[HN Gopher] Why Canada Should Join the EU
___________________________________________________________________
Why Canada Should Join the EU
Author : gpi
Score : 63 points
Date : 2025-01-03 07:07 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| gpi wrote:
| http://archive.today/7ZsY3
| gchokov wrote:
| Wild times
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jbrennan wrote:
| Ireland springs to mind, and in fact has strong ties to
| Indigenous nations in the Americas for their similar struggles
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| In Sweden they have a separate parliament.
| nobodywillobsrv wrote:
| 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.
| skissane wrote:
| > 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.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _> "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.
| BJones12 wrote:
| > 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.
| _blk wrote:
| 100%, but "Why Canada should join the US" probably won't trend
| as well here. Oh well, Justine is on his way out, maybe they'll
| reconsider.
| JodieBenitez wrote:
| 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.
| zo1 wrote:
| 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.
| buzzert wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Quebec would be a economic powerhouse if it weren't French.
| One of the many reasons why.
| squigz wrote:
| That hardly lines up with my own impression of my fellow
| citizens.
| BossingAround wrote:
| 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.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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.
| diggan wrote:
| 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.
| mentalgear wrote:
| I'd recommend Canada to join the EU, before the new US government
| comes in and snaps it up (along with Greenland, etc.).
| martinbaun wrote:
| wow, this year will be interesting
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| 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_nerd wrote:
| 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.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If you're sorry, then you can stop right there without an
| overly verbose Reddit comment. ;)
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Overly verbose? Reddit comment?
|
| Are you here simply to troll with low value comments?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Nothing lower value than criticizing a satirical post
| about a piece of satire. How dare I offend the "humorous
| thoughtpiece" with my own humorous thoughtpiece.
| atmosx wrote:
| 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.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| An increasing number of Canadians _think_ they have a
| migration issue. This rhetoric is currently selling well.
|
| It's not really factually correct though.
|
| Canada has a housing price inflation problem, at a level I
| don't think most Americans can really grasp. It is
| definitely connected with high _legal_ immigration, but not
| exclusively, as the exponential growth curve in prices
| began a long time ago (like 20 years ago) and is definitely
| connected with fiscal policy choices and legal aspects of
| how the property market is managed.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Canada needs houses, not people.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| 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.
| youngNed wrote:
| Tired: Canada should join the eu
|
| Wired: greenland should packman defence[1] the USA
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_defense
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| This little thread was a nice bit of nostalgia.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Expired: Noriega
| buzzert wrote:
| WIRED still does this in each issue!
| gadtfly wrote:
| Breaking innovative new ground on how to make things even worse.
| hello1234567 wrote:
| spot on.
| kibwen wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Their head of state lives in Europe. Even used to be in the EU.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| 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...
| atmosx wrote:
| They can change the criteria or ignore it. Wouldn't be the
| first time.
| haunter wrote:
| Not outlandish, Morocco applied in 1987 but it was rejected
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union...
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The difference is that Morocco has a lot to win by joining
| europe, whereas Canada doesn't.
| skissane wrote:
| 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...
| gmueckl wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > only open to countries on the European continent
|
| Cyprus would like to have a word.
|
| As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Re: Cyprus, the rule may be being on the same tectonic
| plate, which AFAICT, Cyprus is (the Eurasian plate).
| sach1 wrote:
| Canada directly borders France (St. Pierre et Miquelon)
| so if we ignore dragging in the geologists, that's as
| good an argument as any.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Canada also directly borders Denmark via Greenland on
| Hans Island.
| gmueckl wrote:
| I guess that one can find a political definition of Europe
| that is lax enough to justify inclusion of these countries
| if so motivated. Turkey is formally in (suspended)
| membership negotiations and a major discussion point was
| that most of its land area is not on the European
| continent.
|
| Redefining Europe to include Canada would be outright
| ridiculous. The Union would have to redefine its own
| identity if it wanted to admit Canada.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| cs02rm0 wrote:
| 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.
| iknowstuff wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market
|
| The four freedoms of the single market you get in return are
| incredible.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| 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.
