Talk:Euro

Name 'Euro'

The name of this currency is completely dismal and British PM John Major showed his dismay at the lack of imagination after the meeting where it was announced. What were the names considered? Please incorporate something about that. I think 'florin' 'mark' and 'ecu' were considered. My preference would have been 'crown', as nearly all the eurozone states plus GB, Estonia ('kroon') Denmark and Sweden have used the term for coinage. (German/Austrian 'Krone', Czech 'koruna', etc) In the latter two, it still is the present currency ('krone'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.69.173 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1- and 2-cent coins in Finland

I have removed the following because it appears to contradict what the Bank of Finland says: http://www.bof.fi/en/setelit_ja_kolikot/eurokolikot/suomalaisten_kolikoiden_lyontimaarat

1- and 2-cent coins have been minted in the Netherlands, but never in Finland.

--Boson (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How does the currency actually work ?

It's not clear from the article to what extent individual countries can create Euro. Do they have to get permission from the central bank ? or does each country do as it pleases?

23 march 2010 jimmy

You get permission from the EU itself, and then it's introduced replacing the old currency.

I thought the ECB handled it. But this article suggests that a member country can create new Euros whenever it likes, as long as it notifies the ECB: "A spokesman for the ECB said the Irish Central Bank is itself creating the money it is lending to banks, not borrowing cash from the ECB to fund the payments. The ECB spokesman said the Irish Central Bank can create its own funds if it deems it appropriate, as long as the ECB is notified. " Now I'm wondering what stops a rogue member state from printing as much Euro as it wants? Horatio (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First you may be confusing euro bank-note production with money creation such as practised by the US and UK, but barely by the ECB. The total money supply in every fiat currency domain is controlled by the monetary authority [the Federal Reserve, the ECB]; subsidiary central banks such as the Federal Reserve Banks and the Eurozone National banks have delegated responsibility. The ECB is very sensitive about money creation because Germany is hypersensitive on the subject (because of its own experience of hyperinflation). So Ireland is not pulling a stroke, but there are some smoke and mirrors involved. There was an explanation in the FT at the time but I can't easily find it. --Red King (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is strictly correct that money supply is controlled by central banks. In the broad sense commercial banks can create credit whenever they want which increases broad money supply. This article doesn't really explain how the Euro area conducts monetary policy and I think it would be useful if it did. 155.198.233.106 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion please

Anybody think this page is worth having? It sounded good in my head but I'm not sure if it'll go anywhere interesting so I haven't moved it from my sandbox yet: Currencies of the European Union.20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a very good idea for an article, considering almost half of the EU members currently do not use the euro, wouldnt be needed if there was only one or two. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I think there's a typo in the lede, by the way. It would probably be a good idea to get a decent reference for the Swedish situation.--Boson (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, created. I want to say more about the other currencies on there though so its not so much a duplicate of certain euro articles. any ideas?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Flags banners

Why my modification of current euro users has been removed ? Euro is official currency (with the agreement of the european commission) of french TAAF, St Martin and St barth. It also the official currency of british bases in Cyprus (also with EU agrement)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.201.159 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a tad more complicated than that, the UK bases use it in a de facto capacity as they previously used the Cypriot pound, they have no formal agreement to do so. As for the French territories, some are already part of the EU and hence don't need an agreement. See the article it links to.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For UK bases, the agreement is given by the third protocol to the Cyprus' adhesion treaty to EU that authorizes both states to determine legal practise inside the bases as previously ruled by 1960 treaties.
For legal introduction of Euro in both bases see Ordinance 18 of 2007 (7th august 2007) http://www.sba.mod.uk/SBA%20Legislation/Ord%202007/Euro%20Ordinance%202007.pdf
So i think this isn't an "de facto" use.

For the French DOM/COM:
The protocol for France annexed to the EU Treaty authorises France to determine by an act the currency use in all oversea possessions and the parity of the Pacific franc.
France decided that euro would be used in all DOM, St Pierre et Miquelon and Mayotte, all that where using french franc in 1999.
Note that Mayotte will enter the EU in 2 years (becoming a DOM after a 2009 referendum)...
Wallis & Futuna, French Polynesia and New-Caledonia still use Pacific franc upon an local request.

So i think my modification were pertinent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.201.159 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, now we're entering the realm of what constitutes an agreement. The microstates have formal "monetary agreements" with a state and the Council on usage of the Euro, usually giving it coin minting rights. I think we need to redefine the categories to settle this. I don't know enough on this topic, I'll drop notes to other editors to clear this up so we can keep all the articles in sync.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, in a broader point, what counts as an official use and an unofficial user? And should we list all overseas territories as the US$ article does?- _J.Logan`^t: 14:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Official use should be considered as effective when both two following conditions are presents:

- An international agreement from the European institutions regardless its type (Formal International treaty, unilateral act,...)

