EU capitals dispute use of 'associate membership' term in Canada partnership draft
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Germany, Italy, France and Greece objected to the inclusion of a vague 'associate membership' label in the EU-Canada joint declaration, citing legal uncertainty ahead of the Montreal summit.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed that Canada become the EU's first "associate member" in her September State of the Union address. The suggestion was included in a draft EU-Canada declaration that will be finalised at a summit in Montreal on Thursday and Friday.
Several member states, led by Germany, have raised objections, arguing that the term is undefined, could create legal uncertainty and set a precedent for other third countries. "The main concern is that this is unknown terminology, it might bring up legal uncertainty and expectations from other third countries," one EU diplomat said.
A revised draft circulated on Monday added wording that the concept was "put forward by the European Commission" and sought to distance member states from the label. Germany, Italy, France and Greece lodged formal objections before the document could be adopted through the silent procedure.
The European Council President's office is expected to circulate a new version, with further ambassador-level talks scheduled before the summit. Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, have expressed preference for describing the partnership as an "alliance of the future" rather than using the associate-membership terminology.
While there is broad agreement on deepening cooperation in defence, critical raw materials, energy, trade and border security, the precise legal meaning of "associate membership" remains under review. A second EU diplomat noted that the term "does not mean anything, it is not in the treaties," and emphasized the need to study its implications before inclusion in a political declaration.