Why Canada Should Join the EU
An Economist column musing that Canada should join the European Union prompts debate over whether such a union is desirable or even coherent given geography, sovereignty rules and very different political trajectories. Commenters contrast Canada’s historically selective, now controversial high-volume immigration and housing crisis with Europe’s own migration tensions, questioning the article’s praise of Canadian “inclusiveness” toward Indigenous peoples and newcomers. Many see closer trade or mobility arrangements as more realistic than membership, while others argue rising nationalism, strained welfare systems and institutional flaws on both sides make any deeper political integration unattractive.
Comparison of Indigenous Issues: Canada vs Europe
- Several commenters dispute the article’s suggestion that Europe could “learn” from Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples.
- Argument: Europe’s situation is structurally different—most peoples have nation-states; remaining “tribal” groups (e.g., Sami, Basques, Roma, Travellers) don’t map cleanly onto First Nations in Canada.
- Some note EU countries still have overseas territories where colonial dynamics persist, which may be a better parallel.
- Others say Canada’s own record is still poor, so holding it up as a model is questionable.
Immigration, Racism, and Social Cohesion in Canada
- Many Canadians in the thread say the once‑positive consensus on immigration has “frayed” or collapsed, driven by:
- Very high recent immigration and temporary foreign worker/student volumes.
- Severe housing shortages and infrastructure/healthcare strain.
- Perceived enclaves and lack of integration, especially around large Indian/Punjabi inflows.
- Polls are cited showing a majority now think immigration is “too high.”
- There is debate over whether concerns are economic/systemic vs. fundamentally racist; some see “racism” accusations as a way to shut down legitimate criticism.
- Comparisons with Europe: Canada’s immigration is described as more legal/managed and historically more skills‑based; Europe has more unauthorized and refugee flows, but both now face backlash.
Housing, Demographics, and Economics
- Housing crises (Canada, parts of Europe, Australia, NL) repeatedly tied to:
- Zoning and land‑release constraints.
- Speculation and real‑estate as a preferred asset.
- Rapid population growth via migration.
- Disagreement whether immigration is a primary driver vs. a scapegoat layered atop structural housing policy failures.
- Some argue aging, low‑fertility societies “need” immigrants to sustain welfare states; others say this just masks deeper problems and risks cultural displacement.
EU Structure, Sovereignty, and Feasibility of Canada Joining
- Multiple commenters call the article a humorous or “modest proposal” rather than realistic policy.
- Objections revolve around:
- EU bureaucracy, perceived democratic deficit, and partial loss of national sovereignty.
- Geographic and “European” identity criteria (Cyprus and potential Armenia/Georgia accessions are cited as edge cases).
- Strong Canadian economic and security integration with the US; joining the EU seen as politically and strategically implausible, especially under the US Monroe Doctrine mindset.
- Some highlight that Canada already has CETA (a free‑trade deal) with the EU, making full membership unnecessary relative to deepened trade or Schengen‑style mobility.
Alternative Alignments and Meta‑Politics
- Alternatives floated: CANZUK (Canada–Australia–NZ–UK), EFTA, tighter North American union (or even de facto US annexation), or simply better-managed existing arrangements.
- Several point to rising nationalism and populism (US, Europe, Canada) and see the timing of proposing deeper supranational integration as politically tone‑deaf.
- A few praise Schengen/free movement but explicitly distinguish it from full EU political integration.