- An internal act that made Euro legal tender regardless its type (Constitution, Act of a Parliament, Ordinance, etc...)

That's the way for all EU members States that decided to change their currencies for the Euro.

For France overseas possessions, Cyprus and UK bases in Cyprus there is protocols to formal Treaty.

For Monaco, San marino and Vatican there is a formal Treaty with France or Italy (acting fort all the UE member-states) with this micro State.

All theses territories and States have internal acts establishing Euro as legal tender.

The tree categories should be:

- EU member States:

- Agreement with EU:

- Others users:

Note than any sovereign State should adopt any foreign currency as legal tender (but it cannot be opposed to the emitting State). Zimbabwe done it (they didn't had a lot of others alternatives), it's also the case for some States with US dollar or Russian rouble.

I think it's necessary to list all places where Euro is (in a legal way) an official currency. There is also an use of Euro for commercial or tourist purposes but it isn't similar: it's an facility not an legal duty to use Euro (See Gilbratar, Euro accepted everywhere but only Gibraltar pounds should be officially use). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.200.194 (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have all the data on these countries though? Was there any minor agreement made with Montenegro for instance, Kosovo I think had some kind of approval as it was the UN/EU mission there choosing it. Also, should we not distingush those countries that can mint euro?- _J.Logan`^t: 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems to be a bit unclear whether there is a suitable agreement in force or not, I suggest three categories:

• EU users
• Other EUR issuers
• Other users

ME, AD and Kosovo can't issue EUR money, so they are "other users". GB can't issue EUR either, so the SBAs are also "other users". The DOMs are part of the EU, so they are "EU users". The TOMs are not part of the EU, but FR (of which they are a part) can issue EUR, so they are "other EUR issuers". MC, SM and VA are "other EUR issuers". (Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

For France: Euro is also the official currency of Clipperton (see art. 14 of french law n° 2007-224 of 21/02/2007) but there is nobody there ...

I found on the ECB site this Powerpoint done for lawyers and that list theses cases with legal references except for Montenegro

(see http://www.ecb.int/events/pdf/conferences/emu/CZilioliEMULawyersConference.pdf)

Note that UN isn't EU and introduction of euro in Kosovo instead of US Dollar has been decided as provisional.

For Montenegro:

Euro became official currency on 1/1/2002. German mark were withdrawn on 31/03/2002.

see http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Bilteni/Engleski/b020102_e.html#N6

I can't find any legal reference in French, English or Spanish...

Regarding UN-EU, yes it isn't the same but the EU presence is so strong, I can't imagine there wasn't some kind of assent or agreement for its usage in the same way there was probably some kind of assent from the Germans. Question is, what form did that assent take? The links you have up don't really elaborate much on the situation.

Regarding Users / other issuers other users. I'd say that's okay but we still have to fit it to the template's "official" and "unofficial". After looking through as many other articles I can find, the logic seams to be that official is not whether the country has officially adopted it, but whether said country is part of the entity or agreement which issues it. For example, US dollar is officially used by the US itself and its territories, but not by third countries even if they have adopted it as their currency. Ditto for UK pound, Australian dollar. I's say this is the safest route so we don't get bogged down in agreements which I still don't think is a good measure of whether it is official like the eurozone as you could say practically all countries using it have it as their official currency. Anyhoo, it still leaves the three countries which issue it somewhere in the middle, I say stick them under official but in a different bracket as they are now but a clearer indication of their status as "agreement" is too vague: say "extra-EU issuing rights"? That okay?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify actually, as there is the question of whether French territories outside the EU are part of the issuing area - I'd say yes so I propose this;
| using_countries =

Eurozone (16)

• Austria
• Belgium
• Cyprus
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Netherlands
• Portugal
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain

3 states with extra-EU issuing rights

• Monaco
• San Marino
• Vatican City

5 French territories outside the EU

• French Southern and Antarctic Lands (France)
• Mayotte (France)
• Saint Barthélemy (France)
• Saint Martin (France)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France)

| unofficial_users =

5 countries and territories

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK)
• Andorra
• Kosovo
• Montenegro
• Zimbabwe

- _J.Logan`^t: 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose this alternative version:

Eurozone

• Austria
• Belgium
• Cyprus
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Netherlands
• Portugal
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain

Associated States with EU

• Monaco
• San Marino
• Vatican City

Overseas territories of EU States

• Clipperton (France)
• French Southern and Antarctic Lands (France)
• Mayotte (France)
• Saint Barthélemy (France)
• Saint Martin (France)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France)
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK)

Others users

• Andorra
• Kosovo
• Montenegro
• Zimbabwe

(83.156.115.75)

Fine with moving A&D up, but so long as we keep the headers as that makes it clear, so it would be "Member state territories outside EU" or something similar. They have to be distinguished from those within the EU which are assumed and part of the eurozone. Ditto, I don't like "Associated states with EU" as that could mean so many things, there are loads of states "associated" with the EU and in totally different ways - best to stick with issuing rights as that makes sense.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What about uninhabited locations (such as Clipperton)? Euro may be legal tender on paper, but there's no one there doing any euro transactions. Should the lists be based on actual usage; that is, should we only list areas if there are people there actually using the currency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting point. I included it in good faith from the above proposal though I wasn't totally sure if it was warranted. Thing is, we are dealing with the legal situation here and the island is outside the EU and its official currency is the euro, ergo it goes in the list. But of course there is no one there so no currency circulates. I figure this is something that needs to be put in a side note, and as we can't put a note after we remove it I say we include it but put a ref saying no one lives there so it is de jure only. Anyone else got thoughts on this matter?

I'd also like to point out to the person who altered the template, that TAAF is inhabited, but only sparsely.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

EUR is the de jure currency of the Terres australes et antarctiques françaises, but which currency is used de facto by the inhabitants?

Euro, I haven't seen anything to the contrary.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Antarctica was full of different research stations from different countries, using different currencies on each station. Are there only Eurozone research stations in the French part of Antarctica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

De facto, Euro is used for all transaction in TAAF: in Kerguelen for buying stamps or goods such as a Telécarte (local phone cards for using on satellite public phones), in Dumont D'urville base (Antartica) also use in binational Concordia base (France & Italy). In all TAAF there is permanent human presence with postal office and a government local office.

for stamps, see http://www.taaf.fr/rubriques/philatelie/timbres/philatelie_timbres.htm

For the flag use it could be easier to use

Overseas territories of EU States

• Oversea France outside EU (Clipperton, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Mayotte, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK)

In Antartica, there is several bases from Eurozone States: - Aboa / Finland - Condordia / France & Italy - Dumont d'Urville / France - Gabriel de Castilla / Spain - Juan Carlos 1st / Spain - Princess Elisabeth / Belgium - Neumayer III / Germany - Kohnen / Germany - Zucchelli / Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.122.197 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do ?

Do we include this version ?

Eurozone

• Austria
• Belgium
• Cyprus
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Ireland
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Malta
• Netherlands
• Portugal
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• Spain

Associated States with EU

• Monaco
• San Marino
• Vatican City

Overseas territories of EU States

• Oversea France outside EU (Clipperton, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Mayotte, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin and Saint Pierre and Miquelon)
• Sovereign base areas of United kingdom in Cyprus (Akrotiri and Dhekelia)

Others users

• Andorra
• Kosovo
• Montenegro
• Zimbabwe

It's already in place.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for a Finnish footnote, but otherwise fine. Alandia has always used the same currency as the rest of Finland, so nothing strange there. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

€, €c, Euro cents, number of digitals after the decimal sign and ... k€ and M€

Request for comments/collaboration on writing a chapter on the above mentioned topic

I notice often € and other currencies, s.a. $ and Pound Sterling are quoted till 4 digits after the komma, which makes sense as there is a large market that e.g. quoting prices of commodities e.g. potatoes upto 4 digits after the komma as they are often quoted in Euro cents. We need an official way to write down Euro cents: €c or €cents or Euro cents or Euro Cents or even c€ ... like you'd have grams=g and milli grams = mg ... and on the other side of the komma: kg. What do you think, which one should we go for?

And we have to make sure people quoting prices in c€ to do that upto 2 figures after the komma: 7,85 c€ to be concistent with the 4 digit €: 0,0785 € = 7,85 c€.

On the other side of the scale, k€ and M€ are often needed to in this world of upscaling under the Agenda21 and Low Carbon Economy.

