Why Canada Should Join the EU

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/01/02/why-canada-should-join-the-eu

by gpi • 2 years ago

295 714 2 years ago

economist.com

gpi• 2 years ago

http://archive.today/7ZsY3

gchokov• 2 years ago

Wild times

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

Canada’s inclusive treatment of its indigenous peoples, at least in recent decades, could be emulated by Europeans (though First Nations Canadians might fairly object to closer ties with ex-colonists)

I really wonder what the author meant with this line. There's very few populations in Europe that bear any similarity whatsoever with the relationship between First Nations people and most Canadians, since most populations in Europe have created their own states. And the few tribal populations in Northern Europe generally were and certainly are today treated at least as fairly as anything in Canada. So who are they talking about? Would the Basques feel that they would be treated better as First Nations people in Canada than they are today in Spain?

Note that the treatment of immigrants is a completely separate topic in the article, so I don't think they could be referring to, say, the treatment of Syrian refugees with that sentence above.

toenail• 2 years ago

European nations still have plenty of overseas colonies.. err.. territories. As somebody from an ethnic minority that was eradicated through educational and cultural policies that sounds like a good idea even without the former.

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

This is the best point that I hadn't considered by far. I was only thinking of the actual territory of Europe, but you're absolutely right that things look very different in overseas colonies.

Pet_Ant• 2 years ago

Western European countries do. The list of European countries that never had colonies is much longer than the ones that did. You take away 4 England, France, Spain, Italy, and Belgium and you have almost no colonies and there are roughly 50 countries in Europe.

jbrennan• 2 years ago

Ireland springs to mind, and in fact has strong ties to Indigenous nations in the Americas for their similar struggles

esperent2• 2 years ago

That doesn't make any sense to me (as an Irish person). A hundred years ago, sure. But modern Ireland is one of the richest and most privileged places on earth. The problems we have in modern Ireland - wealth inequality, housing crisis etc. - are decidedly problems of our own causing, and do not in any way equate to or reflect the struggle for rights and recognition of indigenous peoples around the world.

We do have our own indigenous minority who are treated badly by society - Irish travellers. There's a lot of racism in Irish society towards them, and we could do with looking at how other countries treat minorities, indigenous or not, and recognize for all that we like to harp on about our own poor treatment in history, we are doing exactly the same here towards travellers.

lazyasciiart• 2 years ago

And the few tribal populations in Northern Europe generally were and certainly are today treated at least as fairly as anything in Canada.

Really? The Sami populations don't have any sovereignty that I know of.

impossiblefork• 2 years ago

In Sweden they have a separate parliament.

belorn• 2 years ago

Is sovereignty the criteria for being treated fairly?

bpodgursky2• 2 years ago

You have to shoehorn the Sami into this comparison because they really only colonized the Nordic countries contemporary with the majority "European" populations. They weren't, in the same sense, indigenous, just... less western.

victorbjorklund• 2 years ago

They got some sovereignty in Sweden with their own parliament etc (but its jurisdiction etc is limited). Can't really say if better or worse than Canada because I don't know enough about the laws in Canada.

aprilthird20216• 2 years ago

Lots of Europe has ethnic strife and tensions. Bosnian / Serbian. Czech / Slovak (until recently). Spain has its breakaway ethnic movements. Ireland like others mentioned is a close analogue.

genman3• 2 years ago

Nothing like that is even by slightest similar to indigenous people of Canada. Nothing. Also while Canada my want people, so does EU.

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

Bosnia, Serbia, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic are all separate countries today. Of course, not all Bosnians, Serbs, Slovak, and Czechs live in the respective nation states, and there is still strife. But I still fail to grasp what, say, the Czech Republic could learn about how to treat its Slovak minority from how Canada trays its First Nations minorities.

Should different Slovak communities in the Czech Republic have their own lands and make their own laws? What if they're living in the same village as Czechs, how will they split the territory there?

There is simply no valid comparison between how populations in Europe live and have developed up to today, and how things sit in Canada with the First Nations.

And note, the Basque country in Spain is already an autonomous region with significant ability to do its own governance. The Basques there have been practicing their own traditions and using their own language since the fascist dictatorship fell. The Catalans of Catalunya (one of the richest regions of Spain, mind you) also speak their own language and are not in any other way culturally suppressed, again, since the fascist dictatorship fell. The reason for their struggle for independence is mostly their perception that they are being dragged down economically by the poorer parts of Spain (i.e. the strictly Spanish-speaking South).

ashoeafoot• 2 years ago

and pushing for division and strife is what putin pays you for

zeckalpha2• 2 years ago

Modern boundaries don't reflect history well. There's an extension of linguistics concept to states rather than languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_a...

We also have lost much to history. Take a look at the shuffling that happened during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

They certainly reflect history better than they do for the First Nations in Canada.

I also have no idea whatsoever what 1500 year old history has to do with anything. None of the cultures of that time exist today in any meaningful sense. Even the Italians or Greeks of today are not the Romans and Greeks of 300 CE, they are vastly different cultures and speak unintelligibly different languages.

KPGv23• 2 years ago

So who are they talking about?

Maybe the Irish, who were genocided by the English up into the 20th century.

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

They are talking about what the EU countries of today can learn from the Canadians' treatment of First Nations people today. Canada's treatment of the First Nations people was also appaling up into the 20th century.

sandworm1012• 2 years ago

The irish. The scots. Basically everyone who wasnt related to the vikings after 1066. The welsh trying to protect thier language are basically quebec. The scots talking about leaving, but never actually doing it, are basically alberta. And thats just similarities in the british isles. Then there are all the little counties bordering giant countries (finland) that see parallels to the canada-us relationship.

tsimionescu10• 2 years ago

Your assertion is that the Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh are treated less fairly in the UK today than the First Nations people are in Canada? Because the article was claiming that EU countries have a lot to learn from Canada today.

I personally very much disagree with the concept that First Nations people in Canada are afforded more rights and are freer to practice their cultural identity than the Scots, Welsh, and Irish in the UK in 2024.

Wytwwww• 2 years ago

At least the Scots and Welsh still exist (e.g. unlike the Occitan people or the Bretons) and were actually allowed to have a referendum (unlike the Catalans).

wqaatwt• 2 years ago

Were the Scots (i.e. lowland ones) really ever treated that bad?

If anything they had a much bigger part oppressing the highlanders than the English.

fweimer4• 2 years ago

Most peoples in Europe do not have their own nation state. In fact, pretending that those peoples with their distinct languages (often called “dialects” despite lack of mutual intelligibility) and cultures do not exist is a key part of the establishment of nation states in the 19th century. In most of Europe, the nation state project was so successful that this hardly matters today (but of course there are exceptions).

Still comparison to First Nations seems off. Maybe it's about this: Disadvantaged ethnic groups such as Romani or Jews (particularly post-Soviet Jews in recent times) are often denied a connection to the nation state or (what you might call) the shared European cultural heritage. In contrast, I don't think anyone argues that First Nations aren't true Canadians.

Stevvo2• 2 years ago

Not sure how you can lump Romani and Jews together like that. Jews have a nation state, with "right of return"; a much better deal than the Romani get.

throawayonthe• 2 years ago

"inclusive treatment" is also an insane label to apply to Canada-First Nations relations

morgango• 2 years ago

Like the Roma?

nobodywillobsrv• 2 years ago

The biggest problem with the EU is that it is built for bureaucrats and as such it is geared towards irreversible "blob" decisions.

Brexit should have been a near no-op. But it was a huge pain. They hadn't even planned for it or thought about it.

EU should have a pre-memeber clearing state that countries stay in and then vote every year or n years to be "in" or "out" of the EU. But part of being in the EU should be to maintain non-in versions of all policies so that members can actually negotiate and easily leave without having huge bureaucratic cost.

This would make the EU stronger and better. Currently, there are many terrible undemocratic institutions that are being used to ruin countries.

skissane7• 2 years ago

Brexit should have been a near no-op. But it was a huge pain.

How was it ever going to be a "near no-op"? Putting everything else aside, Northern Ireland was always going to be huge sticking points. Ireland would make sure it was.

Besides, it was in the EU's self-interest to maximise the pain for the UK, in order to discourage other member states from going the same way - and the EU succeeded. Marine Le Pen no longer talks about "Frexit", instead she proposes reforming the EU from within.

wkat42423• 2 years ago

The UK were just being difficult and asking for things they knew they couldn't have. Like to join the single market for services but not for products. That breaks one of the most fundamental values of the EU. This is what made Brexit negotiations so difficult. And of course there was the northern Ireland issue with which they didn't even know what to do themselves.

Also, them constantly replacing their negotiatiors didn't help. But at least they're out now.

PaulDavisThe1st5• 2 years ago

Ah yes ... in addition to all the existing bureacratic costs of the EU, we should add "constantly maintain a parallel set of rules so that member states can leave easily and cheaply whenever they want".

Why on earth would the EU do that? Why would any organization put in huge effort to ensure that its members could easily and cheaply leave at any time?

pavlov• 2 years ago

“But part of being in the EU should be to maintain non-in versions of all policies so that members can actually negotiate and easily leave without having huge bureaucratic cost.”

So countries should maintain two sets of all regulations — the actual ones and then also parallel hypothetical ones — and this would somehow reduce bureaucratic cost rather than double it?

The execution of Brexit ought to put to rest the notion that “we’ll make our own rules!” somehow would save money or improve anything. Britain has accomplished exactly nothing except recreate local bureaucracies they had already managed to eliminate because of harmonized EU rules.

mmmmmbop2• 2 years ago

EU should have a pre-memeber clearing state that countries stay in and then vote every year or n years to be "in" or "out" of the EU. But part of being in the EU should be to maintain non-in versions of all policies so that members can actually negotiate and easily leave without having huge bureaucratic cost.

Do the United States have a system like that?

bombcar19• 2 years ago

Down here we had a minor discussion in the 1800s about how the states and federal government should be run.

