Pretty provocative headline.
The Economist writers do this now and again: I remember a few years ago when they proposed moving the British capital to Manchester. It would make the political leadership less London-centric and free up tons of housing/public offices in property sparse downtown London.
Even selling the palace of Westminster.
Anyway, this one isn't that bad either: as the subhead reads: "Europe needs space and resources, Canada needs people. Let’s deal"
- Canadians are mostly, ideologically and ethnically, European.
- They worry about their southern neighbour
- they have plenty of natural resources but not enough people
- ...and the immigrants who've moved there recently aren't precisely European, so if you for some reason want to maintain population shares/ethnicities etc, you could more easily achieve it inside the EU.
Like Europeans, Canadians believe that markets work but must be tempered by welfare states. Their governments offer similar deals to citizens: high taxes, messy parliamentary politics (Canada may soon have a new “governor”, given Mr Trudeau’s unpopularity) and good living standards for nearly all. Both trade openly, fret about global warming and dislike guns, the death penalty and Russian aggression.
And:
Europeans could learn from Canada how to allow immigration in a fashion that the population embraces rather than tolerates, though a housing crunch has frayed that consensus of late.
Where Charlemagne goes wrong—besides empire building or supporting the declining EU museum in any way—is his own observation that...
Canada’s gas cannot reach EU shores because of a lack of LNG shipping infrastructure
It's not for lack of political union or tariff rules that Europe can't get their hands on more Canadian gas.
...and for us money nerds:
The euro would look far more global if it were accepted in Vancouver
Nah. I'm with Trump on this one. It'd be better if Canada's provinces joined the more obvious union—the United States of America!
non-paywalled here: https://archive.md/7ZsY3