Here's my assist to start a paragraph on this topic:

€, c€, k€, M€ and numbers of digits after the digital sign

There is a worldwide agreement that currencies like the €, $, etc. are quoted upto 4 digits after the digital sign. There is a necessity in many sectors to quote the € in Euro cents and kilo Euro, Mega Euro. To be congruent in logic, people in sectors that need to quote prices in Euro cents are requested to do so as follows: 7,89 c€ and not 7,9 c€. Because 7,89 c€ is in line with the logic of quoting € upto 4 digitals after the decimal sign: 0,0789 € and in line with the directives of the EU Comissionar on the protection of consumers, avoiding that rounding up decimals result in large absolute sums not being directed to the consumer yet into the pockets of traders, not even the producers.

The c€ follows the logic of SI for e.g. 7,89 grams = 0,0799 kilo grams = 0,0799 kg

This logic is also used as a directive for sectors needing to quote or work in large numbers, for them it is recommended to use k€, M€ and dropping any reference to after digit numbers, which - in mathematics - suggest to the reader the numbers have a precision to 2 or 4 digits after the decimal sign.

An email has to be sent to the ISO organisation and to the European Comission, DG on Communication, DG Consumer Protection, DG Trade to help write and implement this directive and oblidge ISO to write the directive and make sure it is know worldwide. I've sent an email to EU-DG Communication to Claudia CANNEVARI on the topic and requesting her help to push this at the ISO organisation. Working on Agenda21-Chapter IV: Means of Implementation / Bringing money to the citizen/consumer. --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Full support. --Dch (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

People usually say "cents" or "euro cents", but I've never heard of "centieuros", so "c€" looks strange to me. (130.237.227.116 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

The biggest problem with this as it stands is that, while it is all a valid opionion, it falls foul of WP:OR. We can only report what is, we can't report what should be (in your opinion).

• We can certainly say that the ECB has not announced a symbol for cent.
• We can say (with citations) that some shops and market traders have adopted the notation, ¢ that is common in the USA - provided we can find a citation or at least a photograph. I have seen this in Ireland and Italy.
• It is common in business spreadsheets to head a column with k€, k$ or k£, or with M€, M$ and certainly M¥, as appropriate. But these are certainly not seen in general public use, so it is POV/OR to report them unless you can find a mainstream press article where one is used. Some business people choose to follow the ISO convention for thousand and million, but there is no ISO specification that says this, and we can't report that there is - still less that there ought to be.
• Precision has to be related to the context. €0.789 is a sensible figure if talking about the price per grain of gold in buiness. If the subject is an an apple in your corner shop, 79¢ is sensible and 78.9¢ or €0.789 are slightly insane.

--Red King (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Cent says [without citation] that a simple c is widely used throughout the Union to denote cents, though no doubt the Greeks use λ. --Red King (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's incorrect. The only place I've been to where the "c" notation was common is Ireland. Everywhere else it's "ct," "Cent," "€ 0,99" or the dreaded overlong "eurocent." But these things are different in different languages, and we should be following English-language conventions here.SergioGeorgini (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so when we discuss the appropriate notation of usage we refer to the one English speaking country which uses the euro: Ireland. Anyone know how they spell cent in Greek?? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lepton, Λεπτου or similar - it's on the national side of the greek cent. --Red King (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting confused with my atomic particles. Cent (currency) says

• Euro - the coins bear the text EURO CENT; Greek coins have "ΛΕΠΤΟ" ("lepto") on the obverse of the one-cent coin and "ΛΕΠΤΑ" ("lepta") on the obverse of the others. Actual usage varies depending on language.

--Red King (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

side note

Just a small side note. I understand that the euro articles are mostly edited by Europeans, most of whom speak English as a second language, and that makes sense, but please realize that English has its own peculiar ways of writing things. For one, decimals are separated by periods, not commas as in most European languages. The currency sign comes before, and if a K is used it is used as following: "€10K." Not "10 k€." And if a standard notation for euro cents is needed, then in English that would be either "€0.99," "99c" or "99¢." These things cannot be centralized, as much as the EU would like it to. SergioGeorgini (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

... much as EU demonologists like to think that it would like it to, but it doesn't. Ever heard of subsidiarity#European Union law? --Red King (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We're digressing. SergioGeorgini (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen the US cent sign (¢) used for a euro cent, it is not even on the keyboards in most European countries. I had to copy-paste it! The usual notation is "€0.05", I have only rarely seen "5c"; though perhaps somebody with from Ireland (the one English speaking country which has the euro as official currency) could inform us what is common practice there. I don't think you can claim that most of the editors are not native English speakers. Apart from the Irish, there are a large number of British people with familiarity with the euro from travel, plus > 1 million who live in euroland[1]. See also Linguistic issues concerning the euro. TiffaF (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While it's slightly off-topic, I really do think that the hundreds of instances of "40,5€," "30,--€" and similar notations that have appeared on Wikipedia articles over the years can be attributed to continental Europeans. The original poster of this thread also uses commas as decimal separators, and therefore I suspect he or she might also fall into this category. There's nothing wrong with that of course; it makes perfect sense that an article on a German company would be edited by a German. However, it should be noted that such notations vary per language and not per sign. The Irish tend to use a "c," by the way. Probably analogous to the "p" for pence. SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish word for euro

