- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- Europe@europe.pub
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- Europe@europe.pub
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.
…
You must log in or # to comment.
Personally, as a European, I would be pro this happening if Canada wants to join and the EU is willing to let them join.
I get that geographically it wouldn’t make much sense, but culture is also important. Geographically, Belarus for example should join the EU instead of Canada, but I think most of us can agree that Belarus should not.
Canada does share a border with Denmark, so, geographically, it’s feasible.
Lets give Alberta to the US and then take the rest
No, not that meny albertens actually want the split.
The problem is the EU is still designed as an institution that’s a vassal to US interests and that they are being eroded from the bottom up by far right parties financed by that same old suspects. The EU would need to start being able to throw countries like Hungary out, they would need to begin creating their own serious alternative to NATO, and they would need to put leadership over the bureaucracy from national disputes and interests to be the sort of Union that could accept Canada within it.
The problem is also that every single election year for a EU member is another chance for the foreign financed far right to have more control over their nation and the EU as an extension. There are EU countries that are pretty divided up at the moment and even with proportional representation between a right that wants easy money and has made sure to tank any government that does not have them as a majority (or at least a majority block with the far right) and a far right that is an expert at scamming and lying to potential voters within their pedoligarch fueled social network bubbles, the outlook is not good.
We need more obvious solutions, not obvious problems. /s
You have no ideia Sir… Stay away from EU, thank me later
Canada is an independent country, thank you.
Where are your nukes?
They aren’t comparable. One is the prospect of a forced marriage, the other is being asked to join a semi functional study group.
Forced marriage to a violent, abusive bully, vs study group with a disorganized slightly autistic nerd who’s really smart. I don’t want to spoil the endings, but I think we should all be able to figure out which one is going to have a positive impact on our lives and which one’s going to turn us into a domestic violence statistic.
I don’t think Canada joining the EU is really realistic. It’s not about geography, it’s mostly regulation.
For example, all EU countries meet the “European standard EN 50075:1990”, which is about electrical plugs. Every device in Europe is compatible with that plug, and every plug meets that standard. Even Switzerland which isn’t part of the EU meets the 2-prong standard. Canada uses the NEMA 1-15 and NEMA 5-15 standards instead. And it isn’t just the plugs. North America uses 120 V at 60Hz, Europe uses 230 V at 50 Hz. I really can’t see a way for Canada to switch to the EU standard without a massive cost and/or a very long implementation period. And what does it gain? I much prefer europlugs and 230V appliances. My electric kettle boiled a whole lot faster in the EU, and things were retained in the socket much better than the dumb blade connectors Canada uses. But, I wouldn’t want to have to pay an extra $2000 in taxes (x 40 million or whatever) just to switch to this slightly better standard.
That’s just the start of it. There are different standards for roads, vehicles, health and safety, basically every aspect of life. Canada could switch to some at great expense, like changing all road signs. But, AFAIK being truly part of the EU would mean switching to all EU standards, unless special exemptions were made.
IMO, what would make more sense is just closer integration: free movement of people, free movement of goods, maybe closer collaboration on research, health and safety, etc.
Exemptions are made all the time.
The UK never had that, and we were in the EU for ages. We still had pints. We measured the road speed in miles.
Realistically the EU is just a collection of nations with similar socio-economic status and roughly similar culture. None of them dominate the others. Much of the rules are just common sense shit. Don’t sell easily combustible clothing, etc. Odds are you meet most of it already.
Whole countries have switched whoch side they drive on over a single night, and they needed to make sure signs and shit were adjusted. Yes, there would need to be a change, but you can either make excuses or you can make progress.
Right now, you’re making excuses.
Why would it be progress to switch to Europe’s standard? What’s the cut-off amount that would make switching not worth it? There has to be some number if you’re being objective about it.
Canada and the EU can agree to a gradual transition, with support and planning - EU supplying the necessary devices for replacing current ones, modest discounts for trading old vehicles for new, focusing on replacing small township infrastructure before doing the bigger cities, and so forth.
There are several standards for plugs. Types C, E, F, and G. Only the slim ungrounded plugs will fit in type C, E, and F sockets. Grounded type F plugs will be ungrounded in C or E sockets, and grounded type E plugs don’t fit in anything but a type E sockets. If the type C or E are the full round plug, neither will fit in a type F socket even if it is ungrounded (I know this because I had to trim excess plastic from a type C plug to use it in a type F socket. Type G is used by Ireland Malta and Cyprus and is entirely incomparable with the other types. Type G also makes an excellent caltrop and will fuck up your foot in a profound way if you step on it. Then the Italians swiss and Danes all have their own style of plug. Most of the countries have a mixture of type C and whatever earthed version that country prefers.
The above picture is a typical situation in Norway. The left most type C plug only fits in the type F socket because I butchered it. And the earthed type F plug is only earthed in a type F socket. Many older buildings only have type C sockets in most rooms (the kitchen and bathroom are always upgraded to type F and there’s usually a cluster of type F sockets in the living room on the same wall as the TV).