| skissane wrote:
| Australia and New Zealand have both free trade and free
| movement of people between them. They aren't formally
| linked - free trade is a treaty, free movement of people is
| just an "arrangement" (not a legally binding agreement
| under international law, rather a political agreement
| implemented in each country's immigration law) - but it is
| all part of the overall multifaceted bilateral
| relationship.
| make3 wrote:
| This is never passing.
|
| Trump-inspired conservatives are on their ways to be guaranteed
| majority at the next federal elections.
| joshl32532 wrote:
| 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.
| skissane wrote:
| https://archive.md/jvRlo
| fabiofzero wrote:
| Americans would hate it, I'm all for it.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Bigger problem is that Russia and China would hate it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Problem?
| atmosx wrote:
| I don't believe either of these statements is accurate.
| Russia agreed to Ukraine joining the EU but not NATO, why
| would it be any different for Canada? The EU is China's
| largest trading partner, accounting for around 20% of China's
| exports. Adding Vancouver's port to the EU market could
| significantly enhance trade between the EU and China.
| However, the real issue lies at the geopolitical level - the
| EU is heavily influenced by the US, and with Trump aiming to
| initiate a trade war with China, tensions are likely to
| escalate.
| hkpack wrote:
| > Russia agreed to Ukraine joining the EU
|
| Russia didn't agreed to that, it sabotaged any effort and
| any agreement between EU and Ukraine to the maximum of its
| abilities. Ukraine paid a huge price to be able to have an
| association agreement with EU.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Very few Americans give a shit what Canada does or doesn't do.
| It's their country, they have the right to run their affairs as
| they see fit.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Then could the newly elected US president kindly STFU about
| Canada this month? Thanks.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| or about anything else for that matter
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| One can only dream, but I'll just start with a modest
| request.
| dhosek wrote:
| You mean the resident-elect and sorry, he's incapable of
| not saying stupid shit.
| fidotron wrote:
| Canada has less free trade between provinces than the EU does
| between countries.
|
| The two are not compatible.
| dblohm7 wrote:
| 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...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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.
| loceng wrote:
| 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.
| isodev wrote:
| On the contrary, I think we're finally realising the benefits
| of centralisation. Separatism and isolation are things of the
| past.
| SolonIslandus wrote:
| Canada should join the European Free Trade Association instead of
| the EU!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Associatio...
| llm_nerd wrote:
| FWIW Canada does have a comprehensive free trade agreement with
| the EU: CETA.
| glitchc wrote:
| Hot take: Canada should join the US.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| US should join the EU
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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?
| RajT88 wrote:
| Trump suggested it, as well as Mexico.
|
| To give you some idea on the intellectual credulity with which
| the idea should be treated.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Canada should join the [commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Commonwealth_of_Nations), then I can go work there :) Then in
| its best interest, it should immediately leave the commonwealth.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Um... Canada IS in the commonwealth
| zizee wrote:
| It is in the Commonwealth?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Is the Economist often advising others X to do things contrary to
| the interest of X, but claiming the contrary ?
| aborsy wrote:
| 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.
| wesselbindt wrote:
| 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.
| echoangle wrote:
| Poe's law in action.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| 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.
| jasoneckert wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| atmosx wrote:
| Fair, but Europe has really good healthcare system even
| though we Europeans whine a lot about it getting worse and
| worse every year.
| jasoneckert wrote:
| With US monetary resources, this would be near immediate
| (and welcome)
| aborsy wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| epolanski wrote:
| 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, 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.
|
| And it's not like I would not want to live in the US cause I
| hate it, but the lifestyle, the pros/cons, the anxiety I see
| people having there just doesn't match my character.
| buzzert wrote:
| 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!
| atmosx wrote:
| 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.
| valunord wrote:
| 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?"
| krapp wrote:
| >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?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| "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.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| 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?
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| And let all those indians who flooded canada into europe? Please
| god no. Although a european citizen would not be asked anyway.
| layer8 wrote:
| Historically they were also practically neighbors (Laurasia,
| around 200 Mya).
| adamc wrote:
| I think we could safely classify that as pre-historic rather
| than historically.
| abesan wrote:
| 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
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-03 23:00 UTC)