As was mentioned by someone in archive 6, no one in Ireland who speaks Irish uses the word "eoró". We only ever use "euro" in Irish. As someone who speaks Irish, I can vouch for the fact that the common everyday spelling for the currency in Irish is euro. The Irish government only ever uses "euro" in the Irish language, the education system teaches "euro" as the correct spelling, and the language's regulatory body, Fóras na Gaeilge, uses "euro" as does focal.ie, the only online dictionary endorsed by Fóras na Gaeilge. With this in mind, I am removing "eoró" from this article. If anyone can give a good reason or reference for its inclusion, please do inform us. Dennisc24 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair case but I do have a good reason because in Monaghan even though the Irish language is not widely spoken here, they do use eoró when speaking. I think it should be reinstated into the article, in fairness you can't say no one and delete the word "eoró" when I made a case saying that it is used, in north Monaghan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that people use the word "eoró" when speaking, considering that it would be pronounced in much the same way?? Unless you have witnessed it in written form, it can be very hard to say that "eoró" is used. The last census (2006) recorded that 39.6% of Monaghan's 55,816 inhabitants could speak Irish - 22,103 people. Even if every one of those people chose to use "eoró", I would think that it can hardly justify that the word should be included in the infobox for a currency used by 329,000,000 people. Dennisc24 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - as a reasonably decent speaker, I've never even heard of "eoró". That's as bad as "gobhairneoir" or "heiliceaptar". Every Irish speaker I know of says and writes "euro", which happens to agree with the official dictionary spelling. Even if "eoró" is written by a small number of people, and I suspect it is very small, I don't think we should clutter the article with (very) colloquial spellings. All the besht, Destynova (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The undoubtedly most authoritative sources on that are Forás na Gaeilge, and Department of Education, neither of which use "eoró". FnG, doesn't even list it as a word [2] . - Estoy Aquí (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Precursors of the Euro

In The Times of 25 August 1838, from a report of a speech by IP Cory

'I should be unwilling to close this paper (on decimal currency) without advertising to the advantage which might be derived from a general convention dollar of all the civilized kingdoms, bearing the insignia of each separate kingdom upon its obverse, and some general conventional symbol upon its reverse. ... (Suggested countries involved included France, Austria, Saxony, Bohemia, and Sicily and Naples) ... it would not only facilitate our commerce as an instrument of exchange, but would eventually become the basis upon which a general convention dollar would ere long be current throughout the world.'

Would this be a sufficiently close description to make the Euro unpatentable? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"European Euro"

Craigzomack has added "European" as a prefix in the infobox. My first thought is that no one calls it that, it isn't know as such and as the sole currency with that name, and a name relating to its area, it serves no purpose other than to look odd. However, the usual conventions are for some kind of prefix, maybe "EU Euro" so rather than revert, what does everyone else feel about this. Is there a prefix we an use that doesn't make it look silly?- _J.Logan`<sup>t</sup>: 13:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Actually, I am going to revert pending other feedback, there is a precedent: Renminbi.- <sub>J</sub>.Logan`^t: 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Need usage and convention in other articles set a precedent here? Many units of currency (e.g. pound, dollar, franc, crown) are or were used in more than one country, so distinguishing them was necessary. Not needed here, so indeed RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ja, Hallo :-), I Thought It Was A Good Idea, As It Is European, It`s Not Like It Is Used In Africa ?, I Think "EU Euro", Is A Good Idea: Craigzomack

Ceuta and Melilla use the euro and are located in Africa. --BIL (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that the euro was an exception from the prefixes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plarem (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

EMU breakup

This article never mentions the risk of an EMU breakup. This has been a concern ever since the creation of the currency. Maybe this should be addressed. Tony (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not too happy about

• adding what is basically the same speculation about a breakup of the EMU in three different places;
• non-mainstream speculation being represented as factual likelihood;
• speculation being substantiated by citing what appears to be a commentary or op-ed piece by a libertarian activist with a PR background;
• speculation being backed up by citation of a paper that apparently argues the extreme unlikelihood of such a speculative scenario.