As for the voltage requirements that’s only a thing because the entirety of Europe is connected in one large grid. Obviously Canada wouldn’t be.
As for the voltage requirements that’s only a thing because the entirety of Europe is connected in one large grid. Obviously Canada wouldn’t be.
If you changed the plugs without changing the voltage / frequency, then every device sold would have to be compatible with both standards. For certain devices that would be difficult or costly.
You get adapters for that. Also Japan uses both systems in the same country. Everything from Osaka to the west is 60Hz and everything from Tokyo to the east is 50hz. They cope (they both use 100V).
I’m already jealous of Canadians, to give them passport free travel and the option to move anywhere in Europe… fuuuuck me
id go live with my brother in germany for a while, id love to see the black forest and the old castles. or go look for some amber chunks in the water of the baltic sea.
Meanwhile USA east and west coast are looking into joining Canada (and EU?) while Trump is looking into convincing Canada’s oil producing provinces to join becoming states.
People wanted change. They’re going to get it. Not the one they voted for probably.
Any US state that wanted to join Canada would have to reckon with the “guns” thing. Even states that align with Canada in most ways still have a lot of gun nuts, even left-leaning gun nuts. Meanwhile, Canada has slowly been tightening already fairly restrictive gun laws. One glance across the border makes Canadians convinced that guns just escalate problems, they don’t solve them.
Meanwhile, Canada has slowly been tightening already fairly restrictive gun laws.
Tightening them for no good reason, the whole kick-off for the “buyback” program was the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting which wasn’t caused by someone who had a possession and acquisition license or had legally obtained their firearms.
It’s been 6 years on now and firearms owners are on the edge of their seats because the government intends to criminalize hundreds of thousands of people by the end of October.
Everyone knows licensed firearm owners are not to blame for what happened in 2020 hence the major pushback from provinces, police organizations and firearm owners.
Australia had a huge gun buyback and the suicide rate dropped by thirty percent!
For no good reason other than guns lead to deaths. That’s a pretty good reason.
Cars are just as deadly as firearms however, we aren’t going and saying Red Honda Civics cause a larger percentage of fatality rates so we’re just going to ban them.
It makes no sense just like how our current government has decided to ban hundreds of thousands of firearms based on appearance and not function.
And while people bicker about licensed firearm owners statistically speaking majority of firearm related crime in Canada is caused by illegal firearms that are typically smuggled in, shouldn’t our resources not focus on the root cause of the issues we face?
Guns are one of those things that don’t solve problems, until they have to.
Sure, right, like how they’re supposed to be used in an uprising against a tyrant… but when there’s currently a tyrant in charge in the US, nobody’s doing anything.
Or how they’re great at stopping a “bad guy” home intruder, but that home intruder never actually intrudes, instead the gun is just used in a domestic violence situation, or for suicide.
oi, using statistics instead of anecdotal experience is cheating
when there’s currently a tyrant in charge in the US, nobody’s doing anything.
Because anyone who’s realistic enough to want that guy out of office is also realistic enough to know that a gun, or even a few thousand guns, won’t do much against rocket-armed aircraft and exploding drones, even if they were willing to escalate to violence. The last time a group of citizens with ordinary firearms had a real chance against an army was around 1880 (just before the invention of the automatic machine gun). It kinda-sorta-almost sometimes appears to work in spats in the developing world because the objective there is to get the army to decide holding the area isn’t worth the resources and it should go home. That ain’t gonna happen in a civil war in the States.
Of course, the fact that the American “right to bear arms” is a joke just makes it all the more infuriating.
is also realistic enough to know that a gun, or even a few thousand guns, won’t do much against rocket-armed aircraft…
Which is what the civilized word has been saying to the US for decades now, but gun nuts in the US insist that people need to be armed so they can rise up against a tyrant.
This is an interesting prospect. I hope that it’s explored further. Either that, or the CANZUK idea.
Middle Power Path.
I don’t think I want to be chained up to the UK.
They’re not a good example these days.
the UK is also barely european. also their politics feel very american
You’re not trapped with the UK; they’re trapped with us.
Besides, Spain and Denmark seem kinda cool for study-buddies, and we can learn a bit about how to take care of people instead of corporations if we hang out a bit.
Why not CANZUKEU ;-)
CANZUKEU
Gesundheit
See, we’re speaking German already.
Both were being called for under Trudeau, he couldn’t make it work.
Trudeau as a leader was a nothingburger in terms of effectiveness.
A lot of the time it felt like he would only do something if it benefited the Americans.
I was glad he stepped down, but it still illustrates that people wanted it.
Hopefully the past year or so has made us wake up as a nation overall.
Quick fun fact: Morocco considers itself European in a geographical sense, or at least they once did and applied for membership.
I don’t think Morocco is super European culturally though. There are values they very much disagree with most Europeans on, such as LGBTQ rights.
I have no issue with Morocco as a trade partner, or easy travel between Morocco and the EU, but I don’t think we’d like the vibes they’d bring to the European Parliament, etc.
There’s something to be gained from diversity of course, but I do think their society’s values are a bit too different from most of ours.
