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.
…
Trump to annex Canada, the way he annexed underage girls.
This will never happen since the Americans would see it as intentionally antagonizing. They’ve made it clear they see the Western hemisphere as theirs.
In fact, in response they may take more deliberate action to capture control of Canada coercively. Being part of the EU would provide no meaningful protection against that. It would unnecessarily invite a more aggressive American posture towards Canada.
If Carney did this it would be one of the biggest blunders in modern political history. Thankfully he’s a pretty smart guy. There’s very little value in joining the EU for Canada.
There may be overlap in values but Europe is not what it used to be. Much of the worlds economic growth will be driven by the global south for the next thirty years so Carney is wise to prioritize carefully calculated deals with those countries.
He will be travelling to India next, let’s see what he can secure as far as a trade deal goes. The EU and India are celebrating their recently signed free trade agreement, perhaps Carney will follow suit.
Canadian politicians make all these BULLSHIT overtures about opening up trade and building up ties to the EU.
But it’s been a year, and we’re still stuck with just Apple and Google for phone options, with nothing like the fairphone available.
Someone should really smack Carney upside the head on this one.
The American president has invited Canada to become his country’s “51st state,”
Not invited.
He threatened to annex Canada.
He threatened to
annex Canada.-destroy Canada and take it for himself.
I know that’s basically what you said, but “annex” is too fancy a word for the folks who don’t get why we’re so pissed off about it.
IIRC, he has used both terms (among other threats).
Trump has the brain of a rapist. He thinks any woman would be honoured to be fucked by him. He applies this same thinking to other countries. He thinks any country would be honoured to be pillaged by the Untied States
As an Irish man I think Canadians should get grand fathered in automatically. Not the EU. But the NATO2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO
NATWO
NA2.
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
The solution is obvious, most are hoping for it to suddenly pop into their front page.
Occam disagrees. /s Also, Happy New Year!
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.
And another with France.
Lets give Alberta to the US and then take the rest
No, not that meny albertens actually want the split.
OK, just draw 5 foot a circle around every Albertan who owns a confederate flag pickup truck. That can be American territory, the rest can be Canadian.
The yugoslavians didn’t either 🤷
You have no ideia Sir… Stay away from EU, thank me later
That has worked wonderfully for the UK, hasn’t it?
If it was that much of a hassle to leave then why should we join in the first place? What if Europe goes to shit 5-10-15 years down the line and we’re stuck.
Canada is an independent country, thank you.
All European countries are still independent sovereign countries. You can leave the EU whenever you want.
Where are your nukes?
This makes me sad for our future.
Every single conversation about nationalism devolves into “strongest monkey with biggest stick”.
In the case of Canada I think that is inherently the problem. US Republican’s have been complaining specifically about Canada since about 2016 and how they aren’t meeting their NATO requirements, have no plans to ever meet them, and how Canada is basically free loading. I remember an article from ~2019 where a Canadian economist was quoted saying that if Canadians are going to be taxed more politicians are not going to spend that money on defense spending over programs which improve quality of life because defense isn’t a concern for Canadians due to being next door to the US.
All this talk about Canada freeloading has some merit, but from a US perspective it completely ignores the huge economic benefits the US/Canada relationship has had for the US. At its heart a significant portion of the US has strong opinions and beliefs about the importance of military preparedness and a fascination with naive blind fairness. In their minds the US and Canada have a good relationship, but Canada isn’t doing their fair share and that makes them angry. For them they see Canada as a mooch and a bad friend.
Canada not investing in it’s military defense both caused US conservative politicians to be upset and also puts Canada in the uncomfortable position they are in now. So yeah, Canada has a “strongest monkey with the biggest stick” problem in that they don’t have much of a stick.
Right, all good points.
However, the biggest stick fighting with smaller stick ends up with everyone dead.
Oh yeah, definitely agree, that’s why I said the Republican view point is naive and blind.
The snow is making that hand look like a pigeon roost.
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.
There’s no way they could reasonably force us to use an inferior plug.
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.
Number of what, dollars? Because that figure you mentioned is not something a company looking for real progress would put on its normal citizens, that’s what properly taxing the wealthy would easily cover. And you’re saying that me not having a specific number on hand is a gotcha? Really?
As for the progress, it’s not just $2,000 of taxes to get some plugs. There are a LOT of good regulations the EU has that have benefitted us without even having been in the organization and if we can further support that, both by using that standard AND removing ourselves from the market as users of the old standard, that’s a great thing.
Stop making excuses.
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).
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.
False dichotomy, and both are bad ideas.
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.
Any US state joining Canada would not be feasible for Canada, as it would simply be a peaceful American take over.
Even if just Washington joined l, they population of the state is 8 million.
That would mean 16% of the voters in Canada’s next election would be former Americans and basically decide the direction the whole country goes via peaceful democratic votes. Do you think Canada would remain Canada over the long term or do you think it would change and become closer to what America currently is?
16% is a majority?
Doesn’t have to be a majority with our idiotic first past the post voting system.
You can get a party with majority of the seats with as little as 30-40 % of the votes
Combined with Alberta and a few other locations you could easily never get a liberal or NDP government again and everyone slides to the right.
So, is 16% smaller than 40%?
Do you just give up reading a comment once you find a point that semi-supports a smartass comment that pops into your head?
Combined with Alberta and a few other locations you could easily never get a liberal or NDP government again and everyone slides to the right.
Was the other half
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?
Cars should be much more heavily regulated, IMO. But, they have escaped outright bans because they serve a clearly important purpose that’s beneficial to society. A gun doesn’t.
Cars should be much more heavily regulated, IMO.
We can agree to disagree on this sentiment here, licensed firearms owners receive a daily background check by the RCMP whereas those who have a drivers license do not, the only time a person with drivers license gets a background check is when they’re pulled over and checked by a cop.
they have escaped outright bans because they serve a clearly important purpose that’s beneficial to society. A gun doesn’t.
So you’re saying farmers who defend their property from varmints don’t serve a purpose to society? How about folks up north in research stations typically in polar bear territory? How about people who simply enjoy forest camping and want a means of defence against a predator?
Firearms certainly serve a purpose to society.
farmers who defend their property from varmints don’t serve a purpose to society
Farmers serve a purpose. Guns don’t.
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.
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.
oi, using statistics instead of anecdotal experience is cheating
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.
-
I like this idea a lot but would like to retain our currency. Otherwise I think it’s all upside.
You mean like the UK did? Do you need more prior art than that?
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
Take Sweden and Denmark as better examples. But these opt-outs are no longer available. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty is explicit.
deleted by creator
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.
