It’s pretty outlandish. One of the core tenants of EU expansionism and the politics around it is that the applying nations are considered European enough and physically located in Europe in addition to being willing to cooperate with the EU in meeting the general requirements of a member nation.

But just because you’re at least partly in Europe isn’t enough in some cases depending on who you are, and this was used in the aughts as a way to defer any potential membership by Turkey (which at least started the process of joining back then) and Russia (something European politicians didn’t want to even consider) by pointing out how much of their territory is in Asia. Morocco’s self-proclaimed justification was that Spain has a couple of cities in Northern Africa wholly surrounded by Moroccan territory, but Morocco still doesn’t make the cut for EU politicians.

However the Republic of Cyprus is entirely on continental Asia, not wholly in control of the island it claims as its sovereign territory, but considered “culturally European”, so it got in.

Canada is probably more of a Morocco than a Cyprus in this case, not physically in Europe, not even physically proximate to Europe the way at least Cyprus and Morocco are, and probably not considered European-enough.

If this all sounds like crazy EU politics, that’s kind of what it is, but in defense of the crazies here, you have to be a bit crazy when you’re trying to build some kind of weird supranational cultural identity in a place like Europe.

Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU. Both of these territories are parts of existing EU member nations. I guess with brexit it won't help Canada to claim they are a British territory :)

In either case, if a well functioning oil producing nation wanted to join the EU, I think we should accept them.

In fact I think we should accept any wealthy democratic country with strong institutions, free press, etc.

I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc.

If anything, I don't think people want another Hungary in the EU. That said, eastern Europe was probably a project the EU had to undertake.

> I would wager that the issue with Marroco and in particular Turkey is more the lack of human rights, death penalty, corruption, weak democracy, unwillingness to acknowledge historic genocides, etc.

The entire idea has been deader than disco even on the Turkish side since Erdogan took power, but that was part of it, however I would turn your attention to former French President Nicolas Sarkozky’s comments on the matter: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/world/europe/25iht-union....

That said, you are also not wrong the issues around the Armenian Genocide were part of why member states campaigned against Turkish membership, as well as the issues around Cyprus and North Cyprus. The differences in law are less pressing though, and things you address during the negotiations for admission, but the process was halted long before it really got to that stage over political issues.

As for Morocco, the reason was much much simpler:

> The application was rejected on the grounds that Morocco was not considered to be a "European country" and hence could not join. This geographic membership criterion has been part of the EU's and its predecessors' treaties since the Treaty of Rome (Article 237 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community) and was later also included among the Copenhagen criteria. The rejection was expected as the King had sent feelers two years prior and received such a response.

So going back to your lead-in:

> Greenland has the option to join the EU. French Guiana is in south America and is part of the EU.

The EU has not made any of this black and white, but at least in the case of French Guiana, the fact that you are referring to it as a mere territory is reflective as to why it is complicated and negotiated through the core treaties that form the EU and the ascension treaties of new member states.

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and its citizens are Danish and EU citizens, but the country itself actually voted to leave the European Union after it was afforded a higher degree of autonomy and self-government by the Kingdom. French Guiana on the other hand is an overseas département. It is physically located in South America, but its status as a département puts it legally on par with any département in France. It is considered as integral to the French Republic under French laws as Paris, and this applies to the other four overseas départements as well, but does not apply to all of France’s territories. For the Americans reading this thread, consider the detached nature of France’s overseas départements to be more similar in legal status to Hawaii or Alaska than to Puerto Rico or Guam.

The nature of these territories is also why Ceuta and Melilla are able to be admitted to the EU under Spanish sovereignty despite Morocco which wholly surrounds them being rejected and between the Danish, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, even Norway and formerly under the British when the UK was a member, there’s a lot of external territories that are or were considered part of the EU to varying degrees from wholly part of it to having no real part in it at all, although its people might still be considered EU citizens since they’re nationals and citizens of member states.

I'm going to talk about much longer timeframes, but as a reminder, the Mediterranean used to be the center of Western Civilization (because trade was ridiculously more effective over it than over land), with what is now Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia... being major """European""" centers. At the same time, what is now the British Islands were some kind of "end of the world" location (the equivalent of today's Alaska/Greenland/Northern Canada (?))

The importance of the Arctic becoming viable for trade routes should not be underestimated.

(Even more so, on a longer timeframe, if equatorial locations become uninhabitable because too hot.)

The rejection was expected. The EU and its associated organizations are only open to countries on the European continent by their current rules. Canada would have to broker a hell of a deal to get even partially in. EFTA membership might be a possible goal.

Canada is still under the British Monarch, Charles as King of Canada. Not saying that would work but it might be one avenue. It’s also good reason that Canada joining the US would be very hard as things stand.

