I have respect for Canada and consider it desirable that Europe should maintain solid trade and diplomatic relations with that country. Precisely for that reason, the proposal to present it as a possible “associate member” of the European Union deserves a serious explanation, rather than a headline designed to impress.
Let us begin with the law. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union reserves the application for membership to European States. Canada is not a European State. Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in turn, allows association agreements to be concluded with third countries. The distinction is fundamental: Europe may associate itself with Canada, but a partnership does not become membership of the Union by force of a political expression.
What, then, does “associate member” mean? Would Canada have any role in European decisions? Would it take on financial obligations? Which matters would be covered? And by what procedure would such a status be approved? Until these questions have answers, it is premature to present the idea as a great step for the future of Europe.
There is a more urgent question still: is this what Europeans regard as the priority? Families are struggling with the cost of living and with housing. European industry is contending with energy prices, international competition and excessive bureaucracy. Defence capability demands investment and difficult decisions. At the same time, many citizens fear that their governments have lost control of irregular immigration and of the borders.
I am in favour of legal immigration. Whoever intends to live in a country must respect its laws, and every State has the right and the duty to decide whom it admits and on what terms. I know personally the value of following legal procedures. That is why I consider it profoundly unjust to treat as an extremist anyone who calls for clear rules, effective enforcement and an integration policy compatible with the capacity of public services.
Europe’s interests are not defended by choosing between Canada and the United States
There are situations in which the scale of irregular entries leads citizens to speak of an “invasion disguised as immigration”. It is a harsh expression, one that conveys a sense of loss of control. Those who govern would do better to address the concerns that give rise to it than to censure those who voice them. Border security and the enforcement of the law are fundamental responsibilities of any State.
The proposal concerning Canada also raises a strategic question that Brussels should not ignore. The United States is a fundamental partner of Europe in matters of security, defence and trade. Bringing the European Union closer to Canada may be advantageous; turning that rapprochement into a political gesture aimed at Washington would be imprudent. At a moment of trade tensions, European leaders have a duty to assess whether the concrete benefits of this initiative justify the risk of aggravating the transatlantic relationship.
Europe’s interests are not defended by choosing between Canada and the United States. They are defended by maintaining strong relations with both and by avoiding announcements liable to create unnecessary conflicts. The transatlantic alliance should not be put at risk in order to lend an appearance of grandeur to an institutional formula whose content no one has explained.
Faced with Europe’s internal problems and these possible external consequences, the proposal of a new status for Canada sounds like one more exercise in the politics of spectacle. An institutional transformation is announced before its necessity, its costs and its effects have been clarified. The image of a Union in expansion may impress; it does not replace answers on energy, competitiveness, security and immigration.
None of this calls for hostility towards Canada. There are good reasons to deepen cooperation in trade, in research and in security. If there is to be a concrete agreement serving the interests of both parties, let it be negotiated transparently and submitted to proper scrutiny. Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out procedures for concluding international agreements. A public declaration does not dispense with that process, nor does it in itself create a new category of membership of the Union.
A conservative vision of Europe begins with respect for the treaties, with the sovereignty of States and with the accountability of leaders to citizens. If the proposal for Canada amounts to a partnership, let it be presented as such. If it seeks to create something more, Europeans have the right to know exactly what is at stake, including the consequences for the relationship with the United States.
Europe needs allies. Above all, it needs governments capable of fulfilling the responsibilities they have already assumed. Before inventing new names for its relationship with distant countries, the European Union should demonstrate that it knows how to answer the problems of those who live within it.
César DePaço
Businessman and Philanthropist
Consul ad honorem of Portugal from 2014 to 2020
Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Summit Nutritionals International Inc.®
Founder and Chairman of the Board of The DePaço Foundation
Unwavering Defender of Law Enforcement and Conservative Principles