Should European union expand by accepting more countries in the next few years?

Mistral Small 3.1 24B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the European Union is a complex geopolitical and economic process that requires structural adjustments to ensure the bloc's stability and functionality. Rapid integration could lead to institutional paralysis and economic disparities that might destabilize existing member states. Option B, "More countries but very slowly", represents the most pragmatic approach. It allows for the necessary legal, economic, and democratic reforms in candidate countries while ensuring that the EU can successfully absorb new members without diluting its standards or core values.

GLM 5.1

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union has been successful in promoting peace, stability, and economic growth among its member states. However, expanding too quickly can pose challenges in terms of integration, policy alignment, and resource allocation. Option B, 'More countries but very slowly,' seems to strike a balance by allowing for expansion while also acknowledging the need for a cautious and gradual approach. This would enable the EU to assess the readiness of candidate countries, ensure a smooth integration process, and address any potential issues that may arise.

Phi-4

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expansion of the European Union should be approached with caution and deliberation. Option B, "More countries but very slowly," strikes a balance between growth and stability. The EU has already undergone significant expansion, and rapid enlargement could strain resources, dilute cohesion, and complicate decision-making processes. A gradual approach allows for thorough integration, ensuring new members meet all criteria without undermining the EU's effectiveness. Additionally, this pace respects the concerns of existing members and provides time for reforms that strengthen the EU's ability to absorb new countries sustainably. While expansion is beneficial, haste could lead to unintended consequences, making Option B the most prudent choice.

Ling-2.6-1T

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union expands too quickly leads to instability and the absorption of countries is not always feasible. Expanding overly quickly could lead to a potential loss of internal cohesion and efficiency. Additionally, the current consideration of geographically contiguous countries such as Ukraine shows what happens when expansion might lead to major geographical togetherness but without the surety of clear security and military policy. I agree with, the consideration given in ***EU to expand more slowly***.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: More countries

Expanding the European Union by accepting more countries can bring numerous benefits. Greater economic integration can stimulate growth and innovation. Geopolitical solidarity strengthens security and global influence. Moreover, adding new countries can reunify divided regions and promote peace, stability, and shared prosperity. However, it should be a steady and comprehensive process rather than potentially hasty — compromising the quality of integration of transition is unwise.

GPT-5.3 Chat Latest

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the European Union can bring economic, social, and political benefits to both the current members and candidate countries. However, rapid expansion could strain the EU's integration capacity and internal cohesion, especially in areas such as economic policy, legislative harmonization, and migration. Therefore, 'More countries but very slowly' is the best option. It allows for a careful, case-by-case approach that ensures new members are ready while maintaining stability and alignment with EU values. This gradual approach also allows existing countries to adapt and prevents overextension.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expansion of the European Union is geopolitical necessary to foster stability, democracy, and security in neighboring regions like the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe. However, rapid enlargement without deep institutional reform could paralyze the EU's decision-making processes, which already struggle under unanimity rules. Voting for "More countries but very slowly" represents the most pragmatic path. A gradual, merit-based accession process ensures that candidate countries fully align with the Copenhagen criteria—especially regarding the rule of law and anti-corruption—while giving the EU time to reform its own budget and decision-making structures to absorb new members without destabilizing the union.

Mistral Small 24B Instruct

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Option B strikes a balance between the EU's expansionist ideals and the practical challenges of rapid integration. The EU's historical expansion has shown that rushing the process can lead to inefficiencies, backlash, and unsustainable growth. A gradual approach allows for thorough vetting of new members, ensuring they meet the EU's democratic, economic, and legal standards while also giving existing members time to adapt to changes in governance and policy. Rapid expansion could dilute the EU's cohesion, strain resources, and weaken its decision-making processes. For example, the accession of new members in the past has required significant reforms and adjustments, which can be overwhelming if done too quickly. A slower pace also provides an opportunity for public opinion in both existing and candidate countries to stabilize, reducing the risk of political instability or Euroscepticism. Additionally, a measured approach allows the EU to focus on deepening integration among existing members, which is crucial for the union's long-term success. Issues like the Eurozone crisis, migration, and geopolitical tensions (e.g., Russia's war in Ukraine) require a united and stable EU. Expanding too quickly could divert attention and resources away from these critical internal challenges. While the EU's foundational goal is to promote unity and cooperation, pragmatism is key. Option B acknowledges the benefits of expansion while recognizing the need for caution, making it the most viable choice.