General consensus since then has been that states can’t leave, but who knows! Things could change.

BJones12• 2 years ago

Europeans could learn from Canada how to allow immigration in a fashion that the population embraces rather than tolerates

Clearly the author is ignorant. Canadians are sick of immigration. Young Canadians doubly so. Racism is becoming more acceptable by the day.

JodieBenitez• 2 years ago

For a moment I thought that was satire. Canada has its share of "multicultural" problems. And that's on top of french speaking people vs. english speaking people.

naniwaduni• 2 years ago

And that's on top of french speaking people vs. english speaking people.

In the EU, of course, everyone is against anglophones.

drweevil• 2 years ago

TBF, those are 2 EU languages.

zo1• 2 years ago

He's also unaware of the controversy and debate many places in Europe are having over immigration. At this point I'd really like to know what country doesn't have some large backlash and controversy against immigration.

buzzert5• 2 years ago

Generally, countries with expanding economies and a lot of physical space do not have issues with immigration. The US has its problems, but the argument generally has been over the extent of immigration, and not against immigration entirely (minority extremists notwithstanding). Canada is interesting in this regard, because it has a lot of land but a contracting economy.

xyst• 2 years ago

Young Canadians doubly so. Racism is becoming more acceptable by the day.

Always has been. Well at least in my experience in online gaming with a small portion of French Canadians.

throwawaysleep• 2 years ago

Quebec would be a economic powerhouse if it weren’t French. One of the many reasons why.

Sytten• 2 years ago

The biggest "We told you so" moment I had in the past year was seeing the reversal of the ROC calling us racism to basically adopting our position that quality (value compatibility, economic plus value) and quantity (capacity to receive) in immigration are two important factor to not f*ck up social cohesion.

squigz• 2 years ago

That hardly lines up with my own impression of my fellow citizens.

nullorempty• 2 years ago

Agrees with my experience with adults and young.

isodev3• 2 years ago

But is it really immigration or “immigration” like the kind that populist parties vilify for engagement? Here in Europe, it’s mostly “immigration”.

hn_throwaway_994• 2 years ago

We can't read your mind with whatever your quotes are supposed to mean.

threeseed9• 2 years ago

Young Canadians doubly so

Similar situation in Australia and US. And most of it misplaced.

One major issue is trying to buy a first home where the blame goes towards immigrants. Instead of towards older generations where the problem really lies. They apply political power across multiple levels of government to affect everything from planning, taxation, inheritance which systemically prevent young people getting into the market.

Likewise upwards mobility and income inequality gets blamed on immigrants instead of the wealthy.

ipaddr• 2 years ago

Inheritance goes to young people in the same family. I doubt that is holding back the young people who get it.

Immigration keeps salaries low which is great for companies bad for young people.

Immigrants of a similar age want the same type of housing. Young people starting out cannot afford their parents home. They compete for the same resources. Older generations are least affected.

hn_throwaway_994• 2 years ago

And most of it misplaced.

I've seen that tactic to try to discredit real, valid concerns with immigration, either by lumping it with racism (which definitely exists, but is not the only argument against unfettered immigration), or by pretending something else is the problem (something else may also be a problem, but that doesn't make the problems that people are worried about with high levels of immigration invalid).

In my understanding, the backlash against immigration in Canada is relatively recent, and it's basically caused by the fact that Canada took in a huge number of immigrants, historically speaking, in recent years. This results in:

1. People feeling likes many immigrant communities are creating enclaves instead of adopting the culture of Canada. 2. Many recent immigrants are unskilled, resulting in a larger burden on provincial-based social services.

When you couple that with astronomical housing prices and a stagnant economy with rising unemployment where many people see less opportunity, it's not hard to see why citizens are demanding lower rates of immigration.

mrshadowgoose• 2 years ago

Canadian high housing prices is certainly a multi-factor problem, but to say that the frustration with high immigration is "misplaced" is tremendously disingenuous.

Unless your claim is that "supply and demand" is somehow irrelevant, the immigration rate is a knob that can be dialed down to reduce the severity of the problem. It's one of the easiest knobs to adjust too.

That's why people are frustrated, and understandably so.

louwrentius2• 2 years ago

In NL the housing shortage is blamed on immigrants whereas the actual reason for said shortage is absolutely the politics of the right-wing cabinets for the last 15 years who did nothing significant to improve the speed of housing construction.

It’s not that strange as one of the political parties basically explicitly protects business interests and oh boy did they profit. It’s political nihilism.

slothtrop7• 2 years ago

It's not entirely misplaced. There's supply, and there's demand. You can't point to one and ignore the other.

I'm all for the YIMBY and zoning reform push, but a) that's decided on the municipal level, b) change is slow, c) immigration rates can drastically change in very little time, if the feds decide. In Canada feds wanted to have their cake and eat it too: the population grew by over 3% in a year, but infrastructure at the provincial level (e.g. healthcare) didn't budge, and housing isn't building much faster than it was before.

If we understand that the key factor behind housing affordability is inelasticity of supply, then it should be easy to intuit that other things can be inelastic: policy and the law. By contrast, immigration rate might as well be a push of a button. It's not responsible to jack up the rate first and keep it that way just because it's not "the-thing-that-ought-to-change".

There are of course other externalities with high immigration rates (for contrast, US immigration rate is not that high), and the downsides to low immigration are overstated. Older generations won't live forever, but what I generally see is a call for unnecessary wealth transfer from young generation to old. Boomers are the wealthiest demographic already. We don't need to give them more freebies.

protocolture4• 2 years ago

Our problem is that state governments have never reached their population growth based land release targets. And zoning laws are fairly ridiculous.

One study found that something like 70% of the cost of owning a home in Sydney comes from zoning and land release issues. That is, a bit of reform in zoning laws and a heap of land being released could see a 1 million dollar home being available for 300k.

That said, so much of australias economy is based on the false premise that housing is a stable long term investment. If you dropped housing on its face you would probably bankrupt the country for a generation. That said, better now than later.

titanomachy5• 2 years ago

You're right. I don't live in Canada anymore, but even my moderate and liberal friends in Canada regularly complain about immigrants. That sentiment feels very new to me, though. I think Canada did have a positive view of immigrants for a long time.

ThrowawayTestr10• 2 years ago

That's because those immigrants came here because they wanted to be Canadians. These new immigrants have no desire to integrate.

wvenable7• 2 years ago

In Canada, one cannot lump all immigrants together even those from the same part of the world. Canada used to be pretty strict on immigration only allowing highly skilled individuals from all over the world. But in the last decade this has changed to just importing as many bodies as possible. I won't go into the reasons for this change but it has dramatically altered the character of the country in this time.

We have essentially imported an entire massive underclass to run all our fast food restaurants and other such jobs.

dudeinjapan• 2 years ago

Time to build a wall eh?

skissane7• 2 years ago

I think there is a real difference between immigration to Canada and immigration to Europe.

Canada's immigration policy is on the whole highly selective, focused on skilled immigrants. The largest category of immigrants is professionals. Immigration laws are enforced and illegal immigration is relatively low. Refugees are admitted, but the government retains control over the numbers, the source countries, which individuals get chosen, etc.

In 2015–2016, Germany admitted close to one million Syrian refugees. Over the same period, Canada took 44,000 of them. There is a never-ending stream of unauthorised arrivals (some genuine refugees, many economic migrants–it can be difficult to distinguish them) crossing the Mediterranean.

The biggest complaint about immigration in Canada is that it is contributing to an overheated property market, locking many younger Canadians out of owning their own home.

But the majority of immigrants to Canada are well-off, educated – so unlikely to get involved in social problems like crime or terrorism, and they tend to integrate well with mainstream society. There are some poorer and disadvantaged immigrant groups who are more likely to experience those problems, but their numbers are smaller. Compare to Europe where the number of poor / poorly educated / socially deprived immigrants is much larger.

So while both Canada and Europe may have some problems with immigration, they are rather different problems.

scotty79• 2 years ago

And yet racism is on the steep raise in Canada. I guess there's no way of doing migration that doesn't spark racism even if you are super careful about who you let in.

gedy• 2 years ago

But the majority of immigrants to Canada are well-off, educated – so unlikely to get involved in social problems like crime or terrorism, and they tend to integrate well with mainstream society.

This seems to be very out of sync with the opinions of the Canadians I know, and the recent public issues with heavy immigration of unskilled males from the Punjab.

DoingIsLearning• 2 years ago

Germany admitted close to one million

Not Germany, Merkel. Merkel Incentivized and allowed admitting refugees at an unprecedented rate.

buckle8017• 2 years ago

The single largest group of immigrants to Canada are Indians pretending to be temporary students.

Five million of them.

thenaturalist3• 2 years ago

You're right on the money imo and the author clearly shows a lack of understanding of systems thinking.

He takes a simple observation and generalizes it instead of working backwards to the fact that Canada is just like the US geographically highly isolated with giant oceans on each side whereas Germany and Europe are a landmass directly connected to other continents.

I highly recommend the books "Prisoners of Geography" (1/2) for anyone interested in realizing how geography silently shapes politics.

transcriptase3• 2 years ago

Canada's immigration policy is on the whole highly selective, focused on skilled immigrants

Was. At present nearly every min wage and gig economy position in the country is 99% early 20s males from India taking advantage of being able to enrol in a diploma mill to qualify for PR. The Feds knew of this shady pipeline for years and did nothing because it juiced GDP numbers that otherwise would have revealed a recession.

Even once reputable colleges/universities couldn’t resist starting part-time no-show “hospitality” programs with 0 work and 100% pass rate to siphon tuition as the table stakes for being able to circumvent other immigration streams.

blandcoffee• 2 years ago

I will not comment on the European data here, but this is so wrong on the Canada side.

