This makes as much sense as having Australia on Eurovision.

Knowing when to stop is a non-trivial virtue, unfortunately politicians love to build empires.

It would be more natural to add Turkey than Canada, provided that Erdogan dies or otherwise loses power. (At this moment, I don't believe in him losing power peacefully.) At least it is contiguous with Europe and even though majority Islamic, the population isn't fanatic about it and there is a clear cultural continuity with Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus.

Canada as a EU member makes as much sense to me as Australia or Argentina, so much less.

Didn’t the UK not six years ago vote to leave the EU? Is he suggesting that there’s demand from Britain to reverse that? Or is he suggesting they be forced to rejoin?

No thanks. Canada is better off as an sovereign state.

I'd be happier with expansive trade deals with Canada.

Maybe they should focus on putting their own house in order first by not making constant self-sabotaging decisions that hurt themselves, benefit the United States, and alienate their other neighbors. The European Union has declined from 30% to 17% percent of world GDP from 2008-2025, three times faster than China's analogous decline at the beginning of its "Century of Humiliation", which took it 50 years from 1820-1870: https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2062096610239082912 But I fear the worst is yet to come, because what's happening has not sunk in yet.

So, despite liking various countries in the EU as places to visit, I have to ask what benefit would Canada get from joining such a structure at this point?

At some point they should stop using the European part of the name.

There seems to be no reason given for why this would be good, nor does it address the reasons why enlargement has not happened.

Would people in the EU be generally keen on the largest EU country being a not quite white enough Muslim majority country? Would they like EU borders with Iran, Iraq and Syria?

He implies its the threat posed by Russia. The EU is not a military alliance. There is a reasonable argument that Europe needs a military alliance that is not dependent on the US, but the EU is not it.

In many ways enlargement weakens the EU, as does "ever closer union". Both create more internal division. The UK would not have left if the EEC if it had remained the same organisation it was in the 80s.

Why is this flagged? It's super interesting, the comments are pretty civil and the news source is legit.

This is probably a response to the collapse of the United States. A bigger EU could easily replace it's hegemony as a bulwark against China and BRICS.

The EU's problem isn't that it's too small--its population is larger than the US already. Its problem is that it's not unified. It can't act as one country the way the US and China can.

The EU works by consensus of its member states. It does not have a strong executive that can, hypothetically, drop bombs on Iran without a vote in parliament. But it also can't defend Ukraine as fully as it needs to.

Russia is economically tiny. If the EU wanted, they could flood Ukraine with enough firepower to reverse Putin's invasion, even without intervening directly. They don't do that because not all member states agree, and without consensus, the EU cannot act.

In some ways, America is the opposite: it acts before it has consensus. One administration invades Afghanistan; the next one pulls out. One administration signs a treaty with Iran; the next one bombs it. It's the move-fast-and-break-things of foreign policy.

China and Russia are dictatorships. They pursue their interests and they act consistently. Despite their economic disadvantages, they get their way internationally because they are not afraid to act.

As an American, I would rather have a strong EU that sometimes disagrees with us, than a weak EU that cedes the field to China and Russia. But a bigger EU isn't the solution. The EU needs to act as one, or it will become irrelevant.