16th March 2025
Canada is unlikely to really want to join the European Union, but here is a thought-experiment anyway
These are strange times for law and policy commentary. On one hand, there is some new thing to write about every day – almost every hour. On the other hand, most of what is being is written in response to those new things is the same. There is only so many ways of saying things are bad, and they are getting worse.
And so it came as a light relief when the media reported that an opinion poll showed substantial support among Canadians for joining the European Union.
And any comics fan knows the fun to be had with a good What If team-up.
(Source.)
*
So I did a post over at Prospect on What If…Canada wanted to join the European Union?
Sadly, we could not commission Marvel cover art, and so we got a stock photo of President Macron and Prime Minister Trudeau instead.
But the sentiment behind the article was the same: What If?
*
Pretty soon in putting together the post it became obvious that it would have to be about what is meant by a country being a “European state”.
This was because the formal legal gateway to EU membership – Article 49, the sister provision to the exit provision Article 50, of which you have no doubt heard – is limited to European states.
Of course, this is no absolute barrier: what is done by a treaty can in general be undone by a treaty. If all the parties to a treaty agree to a change then a provision can be amended.
But as Professor Steve Peers – a one-person boon to the public understanding of EU and other international law – avers, the EU treaties generally are framed about the ever closer union of European peoples etc.
*
And so the question becomes: what actually is a European state?
Here there are at least two complicating factors.
First, the European Union already extends far beyond any meaningful definition of the continent of Europe. Indeed, it goes as far as the Indian Ocean.
Second, an actual full member state of the European Union – Cyprus – is, according to many geographers, part of West Asia and not Europe.
And if so, if there is an absolute binary that a member state itself (notwithstanding any overseas extensions) has to be part physically part of Europe, it is perhaps difficult to make a categorical argument why Cyprus can be a member, and Canada cannot be.
At least, that is, without advancing an argument that being European is ultimately just a state of mind.
*
Another thing that came up when putting together the post was about the curious position of Morocco.
What “everybody knows” – that is anybody who has followed such things – is that Morocco was once turned down for membership of the European Economic Community (the predecessor of the EU) for not being European.
But this story was curiously difficult to pin down with any official documentary evidence – which is curious, given how much sheer documentation the EU does publish.
(At one point it seemed as if the story existed entirely as lore, and not law and policy.)
This is not the place to explore what happened when Morocco made enquiries about joining the EEC – that fascinating story warrants a separate post.
But whatever did happen would not, in any case, bind the EU now as a precedent.
It would come down to politics.
In essence: if both Canada and the EU really wanted to come together, no mere legal formalism would stop them.
*
What would be more sensible, however, would be for the sensible liberal members of the EU – that is the current ones minus the illiberal headbangers of Hungary and Slovakia – to join with non-EU members such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, and perhaps Greenland and Ukraine – and form a new grouping.
Other non-European states may also like to join in: Mexico and Panama may have common interests.
This grouping could complement and fit with the EU, but not be beholden to the vetos of illiberal EU (and NATO) states.
This grouping may adopt the trappings of a formal identity – with its own acronym and permanent staff – or it may be simply a coalition of states working together.
And this may achieve what the 44% of Canadians in that poll presumably want: a closer connection with those who can counterbalance its erratic southern neighbour, which is currently experiencing a spectacular political and diplomatic breakdown.
Joining (or leaving!) the EU is never to be done lightly: it can (and should) take years to reconfigure a state’s laws and policies so as to align and then fuse with those of the EU.
And that is before a candidate member state has to work out how to deal with the institutional framework of this complex supranational organisation, where the council, the commission, the court of justice, and other bodies can (and will) clash with domestic institutions.
*
All this, of course, is merely a thought-experiment.
But such exercises can be useful in separating out the plausible from the implausible, and the compelling from the unnecessary.
Any sensible person will sympathise with the predicament of Canada – and of other countries being bullied by the United States.
But.
What if…
…all other countries now adjusted their affairs so as to eliminate or minimise the power and influence of the United States?
Now, there is a thought-experiment.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
> with its own acronym and permanent staff
I propose a new treaty. A federated union of democracies treaty. With it’s own acronym.