Sentiment against immigration is real in Canada. You're comparing refugee numbers when in reality Canada's population grew faster than most of the G7 in 2023 [1]

[1] https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-p...

deepsun2• 2 years ago

Just a nitpick -- the "overheated property market" sounds like a bad thing, but I don't understand why it must be that way. In the end -- property developers are Canadian companies, and must bathe in money. "Younger Canadians" must be enjoying elevated salaries at these companies.

The only reason I see why it is that way is when other Canadians restrict the supply of real estate (NIMBY) to inflate their own property value. Same for most other democratic real estate markets in the world in the past years, not just Canada, regardless of immigration levels.

guywithahat• 2 years ago

I mean racism isn't directly associated with support or opposition for immigration. You can be opposed to all immigration, even support remigration, and not be racist

mainframed5• 2 years ago

Remigration [...] is a [...] political concept referring to the forced or promoted return of non-ethnically European immigrants, often including their descendants who were born in Europe, back to their place of racial origin, typically with no regard for their citizenship [^1]

Sounds pretty racist to me. Maybe you can be clearer on what you mean by non-racist remigration? The far-right groups, which are, at least in my country (Germany), the only once using the term to my knowledge, clearly mean it in a racist way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration

highcountess• 2 years ago

Can I ask you to explain how and why it is acceptable to you that people in Canada would be opposed to having foreigners imposed upon them against their will and then you just dismiss their wishes and justified anger about such abuses by using a preprinted trigger command that justifies abusing them further by uttering the letters/sound of “racism”?

Is it racism if all Canadians en masse, just up and moved to, e.g., El Salvador and totally swamped their culture and wrecked their identify and then started abusing them in their own homes?

Why is it always only the trigger word “racism” when people complain about abuses, but it’s not “racism” when the abusers abuse the victims, the local indigenous population that is being assaulted and abused?

foxglacier2• 2 years ago

Counterexample is Israel. Also Singapore I suppose but you don't hear many opinions about their founding. It's not a choice between immigrants and locals but between powerful and weak ethnic groups. Leftists side with the weak by default.

varispeed• 2 years ago

I don't believe the concerns about mass immigration are inherently rooted in racism. Instead, labelling such concerns as racist often serves as a way to silence or delegitimise the valid grievances of the working class. When people raise issues about the effects of immigration policies - such as increased competition for housing or jobs - they are often dismissed by those who benefit from these policies, such as large corporations seeking cheaper labour. This tactic has been used in many countries, framing opposition as prejudice to avoid addressing the broader economic and social consequences.

amatecha5• 2 years ago

Speaking as a Vancouverite: nope. I'm more vocal than ever about calling out any shred of prejudice or hate from anyone around me -- not that I have to do so very often at all. Once or twice a year at most, I'd say.

If you are in Canada and you have a problem with immigration, uhhh.. sorry, but you might want to figure out how to accept it.

"According to the 2021 Canadian census, immigrants in Canada number 8.3 million persons and make up approximately 23 percent of Canada's total population. This represents the eighth-largest immigrant population in the world, while the proportion represents one of the highest ratios for industrialized Western countries" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

FYI, an extremely well-funded lobby group wants to bump Canada's population to 100 million by the year 2100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Initiative

galactus• 2 years ago

As an immigrant in Canada, I have observed a relentless increase in anti-immigration discourse. While there are valid critiques of current immigration policies, the conversation too often carries a racist undertone.

jasode• 2 years ago

A reddit thread started by a woman working at a college in Toronto was on the front page of reddit 2 months ago. Commenters just piled on with more and more anecdotes. : https://old.reddit.com/r/canadian/comments/1g7a6eg/im_sick_o...

I binged watched a bunch of videos on Europe's various countries' backlash to immigration. An example was a Sweden reversal of attitude on immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBOqfxPc90

Maybe the statistics in that video was cherry-picked and distorting reality. I haven't been to Sweden in 20 years to know the facts on the ground. Either way, the comments on that video are interesting.

I remember thinking 8 years ago that Trump's rhetoric of "build a wall" was insane. But now seeing the negative attitudes in every country that accepted a mass influx of immigration, it turns out he brilliantly tapped into a frustration that no other high-profile politician running for President was brave enough to say bluntly. It helped him win the election.

femiagbabiaka6• 2 years ago

Reddit is completely astroturfed and shouldn't be taken as an real-world indication of political sentiments on any issue. However, turning to racist policy in light of economic crisis is not new, the last time Americans deported people of Mexican descent in droves was during the aftermath of the Great Depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

Humanity will just have to relearn the lessons of the 1920s-1940s again, if it learns anything at all that is.

screye3• 2 years ago

Canada has some of the most easily abused immigration systems in the world. Back home in India, it's considered a joke, with entire movies made on that premise. It has led to mass migration of a slice of India's low-skill-low-virtue underclass. This subgroup provides little economic value, brings down wages & slots into existing criminal gangs in Canada.

If this wasn't bad enough, Canada has the 1st world's most regressive housing system. This double whammy has made it impossible for Canada's millennials to buy houses, while boomers and gen-Xers get free asset appreciation and cheap labor. It's geriatric wealth transfer at the expense of this generation of Canadians.

Canada should join the EU, because both entities have spent decades taking bureaucracy-led self-destructive actions in the name of faux diversity & expert-led consensus.

datr• 2 years ago

Can you share the name of some of these movies? I'd be interested in checking them out.

youngNed2• 2 years ago

Tell me more about this Indian 'subgroup', this 'low-skill-low-virtue underclass' that's built into your very fabric of society, ingrained in religion, that you don't like.

aprilthird20216• 2 years ago

But it was the opposite up until really recently (basically up until the economic downturn caused by COVID). Canada was an outlier country with higher levels of immigration than most and probably the most tolerant people of immigrants.

dismalaf3• 2 years ago

As a millennial Canadian, this. I've never seen this much disdain for immigration, not even close. Definitely can't blame people though, our immigration rate is completely insane, talking multiple times higher than the US rate or the EU rate at the height of the Syrian refugee crisis.

Our GDP per capita has gone down every quarter for what, at least 2 years?

Medical care, cost of living, everything is the worst I've experienced in my lifetime. When I was in university our dollar and average income were both higher than the US', now our dollar is at 70 cents USD and our average income is 40% lower...

nostromo• 2 years ago

Canada is getting poor fast (compared to the US). This is from the Economist recently:

https://archive.is/UdixF/ec46ebf7fe812cd5e9432f45f68bd142e6c...

BC's GDP per capita is lower than Idahos. Ontario and Quebec's are lower than West Virginia's.

https://brilliantmaps.com/us-vs-canada-gdp-per-capita/

This would be unthinkable not too long ago.

sanex• 2 years ago

Even my immigrant friends in Canada think there are too many immigrants.

systems• 2 years ago

the problem is not too many or too little, the problem is integration

i think canada have the potential to receive far more immigrant (and i think it should, to realize its full potentiel)

but little is being done to help with their integration, two thins should be done

   1. build more home
   2. support startups and small businesses

jmb992• 2 years ago

Quote from a Chinese friend of mine form over the holidays (currently in Canada on a work visa, applying for a PR shortly, started as an exchange student in highschool):

“I really like coming back to [jmb99’s hometown], it’s all white people. Nice change from Toronto.”

Definitely a common sentiment.

adriand• 2 years ago

That’s not the full context of what is in the article. The full sentence is:

Europeans could learn from Canada how to allow immigration in a fashion that the population embraces rather than tolerates, though a housing crunch has frayed that consensus of late.

Far from sounding ignorant, the author sounds well-informed.

seanmcdirmid2• 2 years ago

“Frayed” is an understatement though: Canada has swung clearly in the anti-immigration camp over the last 4 or so years, maybe longer? It is to the point that Trump might actually be popular in Canada now just because of anti immigration sentiment alone.

bawolff5• 2 years ago

Umm no? There is (sadly) a significant anti-immigration backlash right now in canada. Its a core election issue and one of the main reasons trudeau is likely going to lose the next election.

boringg2• 2 years ago

Last I checked immigration isn't doing to well in the EU either.

jokethrowaway2• 2 years ago

Canada is certainly not this example. Immigration is a big issue.

The only place where immigration worked I can think of was the USA, in the old times.

The recipe for successful immigration is very simple: no benefits, import only people with some money and with skilled jobs qualifications, hard stance against illegal immigration.

Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

Tiktaalik2• 2 years ago

It's the classic thing where people are unhappy due to unrelated systemic problems and they lash out and blame the latest people to show up.

Canadians are suffering due to decades on decades of poor housing policy and a continued reluctance to seriously engage in the problem. Suddenly immigrants are to blame.

Never mind the fact that long ago, before this government even touched immigration numbers, or were even elected, Toronto and Vancouver were already experiencing housing crises of high prices and severe shortage.

kypro2• 2 years ago

I'm not that familiar with Canadian economics, but doesn't Canada have a below replacement birth rate like most of the developed world?

How did they even manage to end up in a housing crisis?

swat5355• 2 years ago

I beg to differ, I think import 5x the amount of population from the same part of the world has a major impact on any country, especially if the government doesn't plan for the sudden increase in population by expanding infrastructure, healthcare, housing etc.

Leaving the social issues aside, this was very poorly planned and average Canadians, especially young ones are feeling the pressure as a direct result of these policies.

Of course there are other factors but to argue that this is "sudden" and misplaced is not genuine.

BeetleB• 2 years ago

Indeed.

Every Canadian I know who emigrated there is sick of immigration.

And no. That's not a joke (i.e. they want do say that) but a bit of irony.

dangus• 2 years ago

I think in this context the idea of open borders between the USA and Canada in a similar fashion to the EU would be an interesting thought experiment to study.

Presumably a bunch of Canadians would leave Canada in favor of higher US salaries, or cheaper housing. The idea that Toronto real estate pricing is so geographically close to Buffalo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh is interesting.

Then again, presumably a bunch of people looking for affordable healthcare would be moving up to Canada.

