In the Abacus poll, 46 per cent of respondents said they would support Canada becoming a member state of the EU, and 44 per cent said the Canadian government should definitely or probably look into joining it.
Would it be awesome to be able to move and in the EU? Oh yeah, it would be great. However, the practicality of reality is that either Canada would have to completely overhaul laws and standards to be line with the EU would be absolute nightmare. Either Canada would have to adopt EU standards or gets a carve out making Canada not really part of the EU.
Alberta and Quebec already hate having Ottawa tell them what to do. Having Brussels have an influence on Canadian life? Even more of a reason to separate. Which means another constitutional crisis for Canada.
Canada should instead work to build stronger ties with the EU. Trade deals, research coordination, defence policy, immigration, etc.
Just half?
It’s been a movement here for over a decade now, surprised support is so low
I for once welcome our Canadian friends wholeheartedly!
Just a step on the inevitable road to one world polity. We should really be working out a roadmap to a world where everyone is a citizen of a worldstate with freedom to move, travel and trade freely regardless of where they were born. Basic rights should be protected everywhere by global enforcement, Borders should be administrative niceties and people should be free to migrate to areas which reflect their social and religious preferences in a global freemarket of societies where the most beneficial policies result in people voting with their feet.
My personal prediction is (if we manage to make it that far) that the world will first start coalescing into supranational states such as the EU and African Union, after which these states will merge into a international superstate. Idk what timeframe this would be in, certainly not within our lifetimes, and who knows what kind of shape they will take on, but I feel like it’s inevitable.
Another thing I was thinking off is that probably all of the world’s cultures and languages will merge into one. The reason they exist at all is because of the fact that communication and travel was extremely difficult on any sort of distance thousands of years ago. With the advent of the Internet and faster travel methods, I feel like its only a matter of time before all of the world’s cultures melt into each other. I’m sure there would still be minor regional differences, but it’s probably gonna be much more uniform than today.
I hope they get to join. Meanwhile, here in the UK, we are further along the Trump path.
Its almost like watching one of those animations of how pangea split into the different continents watching countries seperate and re-form - but politically instead, bringing some countries together and others splitting away.
Don’t tell the Republicans that. They think the planet is only 2025 years old
Okay not a direct comparison but if I was playing a Paradox grand strategy game and the neighbor country started getting all fascist / authoritarian, I would want to group with like minded nations for protection. Hey we’re already in a defense treaty with them why not make it a more inclusive type agreement? Personally I always felt culturally closer to the UK (yes I know not there anymore) than the US and thought many of our policies mirrored the US due to location and held us back.
if we see the EU and US as two polar opposites I would see the UK as the intermediary for the EU, and Canada be the intermediary for the USA. Realistically though the UK is much more pro-USA than Canada currently. Starmer is so scared of getting the UK back into the trajectory of EU membership, that he actively hurts the UK relations to the EU AND the USA by not picking a side. We don’t want the UK as a backdoor for the US to influence our politics again, we want a self-relying and souvereign United Kingdom back. Charles De Gaulle warned us in the 1960’s that a english membership would for the most part represent the interests of the americans on european soil. And with Starmer, we are seeing exactly what De Gaulle warned Europe about. So yes, we would love to take the UK back, but not as a puppet state. We already have Hungary and Slovakia being puppeteered by the cunt called Putin that we need to worry about and act upon. Currently I see canadians more as europeans than I see british people
Well I was more just meaning when I was growing up and this is going back to the late 80s - 90s. I saw a lot more British television than other European TV (in fact none of other) so didn’t exactly have much else to compare it to in the EU that was. From that and knowing they offered some good services such as post secondary education, healthcare etc it felt like a nicer fit for my ideas. Plus the amount of British words we tended to use.
Go for it Canada and the EU should send an invitation. Perhaps they should start with EEC membership and later receive full membership. MAGA would shit and f-them.
Full circle
…and the other half are Quebecois
Only good Canadians
is this true?
Only by comical historic actions.
Pas vraiment…
Vive la Nouvelle France!
I welcome the Canadians into the European Union!
Is what I would say, but I really, really, REALLY don’t want a border with the US. Russia alone is bad enough.
The US already has military installations all over Europe. It wouldn’t change much.
My brother/sister in christ, you are already occupied militarily and economically by the US. Do you really not understand why Mark Rutte kisses Trump ass? Do you think capitulating to Trumps demands and kissing his ass is 3D chess?
As an American, I endorse the idea. It would make it harder for Canada to be attacked, or worse, destroyed by Dogey America. Plus, it would allow the Free States of America to have a potential ally or trading party, better means for non-coms to flee from the conflict, and so forth.
