Just weeks after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled an ambitious plan to forge a new type of relationship with third countries, starting with Canada, the phrase “associate membership” has been quietly dropped from the official agenda. The concept, which she had touted as a groundbreaking step, appears to have hit a wall of resistance from EU member states, particularly Germany.
At this week's EU-Canada summit in Montreal, the joint statement adopted by both sides no longer contains any reference to “associate membership.” Instead, the agreed text speaks of developing an “ever closer association” between the EU and Canada, a formulation that stops well short of the membership-like status von der Leyen had envisioned.
The change came after several member states, led by Germany, objected to the term. Berlin argued that the substance of the partnership should be defined before attaching a label with potential legal implications. The Commission's chief spokesperson, Paula Pinho, sought to downplay the significance, saying: “It would have been much better to have unity from member states on the initial wording, but we have a strong basis that is agreed. And we are fleshing out the details. But most importantly, we have a common approach in terms of what the objective is that we want to pursue.”
Despite the setback, von der Leyen appeared determined to press ahead. Upon arriving in Montreal, she wrote on X: “We have a new ambition: bringing Canada closer to us than ever before, as associate member of the EU. And we want to take our unique partnership even further.” Yet the final text leaves little doubt that the much-hyped format failed to win the backing of European governments, whom von der Leyen did not consult before making her pitch to Ottawa.
A concept with a complicated pedigree
The irony is that “associate membership” was originally proposed last May by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as a way to offer Ukraine security guarantees while it worked towards full EU membership. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected the proposal, and it was never formally discussed among EU countries. Berlin denies that this history is the reason for its opposition to Canada's case, but the coincidence is striking.
An EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained the bloc's cautious approach: “What the EU can do is technical, is a sector-by-sector approach. The 'associate membership' provided a package for it; it put a label on the partnership.”
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, for his part, never fully embraced von der Leyen's terminology. He preferred the notion of an “Alliance for the Future,” a concept he championed in his Davos speech in January as a framework for middle powers to safeguard global stability and the rules-based order. When asked whether he was comfortable with “associate membership,” Carney replied: “The President used both terms. The precise nomenclature is a question for Europe.”
The semantic differences reflect deeper divergences in worldview. For Carney, the Alliance for the Future is an open, inclusive grouping of like-minded nations. The EU, however, does not see itself as a middle power; officials in Brussels are quick to remind anyone that the bloc is a global actor in its own right. Associate membership was intended to position the EU at the centre of a new international coalition of democracies — not merely as one partner among equals, but as its leader.
That is why the outcome of this debate matters beyond EU-Canada relations. Other countries, including Australia, South Korea, and Japan, are watching closely to see how Brussels engages with third countries. As one EU official put it: “In the world we are living in today, which is not the easiest, this is the right response: have the courage to think out of the box, have the courage to do something new, and have the courage to set out a vision.”
Von der Leyen may have overplayed her hand, promising a partnership she could not deliver because she moved too far ahead of the member states. Yet it is hard to dismiss the fact that EU-Canada ties have never been stronger in recent months. From joint exploitation of critical raw materials and common stockpiling to mutual market access in strategic sectors like AI and cloud, via systematic integration in EU defence programmes and early consultation on major policy areas, the relationship is on steroids.
Bernd Lange, the German MEP who chairs the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade, cautioned that the disagreement over terminology should not overshadow the growing substance of the partnership. “The relationship is deepening in many concrete ways,” he said, pointing to ongoing negotiations on a potential LNG deal and other collaborative projects.
As the EU looks to expand its network of partnerships, the question of how to label them remains unresolved. The pushback from EU capitals has made clear that any new format must first win consensus among the 27 member states. For now, the “associate membership” label appears to be shelved, but the underlying ambition to bring Canada closer to Europe is very much alive.