In Canada, the titles he has in his other realms are irrelevant, though - the only Crown in Canada is that of Canada (well, and the provincial crowns in each of the provinces).

> Canada is still under the British Monarch

This fact probably counts -against- the argument that they deserve to be in the EU...

> only open to countries on the European continent

Cyprus would like to have a word.

As well as potentially Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

I guess that one can find a political definition of Europe that is lax enough to justify inclusion of these countries if so motivated. Turkey is formally in (suspended) membership negotiations and a major discussion point was that most of its land area is not on the European continent.

Redefining Europe to include Canada would be outright ridiculous. The Union would have to redefine its own identity if it wanted to admit Canada.

> Turkey is formally in (suspended) membership negotiations and a major discussion point was that most of its land area is not on the European continent.

Would the that be a discussion point if Turkey had a well functioning democracy? Solid economics? Didn't have the death penalty? Found some sort of resolution to conflicts on its borders?

I don't have answers for your questions. My wording is also imprecise. I only meant to say that I remember that the location of Turkey was used as an argument against starting membership negotiations when that was deliberated within the EU.

High population with low GDP per capita.

Turkey certainly has some economic issues with inflation, etc.

Yes, Turkey has democracy, but what was the coup thing going on a few years back?

----

But yes, high population == more votes, could also be a concern.

But maybe in a few decades the EU will have labour shortages and willing to take on a new challenge, who knows? :)

> The conflict in Syria is resolved in Turkey's favor.

Is it? The SDF is still there, and was always one of the biggest reasons why Turkey got involved.

Now, that one, Turkey might still resolve yet... but if it does, that will likely come in form of another genocide. Which would hardly improve its chances of getting acceptance.

Re: Cyprus, the rule may be being on the same tectonic plate, which AFAICT, Cyprus is (the Eurasian plate).

Canada directly borders France (St. Pierre et Miquelon) so if we ignore dragging in the geologists, that's as good an argument as any.

Canada also directly borders Denmark via Greenland on Hans Island.

Neither Greenland nor St. Pierre et Miquelon are part of the EU (they are “Overseas Countries and Territories”).

So that would also include Dominica, which is also directly bordering France (Martinique).

The French and their globally disconnected departments ...

Martinique is an “Outermost Region” (and so, part of the EU) unlike St. Pierre et Miquelon which is one of the “Overseas Countries and Territories” (not part of the EU).

Are we also considering Brazil for EU membership, then, as the country with the longest land border with France?

(French Guiana is governed by EU regulations, after all...)

There aren't any rules.

Or to be a bit more precise, the rule says any "European state" can join, but there are no set-in-stone definitions of what that actually means.

People here are mentioning Morocco as the example of a country rejected for not being European, but that's not quite accurate: Morocco got rejected from the European Communities in 1987, six years the Maastricht Treaty officially established the EU. Maastricht Treaty specifically put the European Commission in charge of figuring out which countries are considered to be "European", but as far as I know, they never said no to anyone. They did say yes to Cyprus, Georgia and Armenia.

The difference is that Morocco has a lot to win by joining europe, whereas Canada doesn't.

Canadian GDP per capita is 15 times that of Morocco. The EU would much rather admit a wealthy country than a relatively poor one. So there are clear economic reasons to treat the two differently.

Canada is a longstanding liberal democracy with a distant and purely symbolic constitutional monarchy. Morocco is a constitutional monarchy in which (until recently at least) the monarch played an active political role, there is still a widespread expectation among the population that he ought to do so, multiparty democracy is young and weak, and security agencies engage in repressive behaviour. [0] So there's political reasons too.

If Canada really wanted the EU and the EU really wanted Canada, they'd fudge the whole geography issue–probably won't happen but not completely impossible. But no way the EU is going to want Morocco any time this century, so they won't do it for them.

[0] https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/07/morocco-a-brewing...

Yes, but why would Canada want the EU? it's just a complete fantasy from the economist, I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US. It makes as much sense as Norway wanting to join NAFTA when most of its trade is in Europe.

> it's just a complete fantasy from the economist

It's par for the course for Charlemagne (the column in The Economist). It's not meant to be an actual realistic analysis and reporting (the way their non-columnist articles are, even if they all have an editorial streak). Mostly it comments on the topic of the week/month in some irreverent way[0], or entertains a modest proposal[1] like this one, in a "ha ha wait a minute" sort of way.

[0] https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/19/we-need-to-talk-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

> I don't see why a country that's already wealthy would want to join the EU, especially when it's a country that basically is completely dependent to the US.

Reducing the degree of dependency on the US would be one obvious reason.