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union has seen significant growth and challenges in recent years. Accepting more countries can bring economic benefits and strengthen political ties, but it should be done cautiously. Rapid expansion can lead to administrative and integration issues, as seen in past enlargements. Therefore, a slow and deliberate approach is necessary to ensure stability and effective governance. This option balances the potential benefits of expansion with the need for careful consideration and preparation.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The option 'More countries but very slowly' adopts a balanced approach. Expanding the European Union can bring numerous benefits, such as economic growth, increased political stability, and a stronger collective voice on the global stage. However, rapid expansion could strain resources, create governance challenges, and potentially dilute the EU’s ability to effectively manage its member states. A slower, more controlled expansion allows for a thorough evaluation of each applicant's readiness and alignment with EU standards. This cautious approach helps maintain stability and encourages new members to adopt EU practices thoroughly before integration, which aligns with the EU's long-term strategic interests.

Perplexity Sonar Pro

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the European Union by accepting more countries can be beneficial for promoting unity, stability, and economic growth across the continent. However, the process should be carried out cautiously to ensure that new members meet the necessary criteria and are prepared to adopt and implement EU laws and policies effectively. A gradual expansion allows existing members to adjust and integrate new countries without disrupting the union's functioning. Therefore, accepting more countries 'but very slowly' strikes a balance between openness and prudence.

MiniMax M3

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union's expansion should be approached with caution and moderation. Option 'B: More countries but very slowly' provides a balanced approach that allows for enlargement while ensuring proper integration of new members. A gradual process allows time for existing EU institutions and economies to adapt to new, possibly diverse political and economic systems. Historically, rapid expansion has posed integration challenges such as bureaucracy strain and economic disparity, which can lead to internal instability. A cautious and slow expansion enables the EU to strengthen its political, economic, and security frameworks, ensuring that expansion benefits both new and existing member states without overwhelming the union's cohesion and functionality. Furthermore, this approach accounts for measured evaluation of prospective members' preparedness, values alignment, and capacity to support the Union's goals.

Mistral Small 4

Vote: No new countries, stay the same

While some argue for expanding the EU, I believe it's best to maintain the current member status for now. The EU is already dealing with significant challenges, such as economic disparities and political disagreements among its current members. Adding more countries would exacerbate these issues and potentially destabilize the union. I believe it's crucial to address these existing challenges before considering further expansion.

Mistral Nemo

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the EU slowly allows for thorough integration of new members, ensuring alignment with existing institutions, shared values, and economic frameworks. Rapid expansion risks diluting the EU's effectiveness by overwhelming decision-making processes and creating disparities in development levels. A measured approach prioritizes stability while still welcoming nations that demonstrate commitment to EU principles.

Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The EU must balance the benefits of enlargement with its ability to integrate new members effectively. Adding many countries quickly could overwhelm institutions and dilute policy coherence. A slower pace allows each candidate to meet accession criteria, ensures smoother integration, and maintains the Union's stability. Thus, "More countries but very slowly" (B) represents a pragmatic path that captures the advantages of expansion while safeguarding governance.

GPT-5.5

Vote: More countries but very slowly

I vote for "More countries but very slowly". EU enlargement can strengthen stability, democracy, economic integration, and geopolitical security, especially for candidate countries that clearly want closer ties with Europe. But admitting new members too quickly can create problems if institutions, rule-of-law standards, border issues, fiscal systems, or administrative capacity are not ready. A slow, strict, merit-based process protects both current EU members and applicants. This approach keeps the EU open and credible while avoiding rushed expansion that could weaken cohesion.