Or of course there is The Commonwealth of which Canada is already a member. Mind you not every member of that is sensible and liberal.
It is an interesting thought, and right now, being in the middle of the MAGA-fuelled chaos rippling through the world, there are attractions for Europeans and Canadians alike. Even interested outsiders like us.
But in addition to all the points you rightly make, there might be a few other reasons why it wouldn’t happen.
First, the impact within Canada might be divisive. Quebec wouldn’t be the issue, the cultural and economic links with France would see to that. But further west there could easily be problems, in particular in Alberta, which is home to some MAGA-adjacent rightwing populists. I doubt they would be too chuffed about Canada joining a new, highly sophisticated supranational association based a continent and an ocean away.
Second, if Canada really were to join the EU, there would be a lot of people in Turkey who would ask how come they were (effectively) rejected, with plenty of Europeans saying Turks aren’t European enough to be in the EU. At a time when the EU needs to be fortifying its relationships with strategically crucial Turkey, that might not be an issue to open up.
Anyway, as you say, this is a thought-experiment. The more likely response to the Trumpist Right’s determination to burn the international order is looser relationships, centred on EU and NATO members, but also including the likes of Ukraine, Mexico and perhaps those even further afield, like Japan, Korea and Australia.
Fun article. There is of course a part of North America which is already in the EU – step forward St Pierre and Miquelon near the mouth of the St. Lawrence river.
And what about the antipodes? Japan & S. Korea? Of other actual, or would be democracies? There is a less flippant question in the event of a fortress America/ Trump of whether the RoW needs to impose tarifs between themselves.
It is not actually part of the EU, as I point out in the Prospect article.
I think this thought experiment could well become reality. Trump’s unreliable behaviour makes the USA a very unreliable ally. Countries will align elsewhere in search of economic partnerships. Canada will never join the EU, but it already has a trade agreement with it and that link could be built on. Greenland is physically closer to Canada than the USA and might seek closer links with it to help fend off Trump’s demands. Panama might seek closer links with China. The UK will be forced to move closer to the EU again as a trade agreement with the USA becomes an increasingly undesirable prospect.
It may just need to be temporary shelter, because I can see the Republicans suffering badly in the 2028 election, assuming there is one. 😉
The new acronym could be EUNUC (The EU, Norway, Ukraine, UK & Canada)!! 😉
The era of Pax Americana appears to be waning. Under the leadership of Trump, Musk, Vance, and the enabling Republicans, the United States has retreated into an “America First” stance. This approach combines appeasement on one hand with transactional negotiations with adversaries on the other. While Ukraine faces threats, Israel—often regarded as America’s “51st state”—receives unwavering support, and the ongoing plight of Palestinians is largely ignored.
In response to the current global turbulence, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has emerged as a potential counterbalance. The bloc has expanded to include former rivals like Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others. However, some of these alliances seem uneasy, making it difficult to envision the EU, UK, and Canada aligning comfortably with such a diverse group.
Exploring “what if” scenarios, an unexpected partner for the EU, UK, and Canada could be China. Despite being portrayed by the U.S. as a looming threat to the West for years, the question arises: is China truly a threat to the West, or just to the U.S.? The U.S., after all, has been gradually outpaced by China in technological advancements, much to its dismay. China’s achievements include a vast high-speed rail network, advancements in AI (e.g., DeepSeek), and possibly even sixth-generation stealth aircraft like the J-36 and JH-XX.
While China’s system is far from democratic, pragmatic considerations might lead the EU, UK, and Canada to seek alternatives to an increasingly unstable and unreliable America.
That’s an interesting article. Perhaps we could long-term look to a democratic economic union (DEU) which would welcome in those countries committed to democracy and promotion of economic and social well-being which includes Canada and other countries but excludes a liberal countries without a commitment to democracy. This should also enable collective defence against aggression.
Perhaps our Canadian brethren fear the rushing onset of Gilead?
I believe that we do indeed fear that prospect. Speaking from Ottawa-Gatineau as someone who’s lived in this urban region for 40 years at this writing.