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 good example is the dairy protectionism in Canada that Trump so bitterly complains about. The issue is Canada manages its system with production quotas, but the US directly and indirectly subsidizes production. Who's being more (un)fair? How do you create a trading relationship around that?
There are no real limitations outside of dairy, poultry, and eggs; same as on the US front. If it is so difficult why is there nothing in place, aside from those three categories? Are these the only food categories that matter to people? What about the food that the animals in those categories eat?
> but the US directly and indirectly subsidizes production.
Since the Obama era, the US and Canada have had essentially the same subsidy system, save dairy, poultry, and eggs, which, as you pointed out, get their own special rules. But as you pointed out they are still subsidized indirectly via things like corn subsidies, which is where Canada and the US are now effectively on the same page (that wasn't always the case, of course, but the reforms happened a long time ago now and what went on 30 years ago doesn't mean much anymore). When cooler heads prevailed the US played fair in aligning their system to Canada's, so why isn't the same being willing to be offered in kind? Changing the diary, poultry, and egg system doesn't mean giving up subsidies, if the people want to continue to offer subsidies. The US model already offers a way to provide that. Canada already accepts that for other food products, so there is nothing unprecedented there.
Of course, it's not really about the farmers/production, is it? It is about protecting Saputo, Lactalis, and Agropur's triopoly.
The US subsidies tend to be more indirect, meaning that the large agri-corporations capture most of it. Farmers in the US have been struggling for years and the Canadian farmers know this (and for better or for worse have political capital at their disposal).
The reason dairy, poultry, and eggs are under Canada's system is because they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do. Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does. The original aim of supply management was to smooth out the market, but of course has morphed into a cartel.
For the record, I'd love to see the dismantling of supply management the same way New Zealand did (and became an export powerhouse of processed dairy products after). I do love me some cheese and I wish the EU cheese was more economically available.
It's essentially the same system, with the primary subsidy being paying 60% of crop insurance premium in Canada and ~62% in the US. Of course since crop insurance is acre-based, those with the largest landholdings capture most of the subsidy, but that is equally true in Canada. It's probably true that the US has some larger farms, given much larger acreage (and one of Canada's largest farms just having recently gone bankrupt!), which is what I expect you are trying to say, but I'm not sure how pertinent that is as it is still an equal payout on a relative scale.
> they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do.
Neither is milk from other animals (e.g. goats), other types of meats (e.g. pork, beef), but none of these have the same system. Moreover, until 2009 tobacco was also supply managed under the same system and it is a bulk commodity that is shipped around the world. So I'm not sure your theory, as fun as it is, holds.
> Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does.
It's a mixed bag. Canada puts higher value on animal welfare, but is much more lax when it comes to things like pesticides. While Canada has approved hormone use in cattle, it does not allow hormone use in pork, so, again, this doesn't explain what is special about the there (once four) agriculture categories.
There is a real danger the Schengen agreement itself will collapse in the upcoming years - Germany is already ignoring both the Schengen agreement and its own courts by keeping border controls.
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.
I don't disagree, but by this standard North Korea is a democratic republic, and Turkey's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a bit odd.
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.
There are no tariffs between Canadian provinces and never have been.
Did I say there were?
The US has higher thresholds in every state and no federal sales tax, and buyers pay the duties.
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.
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." It's just a flatly false claim.
>Even if Canada and Australia don't join the EU as full members which is unlikely anyway
And like I point out, deeper ties are definitely on the table which is more like what will happen. The world is reorganising around US tariffs as a natural economic reaction here.
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.)
I'd love to have full rights to live and work in the EU, but I'd be happy just being able to visit the EU as a Canadian and use the EU customs lines. I don't think Canada would go for full mobility. We're just now dealing with the backlash of too many immigrants from South Asia, a "flood" of poorer Eastern Europeans would probably rekindle that.
"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.
This is a deeply unserious claim.
You could make a claim for it being setup as non-partisan. But non-political? Government officials aren't subject to political issues? That's a new one.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/14/one-n...
> One Nation said on Monday it would cut the number of temporary migrants in Australia by more than 750,000 over three years, targeting international students and family members of skilled migrants.
> Hanson’s announcement comes as Labor and the Coalition consider new cuts to overseas arrivals, in an increasingly charged contest before the next federal election. Hanson will hope her plan plays well in the lead-up to the Victorian state election, due in November.
Reducing the quota would be a political act, yes?
[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.
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.
[1] https://dawum.de/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_German_federal_election
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_election
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_electionUnfortunately, the Germans themselves have forgotten. Never Forget rings hollow these days.
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.
If party A, being labeled as communist by party B, and party B, being labeled as fascistic by party A, both agree, as well as all other parties in-between, that you are a threat to democracy, maybe you are.
If you are looking for a party that labels itself democratic and all others anti-democratic, you need to look at the AfD themself.
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.
Sometimes, democracy needs defending from people using its privileges to get rid of it.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/08/neo-n...