The Montreal EU Summit: What Problem Are They Trying To Solve?

In recent weeks, I've had to educate myself on the UK-Canadian parliamentary system. Now I'm finding I have to learn about governance in the European Union, and as I noted yesterday, the closest parallel I can find is the Holy Roman Empire. As I understand this, the Holy Roman Empire was governed by the Emperor, who was elected by seven prince-electors. He in turn had to negotiate with the Diet, comprised of members of the nobility, on important decisions. The Emperor/Electors and the Diet were separate power centers.

As far as I can tell, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, is in a position roughly comparable to Holy Roman Emperor. She is nominated by 27 European Commissioners, the heads of government of the EU member countries, who correspond to the Electors. The nomination is confirmed by a vote of the European Parliament, which roughly corresponds to the Diet. No such nomination has ever failed to be confirmed by the European Parliament.

Like the Holy Roman Empire, the EU operates on the principle of collegiality. Discussions among the Electors/Commissioners are private, and decisions are not made public until a consensus is reached. At that point, matters are voted on by the European Parliament. But what we're seeing in the runup to the EU-Canada summit in Montreal tomorrow and Friday is highly unusual public disagreement among the Electors/Commissioners.

Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made a bombshell offer to Canada: to become the first EU “associate member”. Now the term is proving hard to swallow for several member states, including her own Germany.

Ahead of the EU-Canada summit, meant to chart what many see as the closest partnership between the bloc and a non-member country, European capitals led by Berlin have pushed back against a term that has yet to be clearly defined, five EU diplomats told Euronews.

“The main concern is that this is unknown terminology, it might bring up legal uncertainty and expectations from other third countries,” one of the diplomats said. “This was not communicated previously from the Commission. We don’t know what we are talking about.”

Last week, a revised draft of the joint declaration explicitly mentioned the notion, vowing regular exchanges with Canadian authorities on major policy and regulatory initiatives and to define the full scope of the partnership at the 2027 summit.

. . . The text was due to be adopted on Tuesday through the so-called silent procedure, under which a document passes unless a member state objects. Germany, Italy, France and Greece all raised objections before the deadline.

Elsewhere,

Germany is leading efforts to remove the term "associate membership" entirely from the proposed text, the diplomats said.

The disagreement reflects divisions within the bloc over the proposed status, which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggested to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during her State of the Union address in Strasbourg last month.

There are subtexts all over the place here. I would surmise that a big issue is that Leyen is trying to redefine EU policy on membership to accommodate a non-member, while not consulting with members on what she's doing. The YouTube commentary embedded above makes the point that EU "associate membership" hasn't been raised in Parliament, and it wasn't an issue in last year's national election, but apparently negotiations have been ongoimg, to the point that Canada advanced a draft, since before Carney and Leyen floated the idea in Strasbourg.

Why are they doing this? What problem are they trying to solve? One answer would be the one Canadian commentator Jasmin Laine suggested in a YouTube video embedded in Monday's post, that she wants Mark Carney to be her successor as President of the European Commission, and Canada would need to be a member of the EU for this to happen.

The YouTube embedded in today's post suggests that the document, however it eventually reads, could also force a widening of Canadian immigration policy. As we've already seen here, this is a particularly sensitive issue in French Canada, where immigration from South Asia is threatening the traditional French culture. The newly elected premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, is raising this as an issue surrounding tne Montreal summit:

Quebec Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon will not be allowed to speak at this week's Canada-EU summit, according to the Parti Québécois (PQ).

The summit is set to take place Oct. 29 and 30 in Montreal.

St-Pierre Plamondon wrote in a statement Tuesday that the federal government refused his request to make a speech at the event, despite the fact that it will be held on Quebec soil.

. . . In a statement released Monday, Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Marie-Claude Sarrazin quoted a phrase from Carney's lauded speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year: "If you are not at the table, you are on the menu."

Sarrazin added that the federal government's decision shows a "basic lack of respect for Quebec and a denial of the role of our parliament, which reminds us of the need to be in control of our own destiny."

Both Carney and Leyen look like they're trying to force major policy changes on both Canada and the EU without going through normal consultation. I'm not sure they can succeed with this.