Or perhaps not all that many people would go anywhere permanently and they would just have an easier time going on vacation in either direction.

ulfw• 2 years ago

Sounds like a country that shouldn't be part of a multicultural European Union then

BossingAround• 2 years ago

If Canada joined the EU, they would have a TON of immediate immigrants, ranging from manual labor (e.g. plumbers, builders, cleaners, factory workers, ...) up to knowledge workers (e.g. software engineers, doctors, nurses, ...).

Not sure what that would do with Canadian economy. IMO it would be even more desirable target for emigration than the UK when it was in the EU. I know I would certainly consider it, being a software engineer.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

Canada's points-based system already makes it pretty easy for the latter category to come here. To the point where people in our profession have highly depressed compensation packages when compared to the US because our job market is very much flooded with inbound foreign talent.

Domestic trained talent tends to leave for the US. Because under NAFTA it's trivial to do so.

Manual labour, yeah, that's another story. NAFTA doesn't grant free movement of unskilled labour at all.

criddell• 2 years ago

Are tech companies rapidly expanding in Canada to take advantage of all that cheap labor?

diggan• 2 years ago

We can only guess I suppose, but I don't know how high the immediate transfer of people back/forwards between hypothetical new EU Canada + existing countries would be. Might even turn out to be more Canadians leaving for Europe than the other way around.

ThrowawayTestr10• 2 years ago

The Canadian government has no interest in skilled immigrants. It wants bodies that will work for minimum wage to fill up all the time Hortons

mentalgear• 2 years ago

I'd recommend Canada to join the EU, before the new US government comes in and snaps it up (along with Greenland, etc.).

martinbaun• 2 years ago

wow, this year will be interesting

gjsman-1000• 2 years ago

I think this says more about the state of Canada, and the state of the EU, than it does about a good economic union. It’s like two bankrupt companies trying to form a profitable one.

llm_nerd4• 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but what a bizarre and ridiculous way to respond to this rhetorical, largely humorous thought piece. Especially given that it's a response to Trump's continued declarations that Canada should join the US. Is Trump's constant senile yapping about absorbing Canada or Greenland or Panama also proof of how broken the US is?

As a Canadian, the #1 reason I wouldn't want to join the EU is that the Schengen Agreement almost seems purpose designed to force destructive mass migration, diluting cause and effect just so much that no one in particular can be accountable and put a stop to it.

atmosx4• 2 years ago

Does Canada have a migration issue? It didn’t seem that way the last time I was in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, in Europe, self-inflicted wounds from austerity, corruption, and years of ineffective policies continue to mount – and as usual, immigrants are the scapegoats. When the euro was introduced, the conversation was about harmonizing taxes, social welfare, pensions, and wages. Now, the EU celebrates forcing iPhones to adopt USB-C, as if that matters – and they pat themselves on the back for it.

Big corporations avoiding taxes in Ireland? Silence. German companies suppressing wages by threatening to relocate to Poland? Why not raise wages in Poland and create a fairer landscape?

These days, the EU feels more like an extension of NATO than a representative body. Its survival so far seems like a miracle, but I wouldn’t place bets on its future. The normalization of parties like AfD, pushing to exit the EU, adds to the uncertainty.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

Is Trump's constant senile yapping about absorbing Canada or Greenland or Panama also proof of how broken the US is?

I mean, the fact that his name is spoken about in public as if this is a serious leader capable of managing a nation's affairs is evidence enough of, yes, broken US.

Situation in Canada isn't awesome. But if there's anything that would bring Canadians together it's listening to blowhard Americans pretend some level of superiority while they elect a game show host and felon to the highest office in their land.

ziofill• 2 years ago

Canada needs houses, not people.

Hammershaft• 2 years ago

We need both, without a healthier population density Canada will forever be a bunch of exploitative oligopolies in a trenchcoat hopelessly dependent on a benevolent USA.

bombcar19• 2 years ago

If Canada doesn’t manage its population well it _will_ end up the 51st state in practicality if not reality.

mmooss7• 2 years ago

The number of houses isn't fixed, nor are almost any other resource. The way economics works, each average person produces significantly more than they consume.

Someone living alone in a cabin is (economically) poor. Someone in a small town may have customers, but not many, and it's going to be hard to expand. What you need is more people - more people buying, more people to work for you.

slothtrop7• 2 years ago

Housing supply is inelastic, in part because of zoning (but it's not the only reason). Know what doesn't change very quickly? Policy and law at the municipal level. Know what changes quickly because it's done at the very top level? Immigration rate.

threeseed9• 2 years ago

Canada needs people and fast. Otherwise good luck affording a social net in future decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

ThrowawayTestr10• 2 years ago

Better keep importing people from one specific province in India by the boatload

slothtrop7• 2 years ago

What will boomers, the richest generation, ever do?

This is overstated. The alarm was sounded on this 2 decades ago for several east Asian countries, but they're not on fire. They're fine. Old people die.

If the fertility rate mattered that much, they'd have scrambled to make any number of policy changes including better work-life balance (see: Japan, SK, China), or plain ol' immigration, but they don't because it simply does not matter. All the efforts have been completely half-assed (like tax benefits, cash).

youngNed2• 2 years ago

Tired: Canada should join the eu

Wired: greenland should pacman defence[1] the USA

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_defense

jimbob45• 2 years ago

Expired: Northern California should become its own state

I miss the wired/tired/expired lists greatly. Wired from 2000-2010 was a high-quality publication.

SllX3• 2 years ago

This little thread was a nice bit of nostalgia.

selimthegrim2• 2 years ago

Expired: Noriega

buzzert5• 2 years ago

WIRED still does this in each issue!

potato37328422• 2 years ago

A bunch of states ought to get split into multiple because it would result in a better mapping of state governments to economic and cultural lines and result in better representation for all parties on the state level.

Of course it will never happen for a multitude of reasons

amatecha5• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement

kbutler2• 2 years ago

Tired: Wired

Expired: Wired subscription

gadtfly• 2 years ago

Breaking innovative new ground on how to make things even worse.

hello1234567• 2 years ago

spot on.

bobxmax5• 2 years ago

You know how you make one failing economy better? Combine it with another failing economy!

kibwen• 2 years ago

Can't read because of the paywall, so I'm curious how it handwaves away the EU's own membership criteria which requires applicants to be "European countries".

ceejayoz• 2 years ago

Their head of state lives in Europe. Even used to be in the EU.

ssnistfajen3• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria#Geographic...

Cyprus is geographically located in Asia but has been successfully been admitted to the EU after satisfying other (non-geographical) conditions for EU membership.

Armenia and Georgia have also been determined by the EU to be eligible for membership despite being entirely located in Asia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia%E2%80%93European_Union...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Georgia_to_the_Eu...

atmosx4• 2 years ago

They can change the criteria or ignore it. Wouldn't be the first time.

haunter• 2 years ago

Not outlandish, Morocco applied in 1987 but it was rejected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union...

mardifoufs4• 2 years ago

The difference is that Morocco has a lot to win by joining europe, whereas Canada doesn't.

skissane7• 2 years ago

Canadian GDP per capita is 15 times that of Morocco. The EU would much rather admit a wealthy country than a relatively poor one. So there are clear economic reasons to treat the two differently.

Canada is a longstanding liberal democracy with a distant and purely symbolic constitutional monarchy. Morocco is a constitutional monarchy in which (until recently at least) the monarch played an active political role, there is still a widespread expectation among the population that he ought to do so, multiparty democracy is young and weak, and security agencies engage in repressive behaviour. [0] So there's political reasons too.

If Canada really wanted the EU and the EU really wanted Canada, they'd fudge the whole geography issue–probably won't happen but not completely impossible. But no way the EU is going to want Morocco any time this century, so they won't do it for them.

[0] https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing...

gmueckl6• 2 years ago

The rejection was expected. The EU and its associated organizations are only open to countries on the European continent by their current rules. Canada would have to broker a hell of a deal to get even partially in. EFTA membership might be a possible goal.

alephnerd• 2 years ago

only open to countries on the European continent

Cyprus would like to have a word.

As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

twobitshifter• 2 years ago

Canada is still under the British Monarch, Charles as King of Canada. Not saying that would work but it might be one avenue. It’s also good reason that Canada joining the US would be very hard as things stand.

SllX3• 2 years ago

It’s pretty outlandish. One of the core tenants of EU expansionism and the politics around it is that the applying nations are considered European enough and physically located in Europe in addition to being willing to cooperate with the EU in meeting the general requirements of a member nation.

But just because you’re at least partly in Europe isn’t enough in some cases depending on who you are, and this was used in the aughts as a way to defer any potential membership by Turkey (which at least started the process of joining back then) and Russia (something European politicians didn’t want to even consider) by pointing out how much of their territory is in Asia. Morocco’s self-proclaimed justification was that Spain has a couple of cities in Northern Africa wholly surrounded by Moroccan territory, but Morocco still doesn’t make the cut for EU politicians.

However the Republic of Cyprus is entirely on continental Asia, not wholly in control of the island it claims as its sovereign territory, but considered “culturally European”, so it got in.

Canada is probably more of a Morocco than a Cyprus in this case, not physically in Europe, not even physically proximate to Europe the way at least Cyprus and Morocco are, and probably not considered European-enough.

If this all sounds like crazy EU politics, that’s kind of what it is, but in defense of the crazies here, you have to be a bit crazy when you’re trying to build some kind of weird supranational cultural identity in a place like Europe.

jopsen3• 2 years ago

Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. Both of these territories are parts of existing EU member nations. I guess with brexit it won't help Canada to claim they are a British territory :)

In either case, if a well functioning oil producing nation wanted to join the EU, I think we should accept them.

In fact I think we should accept any wealthy democratic country with strong institutions, free press, etc.

I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc.

If anything, I don't think people want another Hungary in the EU. That said, eastern Europe was probably a project the EU had to undertake.

BlueTemplar2• 2 years ago

I'm going to talk about much longer timeframes, but as a reminder, the Mediterranean used to be the center of Western Civilization (because trade was ridiculously more effective over it than over land), with what is now Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia... being major """European""" centers. At the same time, what is now the British Islands were some kind of "end of the world" location (the equivalent of today's Alaska/Greenland/Northern Canada (?))

