That's a brilliant move by von der Leyen and Mark Carney (I guess he's in on it as well).

There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.

Just calling it a "unique alliance" or "deepening of their relationship" wouldn't have had such a public effect.

Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.

Trump even said when the Canada joins the EU as associate member, it could be considered a hostile act.

All that for a status nobody knows yet what it will entail. More than a simple trade deal, for sure, but also a lot less than a proper membership.

> There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.

See perhaps Article 217 of TFEU:

> The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.

* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_217/oj/en...

An article going into it:

> Association is already an established form of EU external relations. The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Morocco entered into force on March 1, 2000. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement entered fully into force on September 1, 2017. Their substantive commitments and institutional structures differ, reflecting the relationships negotiated by the respective parties (Council of the European Union, 2000; European External Action Service, 2017).

> Article 217 does not prescribe a uniform degree of integration. Depending on its provisions, an association agreement may establish economic commitments, regulatory cooperation, joint institutions, and procedures for implementing shared objectives. The associated country's rights arise from the agreement rather than from a standardized legal status conferred by Article 217 itself.

* https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/canada-eu-associate-mem... §3

While there isn't an official "associate member" status, Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland all have custom deals with the EU so this just codifies what already exists in an ad-hoc form.

The only bit the EU is rowing back is that they mentioned during BRExit that there would be no more custom deals so this simply a case of the realpolitik winning out.

I'm sure the UK will be looking at this very carefully as well.

There is this Venn diagram[1]. Canada could shift into the Council of Europe like Georgia or join Schengen with an independent currency like the Swiss. The latter would be a nice arrangement for Canadian passport holders.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...

Consent makes all the difference. Trump's talk of forcing Canada to become the 51st state via economic pressure stiffened the spines of Canadians and made it impossible for the Carney government to accept the same sort of deal other countries were getting. At the same time, it made closer relations with Europe look like a solution.

The reality is that the joining the EU as full members involves too great a sacrifice of sovereignty for middle powers like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.. Brussels is too far away and the EU itself barely functions with the members it already has. There is, however, broad will among middle powers to work together more closely than they do now. This associate EU member thing needs to strike a balance where countries who join it can cooperate and contribute without feeling like the EU is becoming another U.S..

> Half of the right wing influencers on X is going bananas because when the US was "offering" Canada to join them, they said a firm "NO" but for the EU they are opening the door.

I mean, it's a very, very different type of offer.