Ministral 3 14B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The question of EU expansion is complex, but **"More countries but very slowly"** strikes the best balance between ambition and pragmatism. The EU’s current structure is already strained by bureaucratic inefficiency, divergent economic policies, and political fragmentation. Rapid expansion risks diluting cohesion and undermining the core principles of unity and shared values. However, **"No new countries, stay the same"** (C) is equally problematic—it ignores the geopolitical realities of neighboring regions (e.g., the Western Balkans, Ukraine) and the moral imperative of stability in Europe’s periphery. **"The opposite"** (D) or **"dissolution"** (F) are non-starters: the EU’s economic and diplomatic benefits are too entrenched to abandon, and disintegration would plunge Europe into chaos. **"More countries but very slowly"** allows for careful vetting of candidates (e.g., ensuring rule-of-law compliance, economic viability, and alignment with EU values) while maintaining institutional stability. This approach also buys time to address internal reforms, such as deepening the Eurozone’s integration or streamlining decision-making processes. The alternative—**"Some countries should leave and others get added"** (E)—introduces unnecessary volatility, while **"endlessly discussing"** (H) or **"transcending countries"** (G) are impractical fantasies. Historically, the EU’s most successful expansions (e.g., the 2004 enlargement) occurred during periods of relative stability and economic growth. A slow, phased approach minimizes disruption and maximizes the likelihood of successful integration. This path aligns with the EU’s long-term strategic interests: controlled expansion strengthens its global influence while avoiding the pitfalls of hasty or chaotic enlargement.

Grok 4.3

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union benefits from measured growth to ensure new members integrate successfully. "More countries but very slowly" allows time for economic and political alignment without destabilizing the union. Rapid expansion risks diluting standards and creating internal conflicts.

Mistral-Small-3.2-24B-Instruct-2506

Vote: More countries but very slowly

EU expansion can strengthen the union's global influence and promote stability, but it must be managed carefully to avoid internal strains. A very slow approach allows for thorough assessment of candidate countries' readiness in terms of rule of law, economic health, and public administration. This gradualism ensures that existing members are not overwhelmed by sudden integration costs or political backlash, fostering sustainable cohesion. It also provides time to address public concerns in both old and new members, building broader support. Ultimately, a measured pace balances ambition with practicality, securing long-term benefits over rushed decisions.

Qwen3.7-Max

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The EU should remain adaptable while preserving stability. More countries can bring diversity and strengthen economic ties, but rapid enlargement risks administrative strain and political discord. A gradual approach allows reforms, ensures alignment with EU standards, and prevents member fatigue. Therefore, accepting new members but doing so very slowly balances ambition with careful governance.

MiMo V2.5 Pro

Vote: More countries but very slowly

A measured expansion allows the EU to maintain cohesion while integrating new members. Rapid expansion risks diluting shared policies and straining institutions. Gradual inclusion ensures candidates meet economic, legal, and democratic standards, reducing future conflicts. It also gives current members time to adapt to new dynamics without overwhelming existing systems.

Qwen3 14B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union has already demonstrated that rapid expansion can lead to significant challenges, including economic disparities, governance difficulties, and social tensions. Accepting more countries is beneficial for long-term stability, economic growth, and geopolitical influence, but it must be done cautiously. A gradual approach allows new members to align with EU standards, ensures institutional capacity to integrate them, and minimizes disruption. This balances the benefits of expansion with the need for stability and cohesion. Options like 'A' risk destabilizing the bloc, while 'C' forgoes opportunities for regional cooperation and mutual growth. Other options are either impractical or counterproductive.

Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the European Union too rapidly could destabilize existing institutions, economic cohesion, and political alignment. The EU must ensure that new members fully meet the Copenhagen criteria—stable democracy, rule of law, market economy, and adherence to EU legislation—before accession. A gradual, carefully managed expansion allows for deeper integration and reform of current structures, like the Eurozone or Schengen, rather than overstretching resources. Past enlargements (e.g., 2004) succeeded because they were phased. Option B balances growth with stability, avoiding the chaos of mass accession or dissolution while still fulfilling the EU’s founding mission of unity.

Claude Opus 4.8

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The EU faces ongoing integration challenges with existing members, making rapid expansion risky. Accepting more countries but very slowly allows time for reforms and stability. This approach balances growth with sustainability, unlike faster or no-expansion options.

Trinity Large Thinking

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The EU should expand slowly. Gradual accession of candidate countries that fulfill strict democratic and economic criteria—like those in the Western Balkans and potentially Ukraine—would promote stability, enlarge the single market, and strengthen common values. Moving too quickly could strain EU institutions and weaken cohesion. A step-by-step, criteria-based approach ensures readiness and maintains effectiveness, balancing ambition with caution.

Ministral 3 3B

Vote: Some countries should leave and others get added

The EU’s evolution should prioritize **controlled expansion with selective contraction** to maintain its core values while addressing current challenges. Option **E**—‘Some countries should leave and others get added’—offers the most realistic path forward. **For selective exits:** The EU’s membership criteria are not universally applicable. Countries like Hungary or Poland may struggle with democratic backsliding or economic disparities, making full integration unsustainable. Allowing **voluntary or conditional exits** (e.g., through opt-outs or special agreements) prevents the EU from becoming a dysfunctional superstate. This mirrors the UK’s experience—its departure was a pragmatic response to mismatched expectations, not a rejection of EU ideals. **For strategic enlargement:** The EU must remain a **geopolitical and economic powerhouse**. New members—particularly those with strong democratic traditions, market economies, or strategic alignment (e.g., Ukraine, Moldova, or Western Balkans)—would deepen the EU’s influence, counterbalance Russia, and foster stability in Europe’s periphery. The EU’s enlargement history proves that gradual, well-prepared accession can succeed (e.g., the 2004 and 2007 waves), provided pre-accession conditions are met. **Why other options fail:** - **A/B:** Overhauling the EU too quickly risks instability or resentment among existing members. - **C:** Ignores the EU’s mission of expansion and risks stagnation. - **D/F:** Radical and destabilizing, risking fragmentation or collapse. - **G:** Vague and lacks a clear mechanism for implementation. - **H:** Non-actionable; the EU must take decisive steps. **A pragmatic compromise:** A mixed approach—allowing some exits (e.g., for non-compliant members) while welcoming others (e.g., through targeted enlargement)—ensures the EU remains **dynamic, inclusive, and resilient**. This balances growth with reform, avoiding the extremes of either over-expansion or stagnation.

GPT-4.1

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the EU can bring economic and geopolitical benefits, but doing so too quickly could strain resources and decision-making. Option B, 'More countries but very slowly,' offers a balanced approach that allows for growth while minimizing risks.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the EU brings significant geopolitical stability, economic growth, and democratic reinforcement to neighboring regions, making further enlargement desirable. However, the Union's institutional capacity, decision-making efficiency, and the rigorous requirements for legal and economic harmonization necessitate a cautious pace. A very slow, structured approach ensures that new members are fully prepared for membership while preventing institutional overload or internal political backlash within existing member states. This balanced strategy maximizes the benefits of enlargement without compromising the EU's cohesion and functionality.

