is not really true. It's an extreme fringe minority in Canada that is massively misrepresented in US media, and largely propagated by AI bots.
Totally agree that it’s fringe. But joining the EU even as an associate member was on the lips of literally nobody in Canada until today.
Months ago: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadians-s...
It was the same way with Australia becoming eligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, .. and yet here we are today with that thoroughly normalised.
The context in the podcast was that EU was too picky in their reform criteria for inclusion for current candidates on the European continent, but that Canada as a modern country would sail past and pass the exam. The ease with which these experts concluded it would make sense for Canada to join struck me, because impact on geopolitical relationship with US was imho too easily overlooked. It is a sentiment I hear more often now, in the news.
Then that means Canada must build overwhelming firepower clearly and mine the border to hell, build anti aircraft systems everywhere and take whatever steps needed to prevent and repel an unprovoked invasion, just like it is logical for Ukraine to do the same to protect itself from Russia.
This seems to be what Canada and Europe want from each other. Both have interests in repelling other powers that deserve to have their economic and military capabilities weakened, and both seem to be able to help each other on expanding economic base, energy security, food supply, and resource availability/manufacturing capability with existing intellectual and trade property that will distance them from the US MIC.
> But at the same time I thought that if there's one way to get into conflict with the current US administration - who declared EU their only adversary in the US National Security Plan - this is it.
That would be the icing on the cake.
Would it not make sense to perhaps invite the UK to be an associate member first? We’re right on the doorstep.
You don‘t want to have any level of association with us, as you‘ve made clear repeatedly over many years, involving many insults.
Don‘t expect the EU to actively offer anything again. Do the first step (after getting a clear view what proportion of your population actually wants that).
The United Kingdom would be a great member, as you had been. But that ship has politically sailed.
The way you paint it sounds like the EU is a hardline communist state where dissent and even insult must be punished.
Why does Canada get a free pass to pleasantries just because the Canadians haven’t had a chance to insult the EU and its federalist technocrats yet?
You seem extremely confused. Why do you want your ex partner to treat you nicely when you yourself stated you hate them? Do you want to force a relationship again despite the other party not wanting you or even you yourself wanting it? You seem completely incoherent and absurd. Make up your mind whether you want to join a voluntary membership organization or not.
The main confusion here is your use of unsuitable metaphor - people choosing that a political bloc is not behaving in a way that they believe represents their interests is in no way analogous to an abusive partner beating his/her significant other, and it is pretty addled to even make that comparison. Yet paradoxically sensible, because it demonstrates why the political process stalled as that framing really is what is in the minds of the EU bureaucrats towards the UK now. You’re also overlooking that 49% of the voters in the UK voted to stay in the EU.
Elsewhere you are saying you disagree with the way the EU is structured, which makes it even more absurd why you want to join it. Don't like it, leave it. Like it, put a vote to join. Like some aspects, dislike others, then state specifics and come to a discussion.
Some of the benefits of being in the EU are very nice but the way it is now structured politically and financially and even ideologically mean that it is not an entity which any sensible country with anything to lose could willingly join. And the main thing lost is the right to have any impact on its decision making process. Hence why Switzerland, Norway and more recently Iceland aren’t members, and it lost the UK.
Then why are you complaining they didn't invite your country?
Your country chose to divorce of its own will, the EU didn't kick you out. It is not a forcible organization like being a citizen in a country, its completely voluntary. So why the hell are you whining about the EU ignoring you when you yourself divorced from it. Nobody is stopping you from insulting or hating anyone you want. What is absurd to then also want to force them to interact with you and then this absurd heisen stuff of leaving them and then complaining they don't want you in when there is nothing stopping you from making the request to be let in. You should make up your mind, why should the EU have to give you an invite when you were the one who left it and now you want to join/not-join. I think if the EU sent a request and the mood in your populace was anti eu then it would worsen not improve relations for example. The homework is on the UK to measure if it's population wants to join the EU or not before making any requests. If you want to join, say it clearly and put a vote in the UK, or if you don't want to join then make it clear, otherwise it doesn't make sense t be complaining about the EU not wishing to entertain your unstated requests.
I find your tone inappropriate for this website.
I suggest you don't participate if you cannot discuss calmly the opinion that the EU should be more inviting towards the UK, even if you consider the opinion absurd.