The importance of the Arctic becoming viable for trade routes should not be underestimated.

(Even more so, on a longer timeframe, if equatorial locations become uninhabitable because too hot.)

cs02rm0• 2 years ago

Wacky idea. The EU is an awful lot of legislation to sign up to, not the most popular it's even been either. If it's just about trading space and resources for people I'd imagine a more bespoke arrangement would be preferable for both sides.

iknowstuff3• 2 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market

The four freedoms of the single market you get in return are incredible.

PaulDavisThe1st5• 2 years ago

Only the free movement of labor is really unusual. As in ... really, really, really unusual. Lots of trade deals include variations of the first 3 ... free movement of labor is basically unheard of between nation states as part of trade deals.

make3• 2 years ago

This is never passing.

Trump-inspired conservatives are on their ways to be guaranteed majority at the next federal elections.

joshl32532• 2 years ago

The conservatives were leading the polls wayyy before Trump even winning the GOP primaries.

Canadians are just tired of Justin Trudeau after almost 10 years. Which happens to even the best of leaders, and JT is far from it.

mmooss7• 2 years ago

Despite the critics, many countries have signed up and would like to, and only one has left. Why is EU membership so much in demand?

ThrowawayTestr10• 2 years ago

Weak countries need the protection of Germany and France

xoxosc• 2 years ago

Not to mention the bureaucrats at Brussels are not elected!

preisschild• 2 years ago

Wrong

The EU parliament is elected and the EU council is indirectly elected.

Aloisius• 2 years ago

? Bureaucrats aren't elected by definition.

A bureaucracy is a body of non-elected government officials (aka bureaucrats).

skissane7• 2 years ago

https://archive.md/jvRlo

fidotron2• 2 years ago

Canada has less free trade between provinces than the EU does between countries.

The two are not compatible.

dblohm72• 2 years ago

This is true, but I'd love to see something happen to force Canadian provinces's hands to improve this.

To dream the impossible dream...

fidotron2• 2 years ago

Indeed. I don’t think I have met a single person that thinks the Canadian constitution as is is the right thing, but also have never met any two people that agree on what it should be instead.

If anything the recent Trumpian outbursts have demonstrated just how strong the inertia is on this. For it to change will take a genuine existential crisis.

rayiner10• 2 years ago

Why? Until its recent immigration debacle, Canada was one of the most efficiently governed countries in the world. 15-20 years ago, Canada had lower non-defense government spending per capita than the U.S., despite having a universal healthcare system. Canadian federalism has been incredibly effective, with the majority of all spending happening at the provincial level and meaningful differences between provincial policy reflective of local concerns.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

The weird trade things between the provinces are more to do with special exceptions and regulations around alcohol, trades regulation, etc. than the kind of tariff-oriented things people are talking usually with "free trade". They're a product of the fact that Canada, like the US, is a highly federal system and the provinces have strong powers. In some cases, stronger than in the US system (and in other cases, not)

In any case, we already have a free trade agreement with the EU. In some respects for some products its better than what we have with the US.

mthoms• 2 years ago

Citation needed.

loceng2• 2 years ago

I think people are quite tired of the harms of a centralized globalization effort - whether from a decentralized cabal or official part of law and official government agreements.

isodev3• 2 years ago

On the contrary, I think we’re finally realising the benefits of centralisation. Separatism and isolation are things of the past.

loceng2• 2 years ago

What evidence do you have for your stance?

For my evidence I'll reference this top upvoted comment that references actual truths, realities on the ground:

"Does the economist know what time it is? Nationalism is resurgent: nationalist parties now control the U.S. and Italy. Canada seems poised to Poilievre, who has made impassioned appeals to Canadian nationalism. And in Germany, France, and the U.K., nationalist parties have effectively rendered the governing coalitions impotent, even if they cannot yet command a majority. What a time to suggest that Canadians cede their sovereignty to bureaucrats in far-away Brussels!" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42591290

SolonIslandus• 2 years ago

Canada should join the European Free Trade Association instead of the EU!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Associatio...

llm_nerd4• 2 years ago

FWIW Canada does have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU: CETA.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

I am continually amazed at how many of my fellow Canadians are unaware of CETA.

I buy ski equipment from European online retailers for cheaper than from the US because no tariffs on it. It arrives here faster, and with better customer service, too.

wenc• 2 years ago

I remember when CETA was ratified, and there was talk about labor mobility which got me excited. Having more options on which countries to work is always better than fewer, but I ended up in the U.S. and turns out that worked out much better for me. Others may have different views.

I was once young and had romantic notions of living in Europe, but I realized that I cultivated those notions as a student, tourist and urbanist. The realities of living in Europe are more complicated. I can still deal with the downsides (would still love to live in London), but as I've moved around and lived in more places, I realized it's not incontrovertibly true that the European lifestyle is better than in North America. Just depends what you're optimizing for.

Europe is still a good destination for the well-heeled (and with a job lined up -- but that's true for almost any developed country), but if one isn't in that situation, Europe not the paradise many young people in Canada think it is. Sure you have walkable cities, universal healthcare, social safety net, train travel to tons of interesting destinations. But you also have to deal with a lot more bureaucracy, inefficiencies, and ultimately being a foreigner in a land that is not an immigrant nation like Canada is. The cuisines in European cities are nowhere near as diverse as the cuisines available in Toronto. You can't take risks and do new things as easily. The downside of the good life is comfort -- and a lack of dynamism.

p.s. looking back on CETA after 7 years (it's still not fully in effect), it looks like the effects were largely negligible to Canadians except in niche areas because of other effects that canceled out the advantages.

crote4• 2 years ago

I don't think this is an attractive option for Canada. The main downside of EFTA is that you are required to follow a lot of single-market legislation, without getting any say in it.

Considering how tightly Canada is currently coupled to the US, this would be an absolute nightmare for many businesses. Yeah you'd gain a hypothetical overseas market, but in turn you're losing alignment with an absolutely massive market right next door! That's something like 60% of your import/export, gone.

grecy• 2 years ago

Sure, but if the threatened tariffs come in, that nearby market will drop considerably. The EU is also a bigger market than the US. 440mil vs. 340mil.

glitchc• 2 years ago

Hot take: Canada should join the US.

drexlspivey• 2 years ago

US should join the EU

adamc4• 2 years ago

I'd be all for free movement, but I doubt the EU would be enthused.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

Does that come with a few trillions in reparations for lands confiscated from Loyalists who were forced to flee to Canada at the end of the American rebellion? Or for the Mohawk who fled here and helped us fight the Yanks off in 1812?

TMWNN5• 2 years ago

Sorry to shatter your illusions, but all Loyalist land claims were settled in post-Revolutionary War treaties between the US and UK.

RajT88• 2 years ago

Trump suggested it, as well as Mexico.

To give you some idea on the intellectual credulity with which the idea should be treated.

ssnistfajen3• 2 years ago

Geopolitical thought experiments pop up from time to time but rarely come to fruition. There will be enough domestic opposition from both sides that this will never happen. The idea may become more compelling if Canada completely loses freedom of movement and free trade with the U.S., but that means the Canadian economy would have to crater first, which weakens the benefit EU would receive from accepting such a member country.

aronikun• 2 years ago

Canada should join the [commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations), then I can go work there :) Then in its best interest, it should immediately leave the commonwealth.

oneeyedpigeon• 2 years ago

Um... Canada IS in the commonwealth

zizee5• 2 years ago

It is in the Commonwealth?

jjtheblunt• 2 years ago

Is the Economist often advising others X to do things contrary to the interest of X, but claiming the contrary ?

inSenCite• 2 years ago

Canada needs to do something but I don't think joining the EU is it.

ethbr13• 2 years ago

Canada-Mexico!

icegreentea2• 2 years ago

This is hardly a serious analysis, and the author knows it.

No European would seriously consider the reduction of population density that comes from admitting Canada to be a meaningful improvement to the EU. Canadian energy resources would definitely be welcome, but that's hardly enough of a reason to extend membership, especially since a trans-Atlantic power cable (which would be needed to get the most out of Canada's hydro) would be a beast of an engineering challenge itself.

Tighter EU-Canada integration is a much more important and achievable goal, as the article points out in the final paragraph.

positr0n• 2 years ago

I agree it's a nonstarter for a huge variety of issues, but what's wrong with low population density?

_7acn4• 2 years ago

As someone who has lived in the EU for over 20 years, I can say that the Schengen Area is a fantastic thing, whereas the EU itself is a disaster. Civilized countries should join the Schengen Area but avoid joining the European Union (these are two separate things). They should take an example from Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein - countries that are part of Schengen but not in the EU. Joining the European Union means a complete loss of sovereignty.

gmueckl6• 2 years ago

Factually, the claim of complete loss of sovereignty is just dead wrong. This list details the division of responsibilities between the EU and member states: https://commission.europa.eu/about/role/law/areas-eu-action_...

This shows how narrow the responsibilities of the EU actually are.

_7acn4• 2 years ago

Instead of reading the documentation, let's answer three questions:

1. Can your country introduce any law without asking the EU for approval? 2. Can the EU mandate your country to implement a specific law? 3. Do you still believe your country is sovereign?

zizee5• 2 years ago

Wasn't the federal government of the US formed with a very narrow mandate, and then ratcheted up control with the the innocuous sounding Interstate Commerce clause?

Disclaimer: I am neither American, nor very educated about what I just wrote.

mbivert2• 2 years ago

Strictly speaking, you're correct, but practically speaking, I believe not so much.

For example, France lost a key advantage ("competition rules") with nuclear energy essentially because it was considered unfair to other countries. But energetic independence is fundamental in part to economical independence: it's a key aspect of sovereignty.

Another example would be the Euro ("monetary policy"):

Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.

