Of course the 2% of items not included are pretty substantial; agricultural products with strict quotas.
There's also strict country of origin rules so if too many materials are sourced outside Canada, even if its made in Canada it can be subject to tariffs. Not to mention needing to adhere to EU standards.
An "expanded" Schengen Area that crosses the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and brings Canada, Australia (and Japan, maybe?) into the fold would be an incredible thing. I'm all for it.
It has always surprised me that the 'free world', NATO countries, developed countries (including Japan, Taiwan, Australia), however one wants to call them, do not have at least free trade, if not free movement of people and capital, between them.
A travesty, IMO. And a great loss making us all poorer. Not a patchwork of point-to-point free trade agreements, but several hub agreements that countries join, and, in time, the hubs agree to free trade between them too.
The politics of this is grindingly difficult; people think of "them and us", not "we're all together in three free world". Achieving free trade means either dismantling all the little market carve-outs that local politics relies on, or enshrining them in the collective (EU farming policy).
Imagine trying to integrate the politics of Japanese rice farming into the CAP.
The EU is specifically European - its in the name. Many of the arguments for the Eu that came up during Brexit were based on the importance of geographical proximity and shared culture.
More good reliable friends is always better, and fuck the unreliable backstabbing ones as much as possible and reasonable, future will sort out details. World is not static, alliances change and we may revert in future if US population decides it wants to be ruled over by more reasonable, respectable and kind people.
Russia and the US seek to expand by invasion, at the same time there are NINE countries with a stated ambition to join the European Union, and now there seem to be even more countries who want to "more closely align" with the EU (whatever that means).
Whenever countries consider their needs and desires, and what they want their country to be, they look at the countries of Europe - not at Russia, not at the US, and not at China.
For me the most striking thing about this was before the Brexit referendum there was rhetoric about how the UK would form a CANZUK alliance with free movement of people and goods between these countries, forming a sort of English speaking EU.
Even if Canada and Australia don't join the EU as full members which is unlikely anyway (deeper ties are definitely on the table though), these sort of announcements should put to bed these complete and utter fantasies the UK has about leading some alternative world order where it's in charge and can go toe to toe with the EU.
Even many British would agree that Brexit was full of absolute lies, and even to this day you still see them being repeated in certain circles. These weren't even possibilities.
Australian here. Theres no way we’re joining the EU. Brussels is on the other side of the planet from Australia. Our major trading partners are nearby countries, like China, Japan, NZ, and the US. Not continental Europe. Europe is too far away.
> U.S. goods and services (exports plus imports) trade with Australia totaled an estimated $102.0 billion in 2025, up 15.6 percent ($13.8 billion) from 2024.
> Brussels and DC are almost the same distance from Canberra.
Yes. We’re not interested in joining the EU. And we’re not interested in becoming a US state.
But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC. By plane, Sydney to LA is about - 13.5 hours. Sydney to Brussels is 20 hours. I imagine the difference is even greater for cargo ships, which can sail directly through the pacific. I have no idea how cargo goes from Australia to Europe. That sounds like a complex route.
As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner. China accounts for $326 billion aud in trade annually. If your numbers are right, that’s more than our trade with the US and Europe combined.
I suspect integrating into the EU single market wouldn’t be worth it for us. We’re not part of Europe. We’re not a European country.
The article isn't about joining the EU (as the original post you replied to called it, "unlikely anyway").
> But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC.
Nor Brussels; Perth to Greece via the Suez cuts the time, too.
> As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner.
OK, but the EU and US trade with Australia roughly equivalently per the numbers, and you said "Our major trading partners are nearby countries, like China, Japan, NZ, and the US. Not continental Europe."
Did you read TFA (the Reuters one) that quotes the Australian trade minister? Or are you somehow more involved in determining trade agreements than the minister?
Trump has upended decades of stable trade relationships. I would not assume anything right now.
(To be clear, neither Canada nor Australia are claimed to be seeking to be EU members - but closer trade ties with the EU appear to be on the cards for both nations. When you can no longer trust the US to act in good faith, everything changes.)
It is a total fantasy that Australia would throw back in with the ghost empire that is the UK. They literally have nothing to offer us apart from a figurehead head of state.
As a non-Australian, I’d say your country’s own immigration policy is fairly unwelcoming.
I get no country wants to accept a wave of 80 year olds that will be a burden to its social welfare systems.
But I find it strange one would automatically deny seasoned working professionals in excellent health with knowledge, experience, and finances to offer — just because they were born before the premier of Good Morning Australia in 1981.
Per capita, Australia lets in more migrants per year than almost any other wealthy country. Our immigration process is non political - it’s run by a government department who write, publish and enforce our policies. Which is a huge step up from many other countries we could name.
You may disagree with our selection criteria. I wish we provided exceptions for people I like too. But at a large scale, I think it’s much better that we make our rules clear and stick to them.
I think the paradox of tolerance has been interpreted by many on the left in a way that flatters them and is convenient to their political ends. Forces that actually threaten democracy and tolerance are frequently ignored or swept under the rug, while the left's political opponents are demonized as not being tolerant enough to participate in democracy so they can be summarily dismissed.
IMHO this tactic is one of the drivers in the falling trust in institutions that we see across the western world. You can't simply dismiss your opposition as not tolerant enough as a way of winning a political argument.
> AfD is not democracy. AfD is antidemocracy even if it would get elected democratically.