It also works out for Canada, since that means having stronger trade connections with Europe. Considering that Dogey America is going to be an annoying prick and no longer a viable partner, having a solid trade network would help keep Canada prosperous.
I don’t mind exchanging good ideas and having treaties with Europe, but joining the EU is definitely too far.
We don’t need more super-national organization binding us.
How else are we supposed to start the federation?
I mean if Cyprus and French Guiana can join so can Canada if we can meet the requirements. It’s a political alliance of values.
In what way is Cyprus comparable to Canada?
French Guiana is only part of the EU because it’s part of France, and even then it needs plenty of exceptions to make it work.
Cyprus was already aligned with the rest of Europe in economic laws.
Canada would need to redo half of its laws to join the EU, and Canadian companies would either need to produce two versions of everything or drop the US market altogether.
It’s more realistic to aim for a close bilateral treaty than for membership, at least for next few decades.
Yeah, but it’s a nice dream.
Yeah, these opinion polls really should be more taken as a desire to move closer (as the article says). I doubt the people voting actually know everything that joining the EU would entail, but it’s still valid as a general “getting closer to the EU”.
Yeah some kind of common wealth
But then we would share two borders with the USA :/
That would be the first step in claiming back what once was ours ;)
The European Union could help safeguard those borders.
The European Union could help safeguard those borders.
Since we/The EU will be soon buying even more US weapons, I seriously doubt that.
What was once a region of the world populated with so many smart and bright people has now become the proud land of the dumb. The EU is like a headless chicken running around. And it seems rather happy about what it has become, I’m afraid to say so.
And it seems rather happy about what it has become
There are people happy about what it is becoming*
The EU is not a finished project :)
There are people happy about what it is becoming*
Thx for helping me improve my lacking English. Much appreciated (I mean, really ;)
The EU is not a finished project :)
Are you sure about that?
I mean, looking at who people are actually voting for (here again, an existential grammar doubt if you don’t mind me asking: should I instead say ‘who they voted for’ or ‘who they vote for’ as it’s an ongoing and repetitive action but also an already finished task since, obviously, we can count their votes?) Back to what I was saying: people are voting not for the EU and have been voting not for the EU more and more openly. And to me votes is the only data worth considering when discussing politics, not what people may say out loud. Their vote is them being honest with themselves, not trying to look good.
Like with our dear US-friends swearing they hate on Trump and on his politics but still have elected the dude twice.
Should we think Trump is really just that, a sad accident that happened twice (almost) in a row in the history of the USA, or wouldn’t it be safer to consider the possibility that, maybe, a majority of the US population is indeed supporting what they voted for twice and that they want their country to become exactly what it is becoming? And they want their leaders to treat the rest of the world like they’re doing?
As a fervent EU proponent myself, I wish to see some meaningful election giving me hope we still have some common future as a Union, and not just because we share some common borders.
my lacking English
Your English wasn’t incorrect, it’s that disagreed with what you wrote. You used it has become which is the tense you use for something completed (as in, it has finished), while I believe it is not completed and for that reason wrote is becoming which is the same verb but in a different tense (as in, it is happening). I’m no native speaker, so might not be the best explanation. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think in your last comment all forms are all correct, and the tense in which you the verb to vote has different nuance but i wouldn’t think something of it in this particular case. If you use ‘are voting for’ you basically mean how people would vote if they would have to vote today (or this week) and you would use ‘voted for’ mainly if it is relevant that it is different then how people would vote today. (Will) vote for, is voting for, will be voting are basically interchangeable, unless I am missing the nuance myself. You explain it correctly yourself so I think you understand it but I made you doubt yourself. Sorry for that.
Are you sure about that?
There are many politicians who consider the EU as not fully formed. The changes don’t happen very fast, but it is in my view still an ongoing proces. For example, which countries are part of it continues to change (England left and others joined, more will likely join later), the euro itself hasn’t changed but the countries it is used in still changes (Bulgaria is expected to switch over to the Euro next year) and also what is and isn’t in the Schengen area changes, even this year with Gibraltar joining.
Another example of how, according to some, the EU would be more finished is with a ‘multi-tier membership options’, in which some countries have a tighter bond to the EU and others have a looser (think of how Norway and Switzerland aren’t in the EU, but they are not entirely outside of it either).
There is lot has already been decided, so maybe it is already 90% finished, but there still is an ongoing debate on what the EU should end up looking like.