Or, the fact that external laws (from the UE) can be applied to member countries without approval from the people is IMO another rather clear form of loss of sovereignty: a considerable amount (~20% for France IIRC) of legislation is imposed by external, un-elected bodies.

mcny• 2 years ago

I've argued in the past that Australia should join the European Union and gotten laughed at in my face. :/

zoenolan• 2 years ago

Well, they do take part in Eurovision

postepowanieadm• 2 years ago

It's a very nice idea, but to join the EU, you have to be in Europe. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/167/the-e...

belter• 2 years ago

And the Prime Directive does not allow law changes without approval by the Imperium, so that settles it....,

layer82• 2 years ago

If Greenland can join the US, surely Canada could join Europe.

TMWNN5• 2 years ago

Greenland is part of North America.

(So is half of Iceland.)

ssnistfajen3• 2 years ago

Wrong. Cyprus is in Asia and has been successfully admitted to the EU.

aborsy2• 2 years ago

Canada will do much better joining US (and distancing itself from declining EU and its disastrous policies). The US is much better managed; the results speak for themselves.

wesselbindt3• 2 years ago

I truly cannot tell whether you're joking. If you're not, I'd love to pick your brain. I'm very interested in what standards you have and why you have them.

ripbozo• 2 years ago

The user also calls unions a cancer on society, that tells you everything you need to know.

echoangle• 2 years ago

Poe's law in action.

kspacewalk2• 2 years ago

Long term, maybe. Short and medium term, let's see if you guys tear yourselves apart in a civil war or some other footgun. Nothing other than internal shenanigans can possibly threaten overwhelming US hegemony, after all.

jasoneckert2• 2 years ago

The opposite would be better for the US. If the US joined Canada, they could benefit from universal healthcare, schooling, and responsible gun laws within a short period of time, given the available resources that would be added to the Canadian system.

raydev• 2 years ago

they could benefit from universal healthcare

Having lived on both sides of the border for many years, Canada first needs to improve its version of "universal healthcare" before making a pitch like this.

aborsy2• 2 years ago

This is wishful thinking. The quality of public healthcare in Canada has been declining. In particular, the waiting times are long. Those who are well off go to US for important timely care.

The gun violence in US is higher, but the chances of that impacting you are low, if you avoid problematic areas.

rangestransform• 2 years ago

I want American and Canadian healthcare both to remain the way they are, I have timely access to care with my American health insurance, but if I lose my job I can get healthcare anyways with my Canadian passport

bombcar19• 2 years ago

There are something like nearly half a billion Americans - they’d immediately and irrevocably outvote the Canadian remnant and turn it into cold Texas.

johnnyanmac• 2 years ago

depends on how rich each individual is. US is great if you're rich enough to pay for any medical emergencies out of pocket and you want investor money for explosive growth.

huqedato• 2 years ago

Right. In US how many are rich like this against how many aren't ? 1 in 100 ? Less?

I would say US is not a country for working (normal) people like me. I prefer to live in EU, now and forever.

epolanski2• 2 years ago

Gonna tell you a secret, the world isn't black and white, while there are areas such as the economy where we struggle to compete as an European I would never want to live in the US again (I studied in Columbus Ohio for 7 months as an exchange student at OSU and traveled US multiple times).

The streets here are clean, spotting a homeless person is borderline impossible even if you try, in US I've seen tents, bidonvilles, homelessness everywhere, drugged zombies as soon as you entered the wrong streets in basically every city.

There's much less anxiety around healthcare or education here, violence and crime are very different too. My 180k people city hasn't seen a murder (outside very few caused by family violence, which are virtually the only cause for murders in my country) in decades.

Actually now that I think about it, I also found Canada (where my wife has family that emigrated there 80 years ago) to be better in all those regards. Have you ever crossed from Canada to US at Niagara falls? If you did and walked more than 500 meters you know what I'm talking about.

Mind you, there's no doubt US does many things great, as an engineer and wannabe entrepeneur I know US would've given me more chances, but believe it or not, not everybody wants to live the american way and money isn't everything if you have to use it to feel safer and less anxious in guarded neighbourhoods like some of my best friends in US live in.

There's countless things that US does great, and that does awfully, different people and cultures may weigh the pros/cons differently.

buzzert5• 2 years ago

With respect to your lived experiences, as a fan of the US I would just like to say that it is a country of 330m+ whose physical presence spans a majority of a major continent, so I would encourage you not to generalize us based on what you saw in Columbus. That would be like me visiting Paris (a city I particularly did not enjoy) and generalizing all of Europe!

adamc4• 2 years ago

FWIW, as an American, I see it as a mixed bag. Our economy is stronger, but it creates a lot of wealth inequality and unhappiness.

titanomachy5• 2 years ago

I've lived in the US and Canada (a couple large cities in each country), and briefly in a medium-sized city in France.

Canadian cities are the cleanest of the three countries, but homelessness and drug use are just as prevalent in Canada as in the US. I don't remember seeing many addicts in Europe but there were certainly a lot of homeless refugees when I lived there. I guess you could argue that's not the fault of the host country, unlike the homelessness in Canada/US.

Other than that, the US cities I've lived in have felt safe and livable, with vibrant street life and plenty of great restaurants and events. I prefer urban neighborhoods which are close to the downtown core, but outside of it; the visible social problems seem to be very concentrated in certain areas, which can be avoided.

If by "guarded neighborhoods" you mean gated communities with full-time live security, I think your friends are major outliers. A very small minority of people live that way in America.

I do agree with you about "less anxiety around healthcare or education". My European friends see the world and life very differently. People don't feel guilty about living a normal life in the same way that some Americans seem to: the culture here screams "strive" and "excel", and I think that drives a lot of people to be miserable when they feel they are falling short of that expectation.

3vidence13• 2 years ago

Did you say you can't spot a homeless person in Canada???

This literally can't be true every single large city in Canada is struggling with increasing homelessness right now.

Do you live in a cabin up in Muskoka??

atmosx4• 2 years ago

Interesting. How do you define "success"? Is the average American Joe really better off than the average European Joe?

In the U.S., a cancer diagnosis can lead to bankruptcy, while treatment is free (or close to free) in most EU countries. Education is largely free as well, and you don't see people walking around armed like they’re in the Marine Corps. So, I'm not sure what benchmark we're using to measure this.

iknowstuff3• 2 years ago

Not to make a point in the overall healthcare funding discussion but cancer mortality is lower in the US.

https://www.politico.eu/article/cancer-europe-america-compar...

bombcar19• 2 years ago

Which way are the immigrants flowing? If European Joe is better off than American Joe it should be a net flow to Europe, no?

And I’ve seen way more people walking around with military weapons in Europe than I ever have in the USA - to be fair, they were the literal armed forces of the country, but still exceptionally weird to see as an American.

valunord12• 2 years ago

Let’s set aside the jokes for a second... there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.

Just hang on - this isn't as crazy as it sounds!

Think about it:

- There would be a shared defense and infrastructure: NORAD already has the US and Canada tied at the hip for defense. Greenland, being strategically crucial to Arctic security, fits naturally into this alignment. Folding them into a single framework could simplify and strengthen North American defense.

- Economic integration's already there: the US and Canada are each other's largest trading partners. NAFTA (and now USMCA) means much of the heavy economic lifting is already done. Greenland’s resources are becoming increasingly important as Arctic access opens up.

- Population and resources balance out: Canada has land and resources but not enough people. The US has people and markets but strained resources. Greenland sits on untapped potential. There’s a complementary puzzle here that fits. Heck, I know a bunch of people that would move to Greenland in my circle of friends alone if it were a state of the Union.

Think about the plausibility, even if you don' think it's likely.

Sure, there's political gridlock in the US? Sure. But let’s not pretend Canadian politics are a beacon of stability. And Denmark’s hold on Greenland isn’t exactly ironclad. In unstable times, pragmatic unions can look attractive.

And yeah, there are a lot of cultural differentials, but flipping flap jacks, look at the cultural divide between California vs Indiana or TX vs Vermont. Mergers like this happen incrementally - closer military cooperation, shared Arctic development, economic harmonization.

Not saying this will/could happen tomorrow, but in a time of rethinking alliances, I think it’s less far-fetched than it sounds. If Europe can experiment with supranational governance, why can’t North America????

What are the realistic roadblocks here beyond just "politics?"

krapp3• 2 years ago

there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.

Canada I understand.

But why Greenland, other than the fact that Trump saw it in the window and decided he wanted it? The US already has a base there, it doesn't seem to be that vital to our strategic interests.

cmrdporcupine19• 2 years ago

Greenland is Denmark. Why are you including it? (FWIW Inuit in Greenland are better off than their peers in Canada [or Alaska]. Higher quality of life)

The reason Canada and the US are not closer than they already already -- which is very close -- comes down to the same story it has for over 200 years: massive political cultural divide.

"Peace, Order, and Good Government" vs "Don't Tread On Me" or whatever.

American expansionism, manifest destiny, and the populist politics that go with it only sell well to a minority here. This is a country that has deep loyalist roots and a long history of preference for our Westminster style gov't and the balances it has.

Not because we love being ruled by a king -- the monarchy is not popular -- but because we don't like to be ruled by demagogues and militia-men. I say "we", but of course there's people who would disagree, like anywhere else.

If this was still the Obama-era US I think the case for closer ties could be made -- a currency union, perhaps, some kind of Shengen-style border arrangement. But as long as US politics is taking the form it is right now, not a chance. I, for one, want nothing to do with it.

dragon-hn2• 2 years ago

The current state of the US is the roadblock to this. We already have very high economic integration between Canada and the US, but we now have to deal with a belligerent and incompetent American administration coming in that seems dead set on extracting as much from Canada as possible.

Canada needs to move away from the Americans as much as possible. Easier said than done given that America is an economic powerhouse.

gwbas1c2• 2 years ago

"The point" of Canada is that it's a separate country that doesn't have US politics.

