cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/46886810
The American president has invited Canada to become his country’s “51st state,” an idea that has infuriated most of Canada’s 40 million citizens.
…
Hence this suggestion: Why not expand the EU to include Canada? Is that so far-fetched an idea? In any case, Canadians have actually considered the question themselves. In February 2025, a survey conducted by Abacus Data on a sample of 1,500 people found that 44% of those polled supported the idea, compared to 34% who opposed it. Better the 28th EU country than the 51st US state!
One might object: Canada is not European, as required for EU membership by Article 49 of the EU Treaty. But what does “European” actually mean? The word cannot be understood in a strictly geographic sense, or Cyprus, closer to Asia, would not be part of the EU. So the term must be understood in a cultural sense.
…
As [Canadian Prime Minister Mark] Carney said in Paris, in March: Thanks to its French and British roots, Canada is “the most European of non-European countries.” He speaks from experience, having served as governor of the Bank of England (a post that is assigned based on merit, not nationality). Culturally and ideologically, Canada is close to European democracies: It shares the same belief in the welfare state, the same commitment to multilateralism and the same rejection of the death penalty or uncontrolled firearms.
Moreover, Canada is a Commonwealth monarchy that shares a king with the United Kingdom.
…
Even short of a formal application, it would be wiser for Ottawa to strengthen its ties with European democracies rather than with the Chinese regime. The temptation is there: Just before heading to Davos, Carney signed an agreement with Beijing to lower tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China.
…
I like this idea a lot but would like to retain our currency. Otherwise I think it’s all upside.
Why are you attached to the currency?
As a dual Greek-Canadian citizen: fuck the Euro. It’s a straightjacket that forces everyone to follow the economic priorities of Germany.
While Greece does have economic problems because of Europe it’s not the Euro that’s at fault and they predate the EU.
Greece’s problems prior to the debt crisis were not the fault of the Euro.
The “solutions” that were offered to Greece during the crisis were not conceived with Greece’s best interest in mind, but with preserving the Euro and placating German (and other “northern”) right wingers that saw the debt crisis as a moral crusade against “lazy Mediterraneans”. That’s what I mean by straitjacket. The Greek economy was forced into an aggressive internal devaluation with no upside. Greece is currently trailing behind post-soviet-bloc members. It’s been effectively shot for at least 10-20 years.
This is to say: a currency union only works if you have other mechanisms for deeper union in terms of fiscality, transfers etc. And in an unequal system like the European one, this doesn’t work to the advantage of everyone. Canada should not let go of the CAD.
EDIT: We are a raw resouces exporter. So take oil for example. If Canada joined the Euro, and oil prices crashed while German manufacturing stayed strong, the Euro would remain high. Canada would be stuck with a “strong” currency it can’t afford, leading to the exact same “straitjacket” effect that Greece suffered from.
The euro is a great advantage for all countries that take part, including Greece. It was Greece’s membership in Eurozone that made the support easier for all sides.
There have been problems back then and many of them may still persist, but they have nothing to do with the currency. Nor has it to do with the “right wingers” that saw “a moral crusade against lazy Mediterraneans” that forced Greece “into an aggressive internal devaluation.” This is meaningless propaganda rant.
In short: a country that controls its currency, faced with a situation like Greece’s in 2012 can ease the hurt by devaluing its currency. That option was not available to Greece because of the Euro. Instead the internal devaluation was forced through, to immense social cost.
That said, I take a very great deal of exception to the “propaganda” accusation. It implies I’m a bad faith actor here, which in turns means anything I say is suspect. If that’s what you think, I have no reason to continue this discussion. Clarify your position.
What should I clarify? What is it that you don’t understand?
You speak of “German and other northern right wingers” of not having “Greece’s best interest in mind” as they were on a “moral crusade” against “lazy Mediterraneans.” And these are not even all insults and accusations you made literally out of nothing. You don’'t cite a source, not a single number, or anything that would show that you even try to foster your opinion. It’s just an empty rant, and it’s not your first one if I may say so. You are firing a series of insults.
I agree just in one point: There is no reason to continue this discussion.
Then accuse me of making an unsubstantiated rant like you just did. To that I can respond with “that’s what Varoufakis has been screaming off the top of his lungs for a decade now and that’s what people like economic historian Adam Tooze have basically said more politely”. When it comes to the stereotyping and moral crusade kind of attitude I can talk from my own goddam experience.
But accusing me of “propaganda” takes it a step further into saying I am a bad faith malicious actor that is trying to manipulate the space over some kind of agenda. Propaganda is not a difference of opinion or a rant, it is a deliberate sustained tactic to control the information space on behalf of someone else. Propaganda is post-truth, treating speech as ammunition in an information war.
So here is what I am asking you to clarify: are you saying I’m a post-truth actor engaging here on behalf of some other entity to perform information warfare?
It’s a good way of putting it but we’re in that situation now with our own currency.
It’s just less forward facing that something costs twice as much because of the American dollar vs the same cost but we have half as much.
Simplified but I hope you can see the parallel.
Yes but we have full control of our currency and central bank and therefore we have more policy levers to fine tune our response. “Forward facing” is aspirational, I just don’t see the benefit.
You mean like the UK did? Do you need more prior art than that?
Take Sweden and Denmark as better examples. But these opt-outs are no longer available. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty is explicit.
I don’t think that’s an option for new members anymore. I know Denmark was given an exception, but it may be a sticking point for the EU
deleted by creator