Since brexit leaving the EU hasn’t looked like a very attractive option but still there is a lot of discussion on whether the EU should be smaller (e.g. having borders controlled by each individual member-state) or bigger (e.g. having a single combined army). In other words, there is still room to decide on what topics the EU should be big and on which it should be small. That makes the EU as it is right now very different than the US for example, where most of the expansion and integration happened two to three centuries ago (around the civil war mainly I think, but I’m no expert on US history either).
Thx, once again.
To be clear, I was half trolling (half only) with my rhetorical question but reading your comment I would not be surprised to realize we agree on a lot of things.
What truly worries me is the speed and the extend at which so many anti-eu parties have become politically meaningful.
I mean, I don’t care at all if they’re being funded by a foreign country but I do care to realize our own population is now that gullible and clueless as to believe their shit. I mean, do people have never read a history book?
I also don’t mind those parties existing, people are more than welcome to have their own ideas and to try to convince others to support them, even when I consider those ideas not the best ever. But them becoming a legit political force means they’re convincing enough of us to support their ideas, which should be the real issue. Imagine a flat-earther becoming to new head of a major science department: their silly ideas is not the issue, it’s how they managed to get to that post that should worry all of us.Meanwhile, we have so few legit political leaders standing for the EU that are able to convince anyone. That’s not good.
Exactly like I worry to see illiteracy and hostility towards culture in general become the new normal among younger generations in the EU, too. Nothing good can come out of that trend, only more hate and more violence. Here again, it could help if people would read a history book, once in a while… but for that younger people should be taught how to properly read and then how to use what’s written in a book.
As for the EU membership, I’m one to think there should be a tiered EU memberships. Doing so, we would be able to welcome more new members quicker and then we could give time to all parties to get to know one another better and get used to living together and, well, get enough time to make sure we can all agree on some fundamental values and principles… like that should be the case in any lasting union (says I, after almost 30 years and counting with my spouse). The sad thing is that this tiered thing exists already but, unsurprisingly, only for the monetary aspect of the Union. It’s so… easy to hate on the EU sometimes, no wonder many won’t refrain of doing so.
Since brexit leaving the EU hasn’t looked like a very attractive option but still there is a lot of discussion on whether the EU should be smaller (e.g. having borders controlled by each individual member-state) or bigger (e.g. having a single combined army).
Brexit… The morning I heard the news, it was so… I was… I just could not believe that thing really happened and that any politicians could be that incompetent and dishonest and willing to screw their own people so badly. To me, that Brexit campaign was but a scam devised so they would be allowed to redistribute power between the various groups but it never meant to end as an actual exit out of the EU. Obviously, I was wrong.
Whether we like or not, whether we think there is a reason to worry or not, the huge political shifts we’ve recently been witnessing coupled with the constant and ever growing hysteria in the media and with the fast growing illiteracy in the population, all things we now seem to consider the new normal, those should decide a lot of that for ourselves.
How is Cyprus controversial as an EU member? Because it’s far enough to technically be Asia? Still very much European values, language, history etc. It’s also only a stone’s throw away from the nearest Greek island
- Tax heaven (together with Ireland)
- Part of the island occupied by Turkiye
And Malta, Luxembourg, Monaco, Andorra, Jersey… Etc. Basically any small nation
Monaco and Andorra are not in the EU though.
Some people claim that “a country cannot join if they’re outside the continent”
I mean french guiana is literally a part of france. Its an overseas territory so its handled as an island or whatever not a colony. The most disgusting thing isnt that canada is in north america but that the eu would need to border the usa…
I mean poor Norway, Finland, Poland and The Baltics already have to deal with Russia.
I would see a northern wall in the future if this happened. I could honestly see it even if it never happened, the US doesn’t trust Canadian or EU immigration policy.
I love these “nearly half” declarations of support the media likes to gin up.
So…“less than half”, then?
It’s more about the trend. Last year almost no one thought it would be a good idea. So the implications is “shortly more than half might want to join the EU” or “Canadians are approaching the majority threshold”
That’s a very fair point.
It’s also a bit useless to just give the one number and not the complete results.
This could mean 46% in favor, 15% neutral / undecided, 39% against, which would put the overall sentiment in favor of joining, or it could be 46% in favor, 54% against, which is a completely different situation.
— edit — Just re-read the article, I have missed the numbers, sorry.
So it’s 46% pro, 29% against, which puts the sentiment clearly to pro…
the glass is half flempty
Well, you are not wrong. But if you think about it it’s still a pretty significant percentage considering Canada is one ocean distant from Europe, and has always had historically relations, economically and politically with the USA, obviously given the fact they share their only border with them. So in my opinion the number gets more weight, maybe. Probably some years ago it was much lower, or they didnt asked themselves the question at all.
