So it seems like Mark Carney is currently making a serious attempt to redefine Canada’s relationship with the European Union, if not setting Canada on the path to actual EU membership, then perhaps some alternative form of “membership lite.” What’s everyone’s best guess as to what form that might realistically take? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Is the devil in the details?
As someone who has been disgusted by Trump’s recent behavior toward Canada and is American by birth, Canadian by descent via recent legal developments, and has felt pulled by various chunks of Europe her entire life, I’m dying to see how this all turns out. (Hopefully not literally.)
Makes perfect sense. Canada badly wants to diversify away from the USA, for all the justifiable reasons. At the same time, China, while a huge trading partner, brings its own thorny regime problems. That leaves the EU as the biggest logical partner that can be trusted, especially given that Canada’s culture is largely European-resembling/similar. I don’t think Canada would ever be given actual EU membership, though, since that kind of flouts the “European” part of the name.
See, the wonderful thing about treaties and laws is, they are entirely a creation of humankind. So we can redefine them any time we want to, if we decide they no longer suit us.
Carney seems to be suggesting a new type of relationship, and we can figure out what that means over time, if we all decide this is something we want to pursue. Who knows what the future may bring? Maybe we’ll redefine the entire concept of the “EU”.
There’s no “Associate Member” status of the EU, but it does have a significant number of “Association Agreements” - about twenty with individual states, and one or two more that cover groups of states, like the EU–Central America Association Agreement covering Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
These are extremely flexible — meaning, they’re all quite different. Some are with states that are expressly on a path to full membership, and tailored towards advancing that; others with states that are definitely not on that path. They offer varying degrees of participation in the Single Market, free movement, the customs union, and EU programmes. And then, of course, there’s the EEA Agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, which offers a very high degree of integration.
All of which is by way of saying — there’s plenty of precedent for Canada and the EU to negotiate a bespoke Association Agreement that would address the particular context of Canada. But we can’t really say that that would result in a very high degree of integration or a much lower degree,; it depends on what the parties negotiate. There are precedents for both, which does suggest that the EU is open and flexible when it comes to addressing the context of a particular relationship; there isn’t a preset model into which Canada would have to be slotted.
Because there are so many countries in the EU and because they need to reach a consensus it takes a very long time for any EU agreements to be negotiated and to come into force. So while there may some minor agreements fairly shortly I wouldn’t expect a major agreement until after Trump leaves office. And the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, will probably want good relations with Canada.
I would imagine it’ll be tied back to defence procurement, and if I get giddy maybe something like a joint artic command structure if we’re going to be all excited about the artic.
Maybe France and Italy ratifying CETA would be good, while Canada align food safety to EU standards.
Carney obviously spent a long time dealing with English and European leaders while leading Britain’s Central Bank. It makes sense for middle powers to mingle.
I think this is largely about messaging, and will result in lots of talk and a little bit of trade, but ultimately more smoke than steak.
Norway and Iceland have not joined the EU AFAIK but still use some of its principles while keeping sovereignity. Carney isn’t going to suggest using the Euro or electing people to Brussels but I would say yes to imported food and easier travel…
The US has already elected Donald Trump once — twice, in fact, and the second time with full knowledge of what kind of President he was the first time around. So, clearly, the US could elect simlar figures in the future.
Something like the election of Trump works a permanent change in the status of the US, and in how it is regarded by the international community and by its neighbours in particular. Yes, things will get better when Trump leaves office, but they won’t go back to where they were before he entered office. Canada now knows that the US is the kind of country that can elect the kind of President that Trump is, and it knows that the constitutional and political checks and balances that should limit the damage that can be done by that kind of President do not function effectively. That’s the kind of thing you can’t un-know.
So, yeah, negotiating and building a new relationship with the EU will take time. But this is a long-term project to meet a long-term need.
My own uninformed hunch is that this will end up as some sort of trade agreement, maybe something like the former NAFTA or current CUSMA between Canada and the US, that allows trade between Canada and the EU free of tariffs across a broad category of goods. I don’t believe it will – and definitely should not – include Canada in the border-free Schengen Area.
I would be shocked if we allowed free movement à la Schengen. If we did, I expect the current Temporary Foreign Worker situation in Canada would disappear overnight and be replaced with Poles, Romanians, and other Eastern EU nationals.
Hey, they’re joining Eurovision next year. And Australia has been participating since 2015.
My guess is a more comprehensive trade agreement, more formal cultural and knowledge exchanges (maybe like an Erasmus-lite arrangement), and some in-principle agreements on defense outside of the NATO framework, just in case.
Well CETA exists currently. While a few countries (France and Italy in particular) have not yet ratified it, almost all the trade related provisions are provisionally in effect. So we already have a free trade agreement with the EU.
Likely something related to defence but I would be thrilled if it kicked off a discussion around credential recognition between the EU and Canada. Not because I think it would happen but that it would force the Premiers to address it internally to Canada. Different provinces require different accreditation for the same job and act as part of the “internal trade barriers” everyone was yammering on about 6 months ago.
It’s not a problem with those populations, it has to do with our current situation. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the economics here, so I will explain in more detail.
For the last decade, Canada has had a labour shortage, largely at the lower end of the market. Food service, personal support, and factories have had a hard time filing jobs. Under PM Trudeau, the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program was expanded to allow employers who can’t find workers currently in Canada at the prevailing wage to get a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and use that as the basis for bringing in workers on temporary closed work permits. This accelerated massively during Covid and led to our current state of about 1.5M people, about 5% of the Canadian population.
There has been a lot of political pushback on the program due to upward pressure on housing costs as well as our continued ~7% unemployment rate which led to a tightening of the program and a target of about 1/2 of the current numbers.
A Schengen style free movement deal would lead to an influx of workers who can work here without visas, in the same manor that led to an influx of Polish immigrants to the UK pre-Brexit.
Indeed it might, but in case a labor shortage and high unemployment rate leads to an influx of workers, I would say that was exactly the intent (to make it easier to alleviate the shortage and increase employment rates). Granted, high housing costs and rising unemployment rates are their own important issue which may or may not be linked to immigration.
I honestly don’t see why Canada shouldn’t become a full member of the EU eventually. It’s a good fit in terms of being a rich liberal democracy, in many ways more so than several East European countries. Not doing this because of some geographical hangup seems silly. You could argue that Canada is historically of European origin and in fact even geographically it’s very close to Greenland which is associated with the EU.
There is a land border between Denmark and Canada on Hans island in the high artic.
But Canada becoming a member of the EU is just swapping one master for another. Better to start leveraging the CPTPP and CETA trade deals and acting as the mediating agent between the two. The US appears to be fixated on keeping trade barriers up, and given the export nature of EU countries, and most of the CPTTP ones, a harmonized trade zone would be interesting.