--Boson (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Very simple. The article should only be about facts, not speculations based on hatred, jealousy and general wishful thinking for EMU to break apart. If it should happen then and only then should it be mentioned. By the same token, why don't articles on the dollar or the English pound talk about breakup of those currencies. Whatever force that could break apart the euro could also break apart the dollar and pound as well.

Even though euro-haters are encouraged by the fiscal problems presently in some EU countries, one should note that a default by any one of them would hurt the dollar and pound more. The EU bankers were very clever when lending money to the troubled nations - they insured (credit default swaps) those loans with banks outside the eurozone, mostly US and British. This assures that if there is a default, the euro is protected and the burden of the default falls on the insurers. The US & UK banks are not in a position to pay the insurance should a default happen and would literally topple their respective economies. The eurozone would suffer some shock, but would recover quickly.

Despite the problems in the eurozone countries, these countries do continue to manufacture and produce goods that are in demand in the world and bring in money. This will help recapitalize the EU economy in the event of any effects from a default. The US & UK produce nothing and have no means to bring in money to restore their economies when they do indeed fail.

Those who wish for a breakup won't see it, but they will see the US & UK fall hard.

I will dig up more sources soon Tony (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Before the creation of the Euro, there were concerns about the viability of the project: [3] [4]

This was not limited to American newspapers: [5]

Newspapers don't determine a nation's fiscal policy. They are there to spread any vicious lie that the ignorant will believe and continue to buy their papers.

This is currently talked about by respectable newspapers: [6]

Who determines if a newspaper is respectable? Is it considered respectable only when it agrees with one's personal but biased opinion?

In Spanish too: [7] [8]

This is actually a fundamental problem of a currency union. This is why Germany insisted on the Stability and Growth Pact. This article nowhere mentioned any of this, which is a problem. I am not saying that a breakup will happen (I have no idea), but it is not good to hide it either. People are mentioning it. As for the form, I don't really mind if it's only in one location as long as this article is not written as cheer leading from the various EU governments. Tony (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The eurozone is not a currency union. In a currency union each nation maintains their own currency but agree to accept the others currency at an agreed exchange rate in their own country. This is not the situation in Europe. Europe got rid of their old currencies and now have one single currency. There is not multiple currencies united together. The euro is controlled by the ECB not any individual nation. The the rules and conditions of a traditional currency union don't apply to the euro. Only an ignorant person would make comments relating the euro to a currency union.

Nevertheless, it is crystal ball gazing and WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Red King (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Mentioning the discussions is not crystal balling - these discussions happen now. This is very different from saying that the EU WILL break-up in the future.Sijo Ripa (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Boson, this is crystal balling. There is only a microscopic chance it could happen and while there are discussions about the weaknesses in the structure of the euro, what is more likely to happen is that it would prompt further integration to rectify those faults. Any country leaving the eurozone would in fact be creating more problems without solving the original ones. This is just a few journalists having a bit of fun.- _J.Logan`^t: 01:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Boson and JLogan, this is crystal balling. - SSJ ☎ 02:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid giving it undue weight. But it should be kept in the article, in a sentence or two. Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing that it will happen (in the future). That I don't know, nobody knows. But in the present they are serious people who question the viability of the union. This is not about what may or may not happen, this is about right now. A currency union is difficult when labor cannot move easily within the area. These potential problems cannot be ignored. Now, for the form, I don't care, as long as we don't hide it. Tony (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Only when one analysis has become common and mainstream, we should mention it in the article IMO. I don't see this occurring today. What has labour mobility got to do with this issue? - SSJ ☎ 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The speculation about the viability of the currency union does not really belong here. See the article Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union and the other articles mentioned there (including the historical articles). Three mentions in this article amounts to undue weight. The sources cited in the article do not support the statements made and/or are unreliable as noted above. For instance:

• The claim made under Euro#Usage as reserve currency "The status of the Euro as a potential currency reserve has been under question since February 2010, because concerns over the solvency of Greece prompted fears that the monetary union may end." is not supported by the reference cited, except as original research. The article makes no mention of the reserve currency issue.
• The claim made under Euro#Optimal currency area "However, even before the creation of the single currency, there were concerns over diverging economies." is not supported by the cited reference, which states "It is unlikely . . .that one or more members of the euro area will leave in the next ten years; total disintegration of the euro area is even more unlikely.". While concerns are mentioned, the cited article refutes them. The discussion of such concerns at the inception of the EMU rightly belongs in the article History of the European Monetary Union, not here.
• The claim made under Euro#Exchange rates is not supported by the cited reference, which is an opinion piece that does not discuss interest rates and argues for maintenance of the EMU (or even creation of an additional construction). Using this article (written by someone with strong Libertarian advocacy connections) to support the statement also amounts to original research.