Llama 4 Scout 17B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the EU can bring economic benefits and promote stability, but rapid expansion can strain institutions and resources. Option B, 'More countries but very slowly,' allows for a controlled and manageable expansion, balancing the benefits of growth with the need for stability and integration.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union should continue its enlargement process but at a very measured pace. Rapid expansion risks diluting institutional coherence and straining cohesion funds, as seen with previous rounds of enlargement. A slower approach ensures that candidate countries genuinely meet Copenhagen criteria regarding stable institutions, rule of law, and economic readiness before gaining full membership. Strategically, welcoming new members remains vital for extending the zone of peace, prosperity, and democratic governance in Europe. However, this must not come at the cost of the EU's ability to function effectively or maintain consensus among existing members. Gradual integration allows both the union and aspiring nations to adapt without overwhelming administrative and political capacity. Option B, 'More countries but very slowly', strikes the necessary balance between idealistic openness and pragmatic stability. It keeps the door open for deserving candidates while protecting the acquis and existing member states from the disruptions of premature accession.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: More countries

Expanding the European Union strengthens regional stability, promotes democratic values, and fosters economic growth. Bringing more countries into the fold encourages peace, improves cross-border cooperation, and enhances the EU's geopolitical influence. A broader union benefits both new member states and existing ones through shared resources, security, and opportunities.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The EU's expansion should prioritize stability and integration quality over speed. Accepting new members too rapidly risks overwhelming institutional capacity and deepening existing divisions, as seen with past enlargements. However, halting expansion entirely (option C) would abandon the EU's transformative role in promoting democracy and prosperity in candidate countries like Ukraine and the Western Balkans. Option B's measured approach allows for thorough vetting of accession criteria, ensuring new members strengthen rather than strain the union. This balances geopolitical imperatives—countering Russian influence by anchoring Eastern Europe—with necessary internal reforms like qualified majority voting. Radical options (D-G) would destabilize Europe, while endless discussion (H) avoids responsibility. Gradual expansion remains the most realistic path to a stronger, united Europe.

Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the European Union promotes regional stability, democratic consolidation, and economic cooperation. However, rapid or unconditional enlargement risks overwhelming institutional frameworks and straining financial resources. A measured, condition-based accession process ensures that candidate nations fully align with EU standards before joining. This gradual approach preserves organizational cohesion and policy effectiveness while still advancing the bloc's long-term strategic goals. Therefore, admitting more countries but very slowly offers the most sustainable path forward.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Strategic enlargement is essential for the EU's long-term security and economic resilience, particularly when neighboring democratic states are seeking alignment with European standards. Yet the option "More countries but very slowly" recognizes that speed without preparation is a liability, not a strength. Rapid expansion risks overburdening EU institutions and diluting the rule-of-law benchmarks that define the union. A measured, merit-based process ensures every candidate fully satisfies the Copenhagen criteria—stable democracy, competitive market economy, and administrative capacity to enforce EU law—before accession. This deliberate pace also sustains public trust across existing member states, preventing the political friction that sudden integration often triggers. "More countries but very slowly" offers the only sustainable path: it honors the EU's founding mission of peaceful democratic enlargement while insisting on the institutional discipline required to make expansion work.

Magistral Medium 1.2

Vote: More countries but very slowly

European integration has historically been a stabilizing force, and several candidate countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Western Balkan states) have strong geopolitical and economic reasons to join. However, the EU's recent experience shows that rushed enlargement without sufficient institutional reform, budget expansion, and rule-of-law enforcement creates integration problems. The current absorption capacity of the EU is limited, and admitting countries without proper preparation would weaken the union for both existing and new members. A cautious, criteria-based approach — expanding 'very slowly' — allows the EU to complete necessary internal reforms (such as Qualified Majority Voting adjustments, budget modernization, and stronger enforcement of democratic standards) before taking on new members. This also gives candidate countries time to genuinely implement reforms rather than backsliding after accession, as has happened in some past cases. The other options are less defensible: staying frozen at 27 members (C) leaves a geopolitical vacuum that hostile powers will exploit; letting countries leave (D, E, F) would be a historic self-inflicted wound at a time when European unity is most needed; transcending countries (G) is utopian; and endless deliberation (H) is what critics already accuse the EU of, without solving anything.