How can EU be the one expected to be inviting when they didn't kick the UK out in the first place? The UK is the one that left on its own. The EU doesn't have to do anything, I think they are quite open to the UK or anyone else in the continent joining. I just find it absurd a British person is complaining without the UK first doing the homework and showing joining EU is something tenable from their side via an internal vote about joining.
If you want a disclaimer, I am neither european nor british if that matters. From outside the situation seems very clear to me.
The UK will likely be welcome back right after everyone's confident Leave (be that Tory, Farage, or whoever the even worse party that Musk now supports are) definitely won't win a general election for at least another generation.
Well the issue there then is that Farage’s Reform party seem likely to win that election. The current ostensibly-left-wing Labour government also have absolutely no appetite for rejoining either. Even the coalition of anti-growth eco-warriors and islamists which is the contemporary Green Party don’t say much which is a real surprise because it seems like such an easy vote-winner for them. Finally, it seems strange that the EU should pretty-well require the governments of its potential members to be left-wing or centrist, especially as this demand is now causing constituents of the EU to start to swing to the hard right too.
If your country initiated a divorce, it makes no sense for the other party to invite you again. You should have to request first and show to them eg with a vote you won't again flake out in a few years.
Canadian government seems to be denying this.
Carney has said Canada is not looking to become a "member" of the EU. Meanwhile, "associate member" is an entirely new thing that has yet to be defined. These aren't incompatible statements.
It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.
I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.
_________
*NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.
Carney himself used these exact words couple days ago. This is coordinated.
Do you have a citation for that? What was the exact quote?
What I found:
>>> "We're not looking to become a member of the European Union," Carney said Sunday evening on the red carpet of the Toronto International Film Festival. He attended the festival shortly after giving a speech to kick off the two-day Canada Investment Summit, which begins Monday.
>>> "What we are looking — and will begin discussions for — [is] a unique alliance with the European Union. We share the same values, we have the same priorities and we have very complementary strengths."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-european-union-eu-me...
Which is kind of my point. A unique alliance is not the same as becoming an associate member.
Being the EU's first associate member is by definition unique.
BBC https://www.bbc.com Carney eyes 'unique alliance' with EU as trade war with US intensifies
WSJ https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2... Mark Carney's Audacious Bid to Make Canada an 'Associate Member' of the EU
That's the coordination here. Which may have misfired, too:
https://www.ft.com/content/2e2e0c1e-51d6-49e2-9f4a-6ef793908...
I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
Between the US and China, the EU is the future, but they need to federalize then leverage that to implement a top notch military and economy.
Carney can see this and wants a piece of the action. The question is if the EU can escape its parochial myopia and see it.
Hopefully Russia will do something even stupider and precipitate the existential crisis that the EU desperately needs to get off its ass.
> but they need to federalize
That's not happening or if it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
Go ahead, make my day.
> If it did they'd lose a third of the members doing it.
As a federalist, that would be fine for me. Make a two speed europe. EU stays primarily a trade block that the "federal EU" is in.
> they need to federalize
"Shit Americans say"
The EU is NOTHING like the US. The difference between each member is the same as the difference between the US and Mexico, not like the difference between California and Utah.
It's utter ignorance to suggest that the EU could one day become a single country.
“A single country” is pretty vague. For some definitions the EU already is one, for other definitions the EU can never be one.
What we do need is doing more things on the EU level. E.g. there’s no point in all member states building a nuclear umbrella or a space program. Some taxes also work better on an EU level because capital flows freely in the union and makes taxation hard for individual members.
Nevertheless that exact plan is in the minds of every higher-up running the EU. Individual counties are an anachronism that will eventually be got rid of if the EU is to continue.
The UK is a "country of countries" - with fairly significant differences between some of the component parts - maybe the EU could become something like that?
You realise how many wars and how much bloodshed over how many centuries it took for that to happen in the UK?
The political union of England and Scotland was achieved without bloodshed and largely because folks in Scotland wanted a financial bailout to cover the utterly disastrous Scottish colonial efforts in Darien.
How about Northern Ireland?
Personally I expect NI to peacefully unify with the Republic of Ireland at some point in the next 20 years? Or maybe not - all depends on how people vote rather than fighting?
I feel like you might not know much about the peace process in NI. If you’d like to see a return to things getting blown up and catholics being gunned down by loyalists, then suggest conducting a vote on joining Ireland and leaving the UK.
Thanks Trump
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I love that argument now parroted all over the Internet. Love it because what these people actually eman is they want an elected president, which would legitimize EU even more, hopefully with its own constitution.