That being said, the general lockdown of the boarder after 9-11 has driven a lot of people who live close to the boarder nuts. Crossing the boarder used to be like crossing a state/province boarder. If you look at satellite photos of the boarder around Maine, NH, and VT, it's full of little country roads where you could cross unimpeded until 9-11, and private properties that go right up to the boarder.

There's even a golf course that's in Canada, but the driveway is on a US street. You're allowed to enter from the US, but they follow Canadian laws (specifically, the Canadian drinking age.)

Personally, I wish we could figure out how to resolve our (relatively minor) differences so we could keep an open boarder.

richiebful1• 2 years ago

I'd love to see free movement of people and goods between US and Canada, EU-style. That's unlikely to happen anytime soon though

iknowstuff3• 2 years ago

You spelled it this way so many times it reminded me of this scene https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrjWC3YLIA

bombcar19• 2 years ago

Maybe it’s only the online ones, but Canadians seem to have more fun discussing American politics than they do their own.

Perhaps because it’s like the weather; something massive and powerful that could crush you at any time but you can’t change it.

nitwit005• 2 years ago

Reconciling the constitutions and laws would mean you'd basically be creating a new country.

The Republican party seems to view any new possible states as free congressional seats for the Democrats, so I can't see enough votes for such a thing regardless.

zvorygin• 2 years ago

Europeans could learn from Canada how to allow immigration in a fashion that the population embraces rather than tolerates, though a housing crunch has frayed that consensus of late

A little bit of an understatement, that consensus has almost been completely shattered in Canada.

Currently Canada can barely handle the people it has, there's quite a severe housing crisis. There's just not enough housing in any of the areas that people want to live. Canada does not need more people.

And most of the people hypothetically moving to Canada from Europe will probably be refugees who have little ties to Europe. Which would also not go down well in Canada (because of uhh, human tendencies against the outgroup).

Personally, I'm pro-immigration. It keeps the cost of labour down which is good for people like me. I just think even the current level of immigration has been too destabilizing for our society, so I'm opposed to increasing it yet further.

That being said, as a Canadian I'd love to have the right to live and work in the EU, and I would love for honest hard-working Europeans to have the right to live and work in Canada. And I'd love closer and denser trade ties, for example an investment in LNG shipping infrastructure to help Canada and the EU, assuming this is economical and not just a pipe dream.

ConspiracyFact• 2 years ago

Personally, I'm pro-immigration. It keeps the cost of labour down which is good for people like me.

Jesus. Really?

darth_avocado• 2 years ago

Canada needs people? I thought the recent controversy is all about Canada having too many people and the pro immigration government also taking a more tempered immigration stance?

paxys• 2 years ago

Canada has a population of 40 million in a land area larger than the USA. That's hardly "too many people". Too many people in a handful of dense urban centers maybe, but overall the country is basically empty.

tills13• 2 years ago

The argument is that we are taking on too many people and neither jobs nor housing completions are keeping up. There is an element of truth in that however our birthrate is not sustainable, either, so we're caught between those two eventualities.

betaby• 2 years ago

in a land area larger than the USA

That's called permafrost.

calf4• 2 years ago

Our land sucks. I live in Vancouver and can't grow decent: tomatoes, raspberries.

duskwuff• 2 years ago

overall the country is basically empty.

Because much of the landmass is uninhabitable. For instance, Nunavut is about 20% larger than Alaska, yet has less than one tenth its population - because most of the province is tundra. Even building a road through it is iffy - a city? Forget it.

sumedh2• 2 years ago

but overall the country is basically empty.

Can people live in the empty parts of Canada?

starky• 2 years ago

Canada does not have the infrastructure to support more people. Housing costs are out of control, healthcare is in a terrible state, etc. If those things were resolved first before bringing people in and straining the already strained infrastructure throughout the country then there wouldn't be nearly the pushback that is happening right now.

zizee5• 2 years ago

What are the benefits that cannot be obtained by signing trade agreements?

Canada is already part of NATO for defence, so joining the EU does nothing for defence.

Does Canada want freedom of movement of EU citizens into Canada? They already have a housing crisis.

Greece's experience shows a single currency isn't really beneficial to all members of the EU, so Canada would be crazy to give that up.

BlueTemplar2• 2 years ago

NATO is probably even less solid than the EU : France historically not being all in, the very reason for the pact being under question between the fall of the USSR and Putin deciding to shot himself in the foot, and who knows what Trump will do... (last time he already siphoned NATO funding, including for the Ukraine ramp-up, to build his (strategically) stupid wall).

wkat42423• 2 years ago

Would many EU citizens want to move to Canada? When I hear people around me it's not very popular. Cold, far from family, too stretched out etc.

I wouldn't think about it even if I could make more money there.

zizee5• 2 years ago

English speaking countries are always popular to move to.

flessner• 2 years ago

EU needs to clear out its own backyard first, kick Hungary out... Orban has brought nothing but chaos and costs.

After that, why not? Turkey has been in discussion for ages and is barely in Europe. Also, South Africa might be interesting in the future if they can see eye to eye on political and economic issues.

zizee5• 2 years ago

South Africa ... if they can see eye to eye on political and economic issues.

That's a pretty big "if".

Right now South Africa is a basket case, with corruption at the highest levels of government, and one in five citizens living in extreme poverty. The crime rate is extreme, with high levels of murder and rape.

So yes I agree, South Africa would be very "interesting" if it joined the EU.

alkyon• 2 years ago

South Africa has currently so warm relations with Russia that Hungary is the only EU country that would not block its accession in this surreal scenario.

layer82• 2 years ago

Historically they were also practically neighbors (Laurasia, around 200 Mya).

adamc4• 2 years ago

I think we could safely classify that as pre-historic rather than historically.

abesan• 2 years ago

borders matter less and less. tech, travel and trade have essentially made globalization inevitable at this point. (or at the very least between western democracies)

free movement of capital and people between eu and canada would probably be the next major step in this direction

CLiED• 2 years ago

It's a joke guys.

dzogchen2• 2 years ago

With Trump already threatening Canada without this ridiculous plan, no thanks.

The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States. The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

philwelch3• 2 years ago

Exactly what I was going to say. It was only in the 1980’s that Canada fully freed itself of British domination; there’s no justification for Europe to regain any political control over any independent country in the Western Hemisphere.

dzogchen2• 2 years ago

To be fair there is very little centralized control of EU member states. But the US will not be happy regardless.

em3rgent0rdr• 2 years ago

The US should also join the EU.

renewedrebecca• 2 years ago

to wreck it?

sakex• 2 years ago

I have a hard time imagining who would suffer from this more, but I have an even harder time imagining anyone would benefit from this.

pseudolus• 2 years ago

Another potential union that gets the occasional mention is CANZUK - a union of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. [0] Practically, and legally, they all share the same head of state and similar cultures (although culturally Quebec is the outlier) so perhaps it would be an easier fit.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

gpm• 2 years ago

Personally I'm a lot more interested in us (Canadians) joining an existing successful union than us trying to start up a competitor. The two actions don't seem particularly similar in potential costs/benefits/drawbacks/...

gorbypark• 2 years ago

I’ve been a proponent of CANZUK for 20 odd years now. My support comes from the cultural side of things. I spent 15 years working and living at ski resorts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and worked with a lot of young adults from the UK and Ireland). You can basically swap out anyone from the CANZUK+IE countries and get someone similar in language/culture/work ethic/etc and only have a slightly different accent.

I also know dozens of international couples who met and fell in love with someone from one of the other countries and have seen countless relationships forced to part ways because of stupid visa issues.

I’d like to see the free movement of people come first, a military agreement second (a la NATO) and then whatever free trade agreements that make sense.

TheSpiceIsLife• 2 years ago

In practice, our head of state here in Australia is the governor-general.[1] That role is largely ceremonial too.

Anyway, I tend to agree with the sentiment that, in ascending order of silly accents, Canadians, English, Irish, Australian, and Kiwis, share a common culture and work ethic.

I dunno how anyone can take New Zealanders seriously, if you’ve ever heard one speak you’d surely agree.[2] I’m gonna blame the Dutch, the silly bastards.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia

2. https://youtu.be/V4E1cfOE7P4?si=54xm1gttEG-AGLJ1

23B1• 2 years ago

The Economist is a great magazine for understanding how a certain type of person views the world, and for a survey of goings-on you might not get elsewhere.

It is not great if you are looking for useful policy.

Neonlicht2• 2 years ago

Canada is more likely to be formally incorporated into the US- after the fall of the British empire there's nothing standing in Washington's way.

bobxmax5• 2 years ago

Well aside from 30 million angry Canadians ready to burn down the white house again.

bombcar19• 2 years ago

Let’s meet at the border, we’ll give you everyone who always threatens to move to Canada, and you can give us everyone threatening to move to the USA. Sort of an amnesty deal.

mardifoufs4• 2 years ago

I literally can't think of a single canadian population/group that would be willing to die for canada. Liberals don't care, conservatives (the group more likely to join the military) absolutely don't care about the Canadian identity anymore, Quebecers sure wouldn't, immigrants (me included) wouldn't either...

Like, this isn't 1812 where Upper and Lower Canada had an actual identity or link to the British throne, or were descended from loyalists. We are mostly just a country that is held together by economic interests and a lot of inertia.

MicolashKyoka• 2 years ago

no thanks, we don't need the next thierry to have an expanded fief to "regulate". if anything, canada should model itself closer to the states with more personal freedoms and less regulation. there is a lot of land and resources to develop, the politicians need to just stop trying to maintain the status quo and aggressively try to develop all the land we have. the idea that we can't is a loser's mentality.

crispinb• 2 years ago

Your malevolent childs-ego-inflated-to-national 'winners vs losers' notion will inevitably, if not expunged, make losers of us all. My 'us' is of course unimaginable to your minuscule 'me'.

amadeuspagel2• 2 years ago

Competition is healthy, also between countries.

dismalaf3• 2 years ago

I'd be down, my family already gets all of our medical care in the EU anyway (wife is an EU citizen, as is our son).

