I like the Canadian dollar, but I wouldn’t resist switching to the Euro. I think the Bank of Canada does (in general) a better job, but I think we could work with the Euro just fine.
Don’t give him any more ideas, please.
But there’s a difference between trying to get out of an alliance, and trying to get in.
Back in the 80s, Quebec tried to suggest a “Sovereignty Association” with Canada, which did not go over well, because like this, they wanted all the benefits of being part of Canada, with none of the obligations. But now, Canada is offering the EU something it doesn’t currently have, in exchange for Canada getting some things. This is a much more equitable plan.
Welcome to Canada, BTW! 
I think you’ll find that though politics here is fractious, as it is in most places, it’s mostly pretty sane compared to the US.
And yet the EU has both the largest and the deepest network of trade agreements that the world has ever seen. So, yeah, it is possible both to negotiate and to conclude far-reaching agreements with the EU. The fact that CETA isn’t fully ratified yet doesn’t mean that, in the changed political circumstances we now find ourselves in, an agreement addressing those circumstances can’t be negotiated and concluded.
I’m a little bit sceptical of this “associate member” labelling though. The states in the closest relationship with the EU are the EEA members — Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein — but they’re not considered, or called, “associate members”. And it seems likely that, however close a relationship with the EU Canada may be hoping for, they are hoping for a less close relationship than that one. so labelling it “associate membership” might be a bit of an overreach.
Carney is in a much better position to represent Canada to Europe than his predecessors, and the head of the EU has offered some type of agreement. People liked his Davos speech.
“The invitation by the E.U. for Canada to become an “associate member” is a sign of Mr. Trump’s brand of diplomacy, which often involves threatening America’s closest friends…”
…”And even if the gesture by the E.U. ends up being more symbolic than substantive, it shows how Mr. Trump is upending global relationships in ways that will be difficult to undo.
“We should see this action from Canada and the E.U. as a direct consequence of Trump’s actions and rhetoric,” said James Batchik, a deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center. “The rhetoric around making Canada the 51st state, and the threats against Greenland, which are still highly, highly, controversial and remembered in Brussels, are really reminders for both sides that the United States is not necessarily that trusted ally that it once was.”…
They still haven’t getting sign off on the CERT deal from 10 years ago so whatever an Associate Member requires (probably full compliance to regulations with no voting rights) is going to take multiple decades. The good thing is that Carney is probably trying to position himself as a potential replacement for Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. Hopefully that happens sooner than later as Canada can’t live on MOU’s alone.
First, @Eva_Luna , welcome to Canada. I went through the same thing. If you’d like to start a thread in MPSIMS I can give you an understanding of Canadian politics, which is personal, insightful, and almost completely wrong, I will happily contribute. Title it something like “Why are you people so found of Winter?”, which I’ve always found is a good conversation opener. I’d mostly be wrong, but entertaining.
The CBC is claiming 4 in 5 Canadians favor closer ties with Europe. Someone, perhaps Carney, has floated the long term, long shot, idea of work visas in the EU for Canada. Next up is standardizing regulations, building two pipelines, and expanding a few harbours, including one in Montreal.
You absolutely would not want to surrender central bank control to the EU. The EU bank makes decisions for members states and economies. We would simply be along for the ride.
I saw on BlueSky someone suggest that any union between CANAda and euroPE should be known as Canape.
Yes, that’s how central banks work. The Euro isn’t managed as well as the Canadian dollar in my non-expert opinion, but both are broadly fine. We’d be fine.
@Grey has a point though. The EU Central Bank (ECB) will make decisions based on the needs of the EU. If Canada’s economy is in lockstep with the EU business cycle, it’ll be fine. If not; not.
Many small countries have the USD as a de facto second currency or as their de jure currency. Or their currency is somehow pegged to USD. Our Fed decides policy for US interests with all but zero regard for anyone else, even back in the good old days of us having a non-criminal regime.
It’s real easy for those very different economies to be in different phases of the business cycle. Resulting in their (IOW, the Fed’s) monetary policy being unhelpful (or even disastrous) versus their current needs.
One would expect the modern factory-oriented parts of the Canadian economy to operate similarly to those of the Euro area. And hence stay roughly in sync. The raw materials / extractive industries are probably a bigger share in Canada than in most of the Euro area. Maybe a much bigger share. If so, that would be a potential stumbling point.
The point of central banks, or at least the BoC and EU Central Bank is to maintain inflation to a set range, and to a lesser extent, ensure full employment. Neither has any targeted value for the respective currency.
Canada being on the Euro would promote more Canadian travel to Europe. Our dollar being worth less than most other developed countries money always makes such travel more expensive for us.
I’m curious what serious historical analysis didn’t make him the worst ever. Back in Bush the Younger, people had to add “in modern times”, or “in living memory”, or the like. But even Trump’s first term surpassed Jackson, Coolidge, etc.
I don’t think it’s really comparable. Carney wants as close a tie as he can get, and is clearly willing to negotiate about the details. Britain made its explicit policy “All of the benefits, but none of the responsibilities”. They already had membership (even membership with some special concessions), and threw it away.
If the biggest obstacle to this agreement is just the question of what to call it, then I’d say that Carney is on pretty good footing.
The relative sizes of the monetary units matters not at all. What matters is the accuracy and breadth of the relative valuation. When people say, for instance, that a Canadian dollar is worth 0.8 American dollars, what precisely does that mean? Does that mean that the number of American dollars needed to buy a Big Mac is 0.8 times the number of Canadian dollars needed? Does it mean the number of dollars needed to buy an hour of a ditch-digger’s labor? Does it mean the number of dollars needed to buy a gram of gold?
If the official conversion is based on grams of gold, but a gram of gold will buy more margaritas and hotel rooms in a foreign country than it does at home, then that country will be “cheap for vacations”. But if a gram of gold buys fewer margaritas and hotel rooms in that country, that country will be “expensive for vacations”. And if the official exchange rate is based on margaritas and hotel rooms in the first place, instead of on gold, then vacations will be equally expensive for anyone.
I’m intrigued by your notions, and would like to open an account at your bank.
Of course they did. Carney was expressing a sensible and pragmatic view of reality, as befits a former governor of a central bank. Further evidence that it was a great speech was that it infuriated the Orange Peril.
Your optimism is duly noted! 
But if you meant “CETA”, most of the agreement is already in effect on a provisional basis even if not yet fully ratified, as already stated upthread.
Well, I don’t know where I got CERT from, but you are correct it is CETA. Yes, it isn’t fully ratified but is in force now which was my point. It has about doubled trade with the EU over the last 10 years. So, what is the point of ‘Associate membership’ now? I thought we didn’t do deals that could compromise our sovereignty? Or does that only apply to a specific language when votes are needed to win a by-election?
Memory has drawn her merciful curtain, but I recall that chart..it’s got “conservatives rate him” “liberals rate him” and over all. It seemed to be a survey of historians, but I cannot vouch for it’s accuracy, merely that it more or less matched my expectations. I’ll dig it up if you insist, but they but him at between second wost of fourth worst. In his second term, he got the coveted number one spot.
I looked it up; Siena College Research Institute put him at 43rd, edge out by Harding and Pierce. I don’t know what Pierce did. It must have been bad enough to be too depressing to look up.