Personally, I think one carefully worded and reliably sourced statement about the current worries in the exchange markets that avoids undue weight and original research would be in order, but what is there now is misleading. It might be a good idea to think about adding content to Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union.--Boson (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Merkel is openly considering excluding Greece by the way: [9] Tony (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The cited source actually says: 'Mrs Merkel said that "in the future we need an entry in the [EU] treaty that would make it possible, as a last resort, to exclude a country from the eurozone if the conditions are not fulfilled again and again over the long term.". In other words, Merkel is saying that the Treaty should be changed in the future to allow countries to be excluded. That is slightly different. And guess who has to approve changes to the treaty. See also North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2010.--Boson (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody wishing to reconsider? Tony (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My view remains as stated above:

Personally, I think one carefully worded and reliably sourced statement about the current worries in the exchange markets that avoids undue weight and original research would be in order. . . . It might be a good idea to think about adding content to Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union. --Boson (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is no extensive discussion of a potential break-up of the USD in the US-Dollar article, there should not be one here. The situation is the same for both currency areas. 178.113.158.209 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Very undemocratic to stifle the very real possibility that this experiment is unfeasible or unviable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[Info on Euro] Hedge Funds betting against the Euro after private meeting on Feb 8 - US Department of Justice investigating legality - Orders them to keep transaction records for investigation

Reuters article on the meeting: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2515219020100226

BusinessWeek article on the DoJustice investigation: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/u-s-said-to-tell-hedge-funds-to-save-euro-records-update2-.html

Bloomberg article on the investigation: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGwpiEXSgoxs&pos=3

Wall Street Journal article on the Hedge Funds' 'ganging' of euro. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703795004575087741848074392.html --AaThinker (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Euro coins

Sorry, my bad, didn't see the dot after the 1:1 - _J.Logan`^t: 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

wrong exchange rate

This year's all time low (so far) was on 8 April (1.3296) according to the source given, not on 23 April (1.3311 against the USD). I corrected this. According to the same source (ECB) the long term average is at 1.1821 by the way. This comes close to the rate when the euro was introduced (1.1789). One year ago (23 April 2009) the euro was at 1.3050 (without Greek drama). There is still a long way to its all time low of 0.8252 - which was very good for exporters by the way. Just one more fact: Greece makes up for 2.6 % of eurozone GDP (data of 2008). --77.181.220.52 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

use of euro outside EMU in European Union

It is very common to accept euro in many countries which are not currently using it (for instance in Czech Republic). The situtation is really not rare and it is not only policy of big companies. I think there should be at least a small section in this article dedicated to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.11.4 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to it: International status and usage of the euro.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Characteristics" should follow "Introduction of the Euro"

I believe it makes more sense to have first the "Introduction" / history of the Euro, followed by its' characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.6.58 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

the symbol should precede the amount.

Though I agree, it seems the French are rigid on doing the opposite. It is not easy to believe they were the ones trying to teach us the metric system. I have been on the internet pages of Moulin Rouges. It is beside the point to say it was pricy, but when you do not know were the € is supposed to be.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

As the summary in the main article Linguistic issues concerning the euro shows, the euro sign follows the amount in most languages/countries.--Boson (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems even the Germans do just that. They are the champions both to introduce the Euro, and to maintain it's credibility. I wish I could argue against an expert. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Plural, for future reference

I have recently added an explicit indication of the plural at the very beginning of the article. I have all reasons to believe this decision will be contested in the future, so here are the reasons why I believe the plural (in that form) should stay:

1. It is an atypical plural, as opposed to many other words in English that end with an o: hero (heroes), potato (potatoes), tomato (tomatoes), and so on;
2. It is an atypical plural in any language, as illustrated by Linguistic issues concerning the euro;
3. This is the English Wikipedia, and it should therefore explain English language terms -- it is quite all right for the introductory phrase to explain the particularities of a term in English, as long as the article goes on to explain its particularities in other languages as well.