Don’t take this badly but generally when people spout that “their society’s values are different from ours” about how countries like Morocco and Turkey wouldn’t be a fit for the EU what they really mean is “they’re Muslims”.
You haven’t see much of Europe if you think LGBTQ rights are looked at similarly all over.
My own native Portugal used to be pretty homophobic 30 years ago and there are still plenty of people around who think like that even though the country’s culture tends towards perceptiveness rather than judgement.
Or just go to Hungary outside a main city and ask people what they think about Transexuality.
Don’t confuse Northern Europe and Scandinavia with most of Europe.
Frankly whenever I look at a country like Turkey or Morocco I mainly see my own country, Greece or even Spain 50 or 60 years ago, with pretty similar values - though a different main religion - and average levels of education. Pretty backwards by today’s standards, but one can hardly claim Portugal, Greece and Spain weren’t European back then.
Looking at my own country I would say universal education is what made most of the difference in those things you seem to think are “European values”.
The main problem with Morocco is as others pointed out it not being properly Democratic, the whole problem of Western Sahara and its self-determination, the huge wealth-imbalance between it and the EU (read: fear of mass immigration from there) and European Islamophobes (who are not just the European far-right).
Being not 100% a democracy and having massive nationalistic tensions with an equally powerful neighbor is a pretty big pill to swallow, as well.
Well, since no one else considered them to be geographially European it is of little importance. But culture wise? Definitely not if you ask me. I see better chances for Turkey after some minor (read: major) shifts in politics.
Honestly, geographically I can see how they’d consider to be almost European. The strait of Gibraltar isn’t that wide, it’s a shorter distance for them to cross to Europe than it is for me to cross to Finland from Estonia!
Turkiye has been waiting in line for EU membership since the 1987
After the ten founding members in 1949, Turkey became one of the first new members (the 13th member) of the Council of Europe in 1950. The country became an associate member of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1963 and was an associate member of the Western European Union from 1992 to its end in 2011. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council.
But… Turkiye’s a majority Muslim country. So Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia all got to jump the queue ahead of it.
Eh, I think it’s less about being Muslim and more about the human rights violations.
Explain the introduction of Cyprus, on those terms
Real real bad example, as Cyprus was literaly invaded and is currently militarily occupied by Turkey
How dirty money and Russian riches flow through Cyprus, a gateway to the EU
Possibly one of the most corrupt and compromised governments on earth
The unoccupied part of Cyprus is a functional democracy. At the time of accession, it was hoped that the EU would catalyze a solution to the Cyprus problem altogether. Greek-Cypriot nationalists fucked that up.
The unoccupied part of Cyprus is a functional democracy.
There’s two ways to read this and one of them is very funny.
But sure, put all your chips on Kyriakos Mitsotakis and tell me about the freedoms enjoyed by Greek Cypriots in 2026.
At the time of accession, it was hoped that the EU would catalyze a solution to the Cyprus problem altogether. Greek-Cypriot nationalists fucked that up.
Inducting Cyprus while denying longtime NATO ally and European trading partner Turkiye was already guaranteed to land flat. Opening the floodgates for money and military aid into Cyprus, via the EU relaxed trade and travel rules, yielded predictable results.
Get your Greeks straight buddy. Mitsotakis is not Cypriot. I also have no idea what you mean by “military aid flooding into Cyprus”. Cyprus has a tiny national guard.
That said, with the Helsinki agreement in 1999, Greece pinned its hopes to normalization with “longtime NATO ally” and regional bully to a europeanization of the relationship. The hope was that getting Turkey to commit to European values would “tame” its aggression towards Greece and Cyprus. Then came Erdogan.
Mitsotakis is not Cypriot.
He’s the President of the government that claims the Greek-Nationalist occupied end of the island.
Greece pinned its hopes to normalization with “longtime NATO ally” and regional bully to a europeanization of the relationship
How do you Europeanize your relationship when you refuse to see your neighbor as European?
The biggest problem with Turkey is not religion, it’s the stunted democracy, the abstention from various international treaties, the occupation of half of Cyprus and the active casus belli against Greece.
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 “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”.
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.
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
The snow is making that hand look like a pigeon roost.
We don’t need the Euro. We don’t need the European Stability and Growth Pact. Yes to closer integration, no to joining EU institutional dysfunction.
- We can keep our money
- Institutional dysfunction is a weird term for global management in a format intended to be collaborative and egalitarian. It’s different from how the East India company managed their territory because it’s not autocratic, and in this it’s kinda new.
-
No we can’t. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty requires new entries to eventually join the Euro.
-
I’m talking very specifically about how the EU is politically dysfunctional. The EU hasn’t matured institutionally, requiring unanimity for things that shouldn’t require it (c.f. Hungary) and informal pressure for things that shouldn’t (cf. how Greek democracy was rendered irrelevant by Shcauble).
Adopting the Euro is still de facto optional as long as a country’s government intentionally delays compliance with the five convergence criteria.
Why bother with full EU integration then? Let’s apply to join the EFTA and avoid the shenanigans.
-
False dichotomy, and both are bad ideas.
