Even as the federal president
of the U.S., Donald Trump, campaigned in 2024 in part on Canada becoming a
member of the U.S., statehood in the E.U. was being discussed in 2025 on both
sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Besides being perhaps a knee-jerk political
reaction against Trump, the prospect of Canada becoming an E.U. state faced a
few major hurdles—one of which being the E.U.’s Basic (aka constitutional) Law.
Accordingly, working instead toward a closer trading relationship was a more
realistic route.
Firstly, that U.S. President
Trump had “taunted and provoked Canadians with talk” of statehood for Canada in
the U.S. and even that 46% of Canadians in a February, 2025 poll favored
accession in the E.U. instead of the U.S. are not sufficient rationales for
Canada to become an E.U. state.[1]
One reason for representative rather than direct democracy is that having a
term of office protects elected representatives from having to capitulate
politically to momentary passions held by the most impassioned in a population.
Because Trump’s invitation to Canada to join the other states in the U.S. would
likely go unheeded, and, moreover, Trump’s term in office would presumably end
at some point, the Canadian interest in accession in the E.U. would likely dissipate
rather than continue to build. I submit that such a momentous political change
should not be made on the basis of a momentary political context.
Secondly, the Canada is “the
most European of non-European countries,” given the “French and British roots”
as evinced in Quebec and Newfoundland, for example, is not a sufficient reason,
as the same could be said of Australia regarding its British roots.[2]
In fact, that Quebec and Newfoundland are so culturally different is an
argument that Canada could split up and be more than one state in the E.U. or
U.S., since inter-state differences are supposed to be greater than intra-state
differences in a federal system.
Thirdly, during a briefing in March, 2025, “a Commission spokeswoman pointed to Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union which stipulates that ‘any European State’ can apply to become a state—“in other words, ONLY European states” can become E.U. states.[3] Canada lacks the geographical proximity to the E.U. necessary to satisfy Article 49. So whereas Cyprus is technically in Asia, the proximity to the E.U.—not just being culturally European—renders that state different than Canada with respect to the Article.
Ironically, Hawaii as a member state of the U.S. is not only not in North
America, but is arguably more Asian than American culturally. Not even Alaska,
which is in North America, is contiguous with “the lower 48.” Europeans who
like to point out the cultural differences between E.U. states while assuming
that the other union, which stretches across a continent and then some, is
culturally homogenous miss not only the tremendous differences between a
member-state like Mississippi and that of Massachusetts, but also the
distinctive culture and location of Hawaii! So, I’m not sure that Europeans are
the best judges of how European Canadian culture is. Certainement,
French speakers in the E.U. have strong opinions on the way the language is spoken
in Quebec.
In a parliamentary question to
the E.U.’s executive branch in 2025, Rep. Streit, a member of the Reform party,
argued that Canadian statehood would “expand [the E.U.’s] single market, create
sales opportunities, facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and be
better able to withstand threats of tariffs and global security risks.”[4]
A good trade agreement with Canada would satisfy all but the last benefit, and
NATO could handle the last one without risking stretching the E.U. too thin,
especially given the staying power of the principle of unanimity in the European
Council.
Neither the U.S. or the E.U. evinces
regional governance in the sense of covering a global region, as if a stepping
stone on the way to a world government. Furthermore, both unions faced significant
internal political strains in 2024, and enlarging either union rather than
being focused on addressing internal pressures could be foolish rather than prudent.
For instance, before adding more Eastern European states, the E.U. could be
strengthened on the federal level by applying qualified majority rule to more
E.U. competencies in the European Council and the ministerial Council of the
E.U., and giving the E.U.’s Parliament more authority so it could be a check on
state governments exploiting conflicts of interest through the councils.
Fourthly, allowing Canada to apply to become an E.U. state would open the door to Israel doing the same, which would embroil the E.U. in Middle East politics. That “Israel’s security cabinet . . . approved a plan to expand its military offensive” in Gaza after more than month of blocking humanitarian aid such as food and medical supplies from entering the enclave and in spite of rulings against Israel by the International Criminal Court and the U.N.’s International Court of Justice may suggest that negotiating with Israel in the European Council and the council of ministers could result in stalemate rather than decisions.[5] In other words, if you think Viktor Orbán is stubborn, try Ben Netanyahu. Given the staying power of the principle of unanimity, flexibility on the state level is a highly valuable commodity at the federal level, given the extent of state power there. Even giving Turkey the go-ahead would have introduced a Middle Eastern culture into the E.U. at the councils, and E.U. decision-making would have been much more difficult because of exogenous values would have to be recognized and respected even if they conflict with European culture. Moreover, no limit would exist as to how large the E.U. could become. At some point, diseconomies of scale could take a toll on the federal level in being able to realize benefits from collective action as distinct from merely aggregated benefits from states acting unilaterally, such as in foreign policy and defense.
Lastly, the British monarch is, at least as of 2025, the head of state of Canada. Even though the lack of geographical proximity renders that royal role difficult, that the United Kingdom had seceded from the E.U. renders Canadian accession both awkward and difficult. Although the royal role does not render Canada subservient to the British government, the question of Canada's loyalty to the E.U. could conceivably be raised by federal and state officials in the union because of the head of state is an official role in Canada. Perhaps the loyalist Canadians could push for Canada’s provinces, except for Quebec, to be made equivalent to Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland as regions in the United Kingdom instead of Canada becoming a state in the European Union. Does not having the king or queen as head of state mean that Canada is essentially within the monarch's kingdom, even if not subject to the British government? Of course, neither Canadian provinces becoming regional governments in a European kingdom nor Canada becoming a state in an empire-scale union is very realistic, given the sheer gravitas of the status quo. Radical political change is seen as momentous not only for its platforms being very different, but also because such change is rare. Nevertheless, in analyzing possibilities for significant change in how various scales (and scale-types) of polities are related, the prerequisite of relating stepwise regions, kingdoms, and empire-scale polities around the world is best done without category-mistakes foisted by political ideology (e.g., nationalism).[6]
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. David Gritten, “Israel Security Cabinet Approves Plan to ‘Capture’ Gaza, Official Says,” BBC.com, 5 May 2025.