Here's a fun thing language-game to try: expand your definition of "democracy" to encompass your partisan political positions, don't tell anyone, yell from the rooftops that your opponents are "anti-democratic" and banning them is "democratic."
Then observe how you only convince yourself of your own righteousness, and further alienate the people you wished to persuade.
I'd recommend reading up on German constitutional theory and consider the historical precedent that might've lead them to realize the importance of having their democracy be defensive - something they're failing to live up to right now.
There's also strict country of origin rules so if too many materials are sourced outside Canada, even if its made in Canada it can be subject to tariffs. Not to mention needing to adhere to EU standards.
A travesty, IMO. And a great loss making us all poorer. Not a patchwork of point-to-point free trade agreements, but several hub agreements that countries join, and, in time, the hubs agree to free trade between them too.
Imagine trying to integrate the politics of Japanese rice farming into the CAP.
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1tda6wl/european_in...
And normally this helps a country?
More good reliable friends is always better, and fuck the unreliable backstabbing ones as much as possible and reasonable, future will sort out details. World is not static, alliances change and we may revert in future if US population decides it wants to be ruled over by more reasonable, respectable and kind people.
Whenever countries consider their needs and desires, and what they want their country to be, they look at the countries of Europe - not at Russia, not at the US, and not at China.
Even if Canada and Australia don't join the EU as full members which is unlikely anyway (deeper ties are definitely on the table though), these sort of announcements should put to bed these complete and utter fantasies the UK has about leading some alternative world order where it's in charge and can go toe to toe with the EU.
https://boris-johnson.com/2013/08/25/the-aussies-are-just-li...
https://www.ippr.org/articles/could-the-idea-of-the-anglosph...
Even many British would agree that Brexit was full of absolute lies, and even to this day you still see them being repeated in certain circles. These weren't even possibilities.
(Also Australian, but living in the US.)
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/southeast-asia-pacific/au...
> U.S. goods and services (exports plus imports) trade with Australia totaled an estimated $102.0 billion in 2025, up 15.6 percent ($13.8 billion) from 2024.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-australia...
> In 2024, trade in goods and services between the European Union and Australia was worth over €91 billion.
(That's $105B in FreedomBucks, and excludes the UK.)
Yes. We’re not interested in joining the EU. And we’re not interested in becoming a US state.
But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC. By plane, Sydney to LA is about - 13.5 hours. Sydney to Brussels is 20 hours. I imagine the difference is even greater for cargo ships, which can sail directly through the pacific. I have no idea how cargo goes from Australia to Europe. That sounds like a complex route.
As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner. China accounts for $326 billion aud in trade annually. If your numbers are right, that’s more than our trade with the US and Europe combined.
I suspect integrating into the EU single market wouldn’t be worth it for us. We’re not part of Europe. We’re not a European country.
https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/china/china-country-brief
The article isn't about joining the EU (as the original post you replied to called it, "unlikely anyway").
> But trade doesn’t need to go all the way to DC.
Nor Brussels; Perth to Greece via the Suez cuts the time, too.
> As for trade, the US is important but they’re not our most important trading partner.
OK, but the EU and US trade with Australia roughly equivalently per the numbers, and you said "Our major trading partners are nearby countries, like China, Japan, NZ, and the US. Not continental Europe."
Trump has upended decades of stable trade relationships. I would not assume anything right now.
(To be clear, neither Canada nor Australia are claimed to be seeking to be EU members - but closer trade ties with the EU appear to be on the cards for both nations. When you can no longer trust the US to act in good faith, everything changes.)
"as an Australian" claims of escaping persecution and violence might be slightly harder to sustain. That's a good thing for Australia.
I suspect you know this, which is why you pivoted from "right to live" to "would be welcomed", which are pretty clearly not the same thing.
I get no country wants to accept a wave of 80 year olds that will be a burden to its social welfare systems.
But I find it strange one would automatically deny seasoned working professionals in excellent health with knowledge, experience, and finances to offer — just because they were born before the premier of Good Morning Australia in 1981.
You may disagree with our selection criteria. I wish we provided exceptions for people I like too. But at a large scale, I think it’s much better that we make our rules clear and stick to them.
[0] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-...
The European project is bigger than the EU - that's just the central core.
There's also the EFTA, EEA, CEFTA, CU, Eurozone, Shengen, CoE, and Swiss-style bilateral treaties.
See https://thisbugslife.com/2021/05/10/graphic-representation-o...
Canada can easily find a home one of these.
>deeper ties are definitely on the table though
Yes they are still away from having the absolute majority, but please don't undersell the issue. They have a 10% difference from the second place.
One can (should?) tolerate a lot in an open, democratic society, but not (necessarily) everything:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Then there's H.L. Mencken old line:
* “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
IMHO this tactic is one of the drivers in the falling trust in institutions that we see across the western world. You can't simply dismiss your opposition as not tolerant enough as a way of winning a political argument.
AfD is concluding with russia, a country which poisned people on EU ground.
AfD also has plenty of real nazis doing nazi shit and AfD is not excluding them.
AfD is not democracy. AfD is antidemocracy even if it would get elected democratically.
Here's a fun thing language-game to try: expand your definition of "democracy" to encompass your partisan political positions, don't tell anyone, yell from the rooftops that your opponents are "anti-democratic" and banning them is "democratic."
Then observe how you only convince yourself of your own righteousness, and further alienate the people you wished to persuade.
Sometimes, democracy needs defending from people using its privileges to get rid of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/08/neo-n...