Not necessarily. One can eg want more power to the actually elected part of the EU structure and less power to the commission. Imo electing or not a president does not necessarily help with democracy, as the US example shows. And in europe most countries do not have a strong presidential system, except France and 2-3 others. So I doubt having "strong elected president" is what people actually have in mind for the EU.
People bring this up they may consider EU to be historically a centralized power structure. Whether it can practically be actually democratized or not is a matter of debate. One can bring up the democratic deficit of EU without harbouring actual thoughts or hopes that it can be fixed.
[flagged]
That would be the next step but they seem to be getting on fine with an unelected president.
EU already has a constitution (?)
Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).
> It's current legal basis is a series of treaties
But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common.
The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
As others said. Constitution and an elected president would pave way into a common military.
Yeah, good to make it clear that militarization of europe is what is actually debated, not democracy.
Who said that?
Believe it or not but the american system isn’t exact a blueprint for actual democracy. Many democratic systems don‘t make the election of the president a vote.
In actual democracy, like ancient Athens, most offices are filled by sortition rather than election.
Election is characteristic of oligarchy, where a few people make decisions for the many. Usually the few are supposed to be more qualified for or deserving of office, and election is a way of deciding which volunteer is most worthy.
In democracies, everyone is assumed to be equally qualified, as governing requires no special knowledge beyond some basic morality. So, lists of volunteers for office are compiled and names drawn from those lists at random, and for every office something like nine names are drawn, so volunteers can split their time between public service and their private affairs. This random selection also prevents the creation of political parties: you can’t get randomly selected by spending more on a campaign.
So, election of officers is oligarchic, rather than democratic. Democracies have votes instead on legislation, declarations of war snd peace, and jury trials.
Well funnily enough, virtually all the constituent countries of the EU do put the election of their president to a democratic vote.
Not really. In many of them the president is elected through the parliament (which is democratic in the indirect sense only). In quite a few of them they still have kings/queens instead of presidents. So they do put the ones holding the executive power to a vote, but that's not necessarily the president.
BUT in those countries the president (or royal) has mostly a more "decorative" type of role and not actual power. It is the government constituted by the parliamentary majority (or close to that) elected through general elections that holds the executive power. In EU there is no direct election of the president/commission, AND it holds most of the institutional executive power, which is what makes it undemocratic imo.
Nevertheless, Von der Leyen is both unelected and non-decorative. Nobody else is speaking for the whole of Europe today.
You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic... They get appointed by the democratically elected parliament.
This is incorrect. The European Parliament elects the Commission President, not the European Council. In fact, von der Leyen narrowly squeaked through in 2019, getting 383 votes with 374 votes required (with her making it being attributed to her hawkish stance on Russia to an extent, which supposedly earned her additional Eastern European votes).
The European Council does nominate the candidate and infamously in 2019 overrode the informally agreed on spitzenkandidaten process, by which the nominee of the political group (EU Parliament equivalent of parties) with the most seats should have gotten the nomination.
That said, the EU Parliament is not bound by the nomination. It can very obviously reject any candidate it doesn't like, though of course the dynamics of candidate selection are heavily influenced by the European Council's nomination power.
But yes, there's nothing per se undemocratic about it and I'm a bit bewildered by people asking for direct election of the President rather than cleaning up the existing process, given that most EU member states elect their heads of government indirectly.
The appointment of the commission president is quite different from how the German chancellor is determined:
1. The majority of representatives in Bundestag represents (up to rounding issues) the majority of voters.
2. Parties advertise their chancellor candidate before the election, and voters take that into account when choosing which party to vote for.
Being chosen democratically isn't a black and white thing. It becomes gradually less democratic as you separate voter intent and outcome further. This isn't just a function of how the election process itself works, but also voters being informed.
Practically no voter would have predicted von der Leyen becoming commission president when they cast their vote, making her appointment not very democratic.
Her doublethink and doublespeak needs repeated illumination.
She has never been part of any democratic process to put her in that role. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister is an elected minister who leads his or her party. Von der leyen is a technocrat. “Demos” means “the people” en masse.
Sounds like you're moving goalposts here
Or the President of the US, which is also appointed by the democratically elected Electoral College...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector - this is actually pretty interesting.
LMAO, right, just as representative!
Get this Brexit-era disinfo off my screen...
