As geopolitical tensions and uncertainty over transatlantic relations reshape international partnerships, the EU and Canada are looking to deepen their cooperation. Following their Summit in Montreal on 29-30 October 2026, we spoke to Julian Joswig MdB, Committee Coordinator for the Green Parliamentary Group on the Bundestag Committee on EU Affairs, about the outcomes of the meeting, Canada’s proposed associate membership of the EU, and the future of transatlantic relations.
1. What are the key takeaways from the EU-Canada Summit and what does the "Alliance for the Future" entail?
The EU-Canada Summit sends an important signal: In a world increasingly shaped by great-power politics and economic coercion, like-minded democracies are determined to strengthen their cooperation.
The new "Alliance for the Future" provides a framework for closer cooperation on trade, critical raw materials, digital technologies, security and defence. Some results are already concrete: the European Investment Bank will finance critical raw materials projects in Canada, a new digital trade agreement will make cross-border business easier, and Canada is contributing €500 million to the EU’s loan programme for Ukraine. Particularly promising are the talks on mutual recognition of carbon pricing, which could become the nucleus of a transatlantic climate club. The goal must be to build resilient value chains together, rather than simply replacing one dependency with another.
However, the Summit could and should have delivered more. By the next Summit in 2027, we will need a clear understanding of what an “ever closer association” actually means. Given the geopolitical urgency, we cannot afford to lose another year debating the terms of our partnership.
2. In September 2026, Ursula von der Leyen put forward the idea that Canada should become the EU’s first associate Member. However, several EU Member States, particularly Germany, pushed back against the proposal, and the term was ultimately dropped shortly before the Summit. How should we interpret this debate, and what is your position on the matter?
I see this as a missed geopolitical opportunity. The Montreal Summit should have demonstrated Europe's ability to shape strategic partnerships confidently and proactively. Instead, Europe spent days publicly arguing over terminology, with the German government pushing to remove the term "associate membership" from the joint declaration on the eve of the Summit.
Of course, the concept needs clarification. Associate membership must neither undermine the EU accession process nor dilute the EU’s enlargement policy. Also, Ursula von der Leyen should have coordinated her proposal with Member States before putting it forward. But the answer to an insufficiently prepared initiative should have been a constructive compromise, not a last-minute public dispute.
The geopolitical problem is much bigger than a disagreement over terminology. At a time when Europe urgently needs reliable partners to reduce strategic dependencies, we are signalling hesitation and disunity to precisely those countries seeking closer cooperation with us. We cannot expect others to trust Europe as a geopolitical actor if we struggle to agree on our own strategic ambitions.
Ultimately, what matters is not the label but what we achieve together. EU Member States, and the German government in particular, must now back the European Commission and turn the ambition of closer EU-Canada relations into concrete commitments by the next Summit in 2027.
3. How might the US mid-terms affect the EU and Canada’s relations, and to what extent can closer EU-Canada cooperation help both sides navigate an increasingly unpredictable relationship with Washington?
The US midterms could change the balance of power in Congress and potentially constrain some of President Trump’s policies. But whatever the outcome, Europe and Canada cannot afford to base their strategic decisions on political developments in Washington.
Trump has made it abundantly clear that neither Europe nor Canada is immune to economic pressure and tariffs. That is why the German government’s handling of the debate on closer EU-Canada ties risks sending precisely the wrong signal to Washington: that Europe is reluctant to pursue its own strategic interests.
We must reduce one-sided dependencies and build what I would call an "Allianz der Gegenmacht" [Alliance of counter-powers]: a strong network with reliable partners including Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Mexico.
This is not about building an alliance against the United States. It is about strengthening our collective ability to shape the rules of global trade, climate policy and technological development, rather than having them dictated by others.
The EU-Canada partnership could become a blueprint for this approach. Many countries want closer ties with Europe. We need to offer them a credible and ambitious framework for cooperation.
The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.
