By Frédéric Mérand, University of Montreal
This article was originally published in Policy Options on March 14th, 2025
As Canada faces an economic aggression backed by an existential threat to its sovereignty, we know we need options. One idea floating around is to become the 28th member state of the European Union.
Why not? After the defection of the U.S., Europe remains the only club of liberal democracies and multilateralism, two core Canadian values. It is a prosperous region where, thanks to our history and contribution to NATO, we have reliable allies. Becoming the 28th EU member state rather than the 51st U.S. state would act as a hedge for our economic security while keeping our political sovereignty.
Now, Canadians will naturally be hesitant to join an often-demonized organization whose centre of gravity is firmly across the Atlantic. But even if we never joined the EU, there is still a strong case for applying for membership now. As we begin a conversation with Brussels, we will open up paths that, short of full membership, would also get us much closer to Europe… and a bit more removed from the U.S.
The long road to becoming an EU member
On paper, Canada is the perfect candidate for EU membership. Our country easily meets two of the three so-called Copenhagen criteria used to assess candidates for enlargement: like other member states, Canada is a free-market economy (first criterion) and a democracy ruled by law and respect for human rights (second criterion).
The third criterion would be more challenging and require at least 10 years of bilateral negotiation. It is called the acquis communautaire (French is one of the EU’s official languages). To become a full member, Canada would need to adopt all the supranational laws that have been passed since the creation of the EU, in 1957. There are a lot of them, and very few possibilities to carve out exceptions.
If Canadians wanted to launch such a negotiation, all 27 EU member states would also need to give their unanimous approval. At every stage of the process, any of them could halt or veto negotiations on one aspect or another: say, agriculture or financial services. However, when comparing our application file to those of other countries, like Ukraine, they would likely welcome a wealthy and stable democracy with a national budget that is well in line with EU fiscal rules.
What EU membership would mean
Adopting the acquis communautaire would include social rights, such as the maximum 48-hour week (including overtime), environmental regulations such as REACH (Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals), and economic rules such as the banking union. By and large, that would mean upgrading our social, economic, and environmental rights. More controversially, perhaps, Canada would have to replace supply management with the Common Agricultural Policy, contribute to the CO2 emissions trading scheme, and apply EU trade tariffs to third parties (including the U.S.).
Down the line, EU membership would also entail free movement of people (no need to show a passport between Montreal and Paris) and the substitution of the Canadian dollar with the Euro. On some issues, decisions from the European Court of Justice would supersede those of the Supreme Court. In effect, joining the EU would require a complete overhaul of our institutional, policy, and regulatory landscape.
A tall order! But bear in mind that Canadians would elect their representatives in the European Parliament and the European Commission. Our leaders would sit on the European Council and appoint European judges. With allies such as France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, we would have an opportunity to shape outcomes. The EU is much more decentralized than the U.S.: no European army, no European FBI, no European taxes, no European mail, no European social security. And, as Brexit demonstrated, anyone can leave if they wish, without a civil war. Canada would become part of an important club without losing much sovereignty.
Serious obstacles
To be sure, there are geographic, economic, and political obstacles to EU membership. Canada is not on the European continent which, in principle, is a condition for accession. But more importantly, we still trade very little with Europe compared to the U.S. Although trade diversification is precisely the point of looking for options, there is no denying that the main force of attraction remains south of the border.
The main obstacle, in my view, would be political. On the one hand, there is no doubt that Trump’s aggression has encouraged Canadians to consider options they had never considered. In an Abacus Data survey conducted from February 20 to 25, 2025, 46 per cent of Canadians said they supported joining the EU while 29 per cent opposed it. Although about a quarter of respondents didn’t know or were unsure, that is a staggering number for an issue that has never been on the agenda before.
On the other hand, as my colleagues and I documented in the context of Brexit, Canadians are quite polarized in their attitudes towards Europe: while Liberals and Eastern Canadians have an attachment to continental Europe and the EU, Conservatives and Western Canadians feel closer to the U.K. (and, the Abacus survey shows, the U.S.). Joining the EU, without the U.K., would risk dividing the country, which is not what we need right now. Hence the need to consider other options for a rapprochement.
Alternatives to full membership
Some countries have very close relations with the EU without membership. One is the United Kingdom, which left the EU in 2020 after a 47-year marriage and is now bound by a new trade and co-operation agreement. Another is Switzerland which has access to the internal market and grants free movement of people to Europeans. Finally, there is the case of Norway which, as a member of the so-called European Economic Area with Iceland, enjoys almost all the benefits of EU membership except voting rights. All of these scenarios would go beyond the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) we currently have with the EU. Each has pros and cons.
The U.K. scenario would be the easiest to follow but also the least transformational. With CETA and NATO, we basically already have the same rights as the U.K. in the EU: quasi-free trade and partial market access for services, participation in the Allied military command, as well as participation in some EU programs such as Horizon Europe for research.
On many political and diplomatic issues, Canada has long been considered like-minded and an honorary European nation. A beefed-up Strategic Partnership Agreement could institutionalize our desire to do more together, for example in the field of security and defense, digital governance, or climate change. The main benefit of the U.K. scenario would be symbolic: showing that we throw our fate with Europe rather than the U.S.
The Norwegian scenario would be the most substantive but also the costliest. Canada would need to contribute to the EU budget as a proportion of its GDP (around one per cent). It would have to implement the bulk of EU rules, from car headlight standards to the recognition of professional qualifications. We would do all this without formally belonging to the EU, so without representatives in Europe’s Parliament, Commission, Council or Court. This is not ideal from a democratic point of view. But our firms would have unfettered access to the single market, including for our gas, oil, beef, and maple syrup, with fewer regulatory or tariff barriers than we ever faced with the U.S. under NAFTA (now the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA).
The Swiss scenario is the only one that allows for deep bilateral negotiations and a win-win outcome. It is, for that reason, the most complicated to implement. Because the two parties are on equal footing and everything is negotiable, talks tend to drag on forever and interim deals can constantly be challenged. Some EU conditions, such as adhering to its more ambitious environmental regulation, may be hard to resist. But at the end of the day each side decides what they’re willing to give. In contrast to Switzerland, a landlocked country, Canada may not wish to grant free movement of people across the Atlantic. But we may want security and defense cooperation in the Arctic.
Submit an application now, figure out the details later
At this stage, there is no harm in applying for EU membership. This gesture of sovereignty would be highly symbolic. It would show Donald Trump that we are not alone, and that we have options if he decides to strangle our economy, interfere in our politics, or worse.
As a political scientist who specializes in the EU, I am not at all confident that Canada-EU negotiations would ever be concluded, or even that Canadians would want them to succeed. The odds are long, and there is no obligation to go all the way to the end: after all, Norway applied to the EU in 1962 and never joined. But in the meantime, starting a round of negotiations on either accession or an ambitious Canada-EU deal would allow us to explore a wealth of opportunities to free Canada from American dependence.
Comments