Not sure EU countries would want millions of our immigrants flooding them though, especially once they see wages in Germany...

metalman• 2 years ago

one of the carabean island countrys, tried to join Canada, they were already useing Canadian money. We (canada) said no, cause they would leave there island and move north for free health care, which is like ok, here wana trade houses? But the EU?, joining canada, yah right, bunch of snooty hosers, they are already trying to put in private airports for there private jets. And there are countless EU beurocrats who have moved over and are working in government here, they like small towns.... And as for imigrants from india/asia, plenty of friction there, with a large number of names from those places showing up in the court docs(availible online....), and then many of the best talents from over there, 1 not planing on settling and 2 traveling back home for medical treatment.....even those who are working in health care,here. Brampton, Ont, is already a punjabi city.,..... samosas 3 for a dollar....and litteraly no euro origin people in sight, at the bank and grocery store. A bit of whats going. Traffic jams in places where that was impossible?, yup!, every day ! Housing prices going up, up, and up ?, yup! Dustin toodough on the way out ?, yup! Cranky, wall eyed "old stock" canadians not dealing well with mass imigration ?, yup! walleyed?, cow eyed?, definitely startled!, but generaly not mean and nasty, go Canada! Euro origin beurocrats talking about new zealand? yup!, buh by! South aisians with some real grit, working in Iqaliuite ? yup! Jamaicans working in the north woods, doing forestry or fish plant work?, yup Which makes it possible that I could encounter both of my favorite accents conversing, Jamaican and Newfy. I supose that in.a way, Canada is doing a mass imigration "melting pot" thing like what the US did long ago, which did actualy turn out well for the US, so

rayiner10• 2 years ago

Does the economist know what time it is? Nationalism is resurgent: nationalist parties now control the U.S. and Italy. Canada seems poised to Poilievre, who has made impassioned appeals to Canadian nationalism. And in Germany, France, and the U.K., nationalist parties have effectively rendered the governing coalitions impotent, even if they cannot yet command a majority. What a time to suggest that Canadians cede their sovereignty to bureaucrats in far-away Brussels!

kypro2• 2 years ago

The left-wing party in the UK has only just won its largest majority in history and we don't have another election for 5 years.

That is largely because the right has split into populist right and centre-right parties though.

boringg2• 2 years ago

Yes but that isn't at all reflective of Canada and things in the UK aren't looking that great.

OJFord• 2 years ago

Yes that's what GP is describing. Fractured Conservative party with splinters that can't command a majority.

rayiner10• 2 years ago

Labour won the election, but Starmer’s approval rating is already down to 27% after just six months. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/dissatisfaction-starmer-reaches-.... That’s not surprising given that Labour got half a million fewer votes than it did in 2019, when it lost in a landslide, but won anyway because of infighting among the right wing.

That’s what I meant when I said nationalists have rendered ruling parties impotent even when they can’t outright win the election. Similar things have happened in Germany and France. In Germany, it took the right splitting and a stoplight coalition of greens, neoliberals, and socialists to cobble together a majority. In France, it took a coalition of communists, socialists, and centrists. It’s hard to actually govern when the winning side has little in common other than opposition to nationalism.

And any leftist/centrist coalition is fragile, relying on infighting among the right. If Tories became a strongly nationalist, anti-immigration party, they could probably win. Same thing for CDU. That’s already happened in the U.S. GOP.

hellgas00• 2 years ago

You last point is the most pertinent. Labour didn't win a majority because they offered compelling platform ideas, they won because the Cons failed to deliver on their platform and Reform UK exploited that failure to split the conservative vote.

Opinion polls already have Labour and Cons at an even tie with Reform UK doubling their overall popularity in just 6 months.

All this to say I wouldn't want to suggest that the trend towards nationalist politics ended with a Labour majority but rather that the Conservative Party wasn't sufficiently nationalist enough to entice public sentiments away from Reform UK

zeckalpha2• 2 years ago

This could be seen as a EU-nationalist framing. Just like the United States has shifted from being a federation of states toward being a singular entity.

rayiner10• 2 years ago

You need a common culture to govern a country, and that culture needs to be deeper than watching the same movies and consuming the same flow of cheap Chinese products. If you don’t have a common culture, you need real federalism so people can self-segregate into more homogenous cultural groups and efficiently govern themselves.

The U.S. suffers greatly from the demise of federalism and it’s insane that anybody would want to copy it. People in both California and Alabama would be a lot happier if they didn’t have to care about what each other were doing except to coordinate national defense and foreign treaties.

Look at the Scandinavian countries. Look how effectively they have been able to implement major policy reforms because their electorates aren’t divided along dozens of cleavage lines.

paulddraper2• 2 years ago

UK and Ireland can’t even get along…IDK how Canada and Italy are going to manage.

bboygravity• 2 years ago

Or another point of view: yet another financially incompetent government with insane over-spending.

Just what the EU needs! We don't have enough loss of buying power yet, let's accelerate that some more until we're the third world asap.

dismalaf3• 2 years ago

Poilievre is barely nationalist; he believes Canada is a nation and shouldn't be embarrassed of that fact I guess... Versus Trudeau who has said Canada is a post-nationalist state with no identity, that immigrants are more Canadian than Canadians born in Canada and proceeded to fuck up the economy more than anyone in living memory. That's on top of more scandals than any politician in any other western country could possibly survive...

And this whole article is nonsense because literally no politician anywhere, in Canada or the EU, has suggested this union...

jbverschoor• 2 years ago

Because they use the metric system

aristofun2• 2 years ago

No thanks.

Canada is a young kid with a lot of good opportunities in the future.

Europe is an old drowning rusty bureacratic ship.

It should get their shit together themselves

wkat42423• 2 years ago

Nah it's not. It's not all about money. We're doing pretty great in Europe. I wouldn't ever want to live in the US.

We don't have cities full of skyscrapers but we have enough.

aristofun2• 2 years ago

I wasn’t speaking about money. Neither about skyscrapers. Only after you lived for a while in many countries and cities can you realize how terrible Europe is in terms of everyday comfort and growth potential.

joshdavham• 2 years ago

I'm generally not a fan of integrating more and more countries into ever larger political unions.

Countries are a bit like experiments or alternatives and that's a good thing!

While I don't think that we'll see a one world government in my lifetime, I believe that Canada joining the EU would be a sort of approximation of that and would be bad for our Canadian experiment.

honeybadger1• 2 years ago

i needed the belly laugh, thanks...we have an office in canada. the last 4 years the canadians that work there are more anti-immigrant every time i visit.

ww520• 2 years ago

It's a terrible idea to join the EU. You cede your control on economic policies to some central bureaucrats in Europe while holding the bags to pay for all the local societal infrastructure and welfare. You won't have enough political power to direct the flow of economic activities to your local region. Germany will suck up most of the economic benefits.

tharkun__2• 2 years ago

It's funny how the people of Germany think of this in exactly the same way you describe, except for that last part. They replace that by "country X will suck up most of the economic benefit".

Meanwhile the policies the EU makes are created by politicians from each of the EU member states. Some of them being originally proposed by politicians from the very countries whose citizens decry them the most.

It's fun to draw parallels to "the federal government sucks for reason X" in the US.

Truly poetic to watch.

xamdam• 2 years ago

Because that's where countries go to die?

btbuildem• 2 years ago

Please remove this post, it's rage bait and the discussion in here is absolutely the worst thing I have seen on HN in many years.

deadbabe2• 2 years ago

I don’t see anything particularly bad?

kccqzy3• 2 years ago

I really enjoyed the article as an interesting thought experiment. The discussion here isn't great but that's a problem solved by downvoting comments.

lolinder2• 2 years ago

Downvoting doesn't solve much in cases like this—all the top-level comments are political to one degree or another (mostly very political), and they're pinned to the top at this point by upvotes from politically like-minded people.

There are a bunch of downvoted comments from the less-popular political perspectives in the threads, but them being downvoted only decreases the quality of the conversation, because the greyed-out comments warn curious people off of participating in an increasingly hostile discussion.

swat5355• 2 years ago

Care to elaborate? If you have thoughts on what has been said, what could have been said better or what you agree/disagree with, please share it so we can have a comprehensive conversation about a real issue that is affecting millions of Canadians.

PedroBatista• 2 years ago

Not sure the editor of the Economist had a fever dream and thought he was employed by The Onion or the author is still drunk from New Year's eve.

acyou• 2 years ago

Canada works well as a buffer state between USA and Russia. Canada acts as the USA attack dog in foreign policy. Don't forget which countries won the war and still rule globally with nuclear powered aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, submarines, ICBMs and who prints the world reserve currency (hint: it isn't Europe or any of the countries therein).

Canada is effectively already the 51st state and has been so for 200+ years. It cannot be understated how greatly Canadians have benefited from this association and arrangement.

As far as immigration goes, it seems to be beneficial for the existing residents of a country to have controlled immigration at a certain rate. If the rate is too high, people complain, and if rates are too low, economies suffer.

Building houses works the same way, build them too fast and everyone suffers, build them too slow and everyone suffers. We aim for the slow, steady and sustainable increase.

As for this idea... barring a massive increase in spending by NATO members not including USA, Canada doesn't have the ability to become part of Europe. OTOH, they sure could/would get annexed by USA if that's the way the conversation is starting to go.

486sx33• 2 years ago

They should not.

from-nibly• 2 years ago

Please don't. That would give the US a huge northern ocean border. That's so much harder to defend.

amadeuspagel2• 2 years ago

Fun idea, but the gap in values between America and Europe is immense and growing.

Canada has jus soli, like all countries of the Americas, but unlike any European country.

The EU is getting more radical about border enforcement and deportations.

I'm not sure how land acknowledgements are supposed to work in europe.

getwiththeprog• 2 years ago

I think Australia should join the EU. We have lots of resources too.

Why Canada Should Join the EU

Related Stories