Step 3.5 Flash

Vote: More countries

Embracing the "More countries" approach strengthens regional stability and security by anchoring candidate nations within a robust, rules-based framework. This integration reduces geopolitical volatility and creates a defensive buffer against external coercion, which is particularly vital given current global tensions. EU accession requirements actively drive domestic reforms in the rule of law, human rights, and institutional transparency. Supporting enlargement signals a firm commitment to democratic values and provides a tangible, long-term incentive for reforms that might otherwise stall or reverse. Economically and strategically, a larger bloc enhances collective market competitiveness and reduces dependency on external powers. While institutional reforms are necessary to maintain decision-making efficiency, halting expansion would cede geopolitical influence and create dangerous power vacuums. Therefore, proactive enlargement remains the most advantageous path forward.

Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FP8

Vote: More countries but very slowly

Expanding the EU gradually balances strategic growth with institutional stability. Rapid enlargement (option A) risks overwhelming decision-making structures and diluting core values, as seen in past integration challenges. Conversely, stagnation (option C) forfeits opportunities to extend democratic stability and economic integration to candidate nations like Ukraine and the Western Balkans. Option B's measured pace allows rigorous assessment of accession criteria while implementing necessary EU reforms like qualified majority voting. This avoids the instability of selective exits/additions (option E) or dissolution threats (option F), while rejecting unproductive paralysis (option H). Transcending nation-states (option G) remains aspirational but impractical for near-term governance.

DeepSeek R1 Turbo

Vote: More countries but very slowly

The European Union's expansion has historically promoted peace, economic growth, and democratic values across the continent. However, rapid enlargement without proper integration risks straining institutional capacity and deepening existing divisions among member states. A gradual approach (Option B: "More countries but very slowly") allows candidate nations adequate time to align with EU standards while enabling necessary internal reforms. This balances the strategic benefits of enlargement with the need to maintain cohesion and functionality. Other options present significant drawbacks: Option A ignores integration challenges; Options C and H stall progress; Options D, E, and F weaken collective strength; Option G remains philosophically premature. Careful, phased expansion best serves long-term stability.

GPT-5.4

Vote: More countries but very slowly

I support gradual EU expansion because it balances growth with stability. Rapid enlargement (option A) risks overwhelming institutional capacity and deepening economic disparities. A measured pace allows thorough vetting of candidates' compliance with EU standards while enabling internal reforms. Option C ignores the strategic benefits of integrating willing Balkan states, while options D-H either weaken the union or lack practicality. Slow expansion best serves both existing members and aspirant nations.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable overwhelmingly favored a cautious approach to growth, with 34 models voting to admit more countries but at a very slow pace to safeguard institutional stability. A small group of dissenters, including Step 3.5 Flash, pushed for rapid expansion to counter geopolitical threats, while Mistral Small 4 advocated for a complete freeze on new members. Ministral 3 3B stood entirely alone with a bold, controversial proposal of a dynamic 'one-in, one-out' strategy that would expel non-compliant member states while admitting strategically valuable new ones.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: More countries but very slowly: 34, More countries: 3, No new countries, stay the same: 1, Some countries should leave and others get added: 1

Strongest Arguments

• More countries but very slowly: A gradual, merit-based accession process protects the EU from institutional paralysis and public backlash while giving candidates time to genuinely align with Copenhagen criteria.
• More countries: Proactive and fast enlargement is essential to reduce regional volatility, prevent dangerous power vacuums, and create a defensive buffer against external hostile coercion.
• No new countries, stay the same: The European Union is currently plagued by severe economic disparities and political fragmentation; adding more members will only exacerbate these rifts and destabilize the union.
• Some countries should leave and others get added: Introducing conditional exits for non-compliant members with democratic backsliding while strategically adding aligned partners allows the EU to remain a resilient geopolitical powerhouse.