> You keep spreading this, but the eurocommssion president gets appointed by the European Council, which consists of democratically elected heads of state.
It does not matter who elects the EU commission, there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head. What we have today in EU is pure BS: every country gets a commissioner based on that country's influence within the bloc and every time a new country joins the EU, a new commissioner role just happens to be created.
I want to be able to choose from a number of candidates who should run the EU, not the prime minister or the president of a member country.
Everybody who holds even a little power in the EU construct needs to be voted by EU citizens, not appointed by who knows who.
This second- or third-hand "democracy" is not a democracy at all.
If this is your standard, that's fine.
The US (electoral collage and 2 senator seats per state) and the UK (government ministers don't need to be MPs) also fail at this definition, and I would like them to be better in general too.
> there needs to be a popular vote across the EU for every commissioner job and the EU Commission head.
Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
Everyone in the EU has a smartphone in their pocket and nowadays an afternoon of vibe coding could push out a platform for electing the top EU officials to every single smartphone, for people to pick who they want to govern them.
The solution is potentially as simple as that and still they prefer not to have actual properly-democratic elections.
Peak 2026 hn to think vibe coding a mobile app for elections is going to “solve” a problem they don’t understand. Do you even hear yourself?
I’m saying it partly in jest but if you’re in tech then you know yourself that there are ways to conduct an election or at least a direct poll of everyone in Europe who cares if so motivated.
But you’re correct in that it doesn’t need vibe coding or any other kind of solutions because the president of Europe is not and will not ever be democratically elected, so such potential solutions are moot.
> Your talking points are misinformed and pretty ridiculous which makes me think you're a troll rather than having a faithful argument. But on the off chance you are trying to have a real discussion: The Council and Parliament both get elected and the commission cannot do anything without them, so it's not like the system is not democratic.
No, I really believe everybody with a shred of power in an office needs to be elected, especially at the EU level where their decisions can affect hundreds of millions. Again, second- or third-hand democracy is not really democracy.
> I don't see the US asking for their attorney general or supreme court justices to be democratically elected. At some point you have to trust that the people you actually elect will appoint people who know what they're doing.
Well, maybe they should. And should also limit their mandates from life to maybe 4-8 years. And no, it does not mean that if I vote for someone I will trust that someone completely. They will, at some point, take some decisions that are contrary to my interest but in their own political interest. So they do not really have a desire to represent me fully, just enough.
> Just because there's someone in the chain you're not doing a round of elections on doesn't make the system bad. You need the system to have agency at some point.
No, they need to be voted in. This is how we get in situations where unelected officials, like the EU commission is, make decisions that affect my life without any consequences for them.
The system needs to be tied to the people's wish at every corner, and if the people don't like someone, they should be able to vote them out on a recall vote just as easy as ordering pizza.
I would like to see a system where confidence votes are cast every six months or so for everyone (parliament, president, prime-minister - you name it). And if they fail, they get booted out the next day and fresh elections are held in the next two-three weeks. And the cycle repeats. Either they work for the people to keep their jobs or not. Super simple.
Confidence votes are a very different type of vote than electoral votes. There’s an argument to make for them. There’s also an argument that it turns a professional job into a popularity contest.
I know it sounds like the commission is full of buddy-buddy jobs but, living in Brussels and seeing the bubble from up close I can tell you that is seldom the case. I can’t say it never happens but the processes and scrutiny these people go through is extremely high.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s often a lot of incompetence that ends up at the helm. But this isn’t something elections solve. Elections turned the leader of the free world into the leader of incompetence.
Adding elections adds democracy, it does not add expertise. If your issue is with bad decisions being made, your issue is not with how the people got in the position to make those decisions, it’s with the systems that allowed bad decisions to be made.
A bad plane pilot can crash your plane and kill you; the fix isn’t to elect your pilots.
Correct. Which is why there’s no need for that leadership to come out and say “We believe in democracy” when they don’t have it or need it, which was the point I was making.
To be frank, it is a quite eccentric way to appoint an executive leader: imagine POTUS being chosen by state governors.
> She is no less democratically elected than the prime minister of a parliamentary republic
Well I would say this is arguable. Sure, her power is ultimately resulting from a popular mandate. But, if your country elects the head of state directly (say, France) then there are two "hops" between a popular mandate and the head of the EC. Whereas, if you are in a parliamentary system, it's three "hops" (MPs -> head of State -> EC president).