Anticipating other arguments along the lines of WP:NOT#DICT, please see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs in the intro, where the details cannot be explained. The problem, as I see it, is that in certain very restricted circumstances (and particularly in certain parts of the English-speaking world) the invariant form euro is also used for the plural. If it does remain in the intro, a footnote might be appropriate. --Boson (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rarely used coins

Here in Portugal, the 0.01€ and 0.02€ are actually very common -- retailers rely heavily on x.99€-type prices. I believe the first statement in the article's infobox is incorrect. Nomad (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The text in brackets explains that the infrequent label only applies to Finland and the Netherlands. I not surprised you were confused. It would be better if the infobox dealt with the eurozone in general. These coins are in general use in the eurozone taken as a hole and moreover, there is no need to label coins as being either in frequent or infrequent usage. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Well, that first statement sure is misleading, I'll tell you that. ;) I agree with you that labeling the coin usage as frequent or infrequent is a bit odd -- unless, of course, there is solid data supporting that. Thanks for clarifying this! Nomad (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Setec Oy as printer

Can someone clarify the situation regarding Setec? In its own article it's listed as no longer being a printer, yet we continue to list it here. Is it a printer or not? - Estoy Aquí (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mayotte

The note 13 gives the impression that the status of Mayotte changes something regarding the Euro in 2011. Indeed, the euro was the only currency of Mayotte since its introduction and not since 2011. 90.58.248.124 (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Estonia in eurozone

Estonia is full member of eurozone since 1st january, but on map I still can't see Estonia as blue. When I open the file, it shows correct map. Where's the problem. I can't solve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.82.183 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See Bypass your cache Ron 1987 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of collapse

I have made an edit to the optimal currency are subsection to reflect the very real possibility of a country leaving the euro. The reference claiming the chance was slim, while only 4 years old, was written in an entirely different economic climate and I didn't think it would be right to leave it completely unchallenged. If someone could find a better counter claim than the weak one I found it would be appreciated. Aaronsharpe (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any comments on any possibilities. It isn't fact and is only speculation based on personal bias, hatred and jealousy of the euro. Such comments should be removed or better yet never added. Articles should only contain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.207.203 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

While we should be careful not to speculate, it is entirely appropriate to discuss well referenced discussion of the possibility of a departure. It is entirely relevant to the currency union to discuss to possibilities of countries both joining and leaving. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Euro crisis

At least some attention should be made to the European sovereign debt crisis, which could very well mean the end of the Euro. The whole article manages not to even mention it! Joepnl (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it mentions/links to it 4 times, but it perhaps deserves its own section. --Boson (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Euro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Please fix to meet criteria listed below. Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The vast majority of the references come from highly reliable sources: academic economists, statements by the European Central Bank etc. Can't see any problems here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I've expressed a concern below about the lack of inclusion of political as well as economic issues, but this isn't enough to block GA: it's just something that would be nice to have for the reader and would help satisfy the 'comprehensiveness' requirement of FAC if there are any plans to go to FAC.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All seems pretty reasonable to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Can't see any edit warring etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A couple are fair use, all have reasonable rationales.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please sort out the issues listed below. Done

More detailed comments

Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).

Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.

From the 'Investment' section:

Studies have found a negative effect of the introduction of the euro on investment as of 2008 economic collapse and the continued currency speculation by Goldman Sachs .

This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.

It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.

Y Done – Now it looks like this:

Studies have found a negative effect of the introduction of the euro on eurozone investment as of the European sovereign debt crisis and the continued currency speculation by Goldman Sachs.

– Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.

From the one-line Tourism section:

A study suggests that the introduction of the euro has had a positive effect on tourism flows within the EMU, with an increase of 6.5%.

What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.

Y Done - Now it looks like this:

A study suggests that the introduction of the euro has had a positive effect on the amount of tourism travel within the EMU, with an increase of 6.5%.

– Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

€500 banknote

The "Coins and banknotes" sub-section currently has " Some of the highest denominations such as the €500 are not issued in all countries due to criminal use . . ."

• There is no indication of any particular Eurozone country that does not issue such notes (which would help verification).
• There is no source for the alleged fact that some (Eurozone) countries do not issue the notes.
• There is no source for the motivation for such alleged non-issuance ("due to criminal use").
• The cited sources refer to "sale" of the notes in the UK, which does not issue any euro banknotes, since it is not part of the Eurozone.

--Boson (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (sentence removed with extreme prejudice). The proper article for a sentence of that nature is Euro banknotes. Flamarande (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Frequently used?

Are the smallest coins really "frequently used" everywhere?
And at least in Finland the 100, 200 and 500 euro notes are quite rare. I haven't myself even ever had any of those. I see the 100 and 200 notes few times a month, but it is maximum five times total I've seen the 500 euro note. It might be different in other countries, but isn't it actually original research to say which are frequent and which are rare? Since there is no citation. 85.217.15.10 (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't say frequently used any more. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

US economists on the euro, 1989–2002

Why is there a specific section on this topic? Why are American economist singled out? This has the appearance of being part of a juvenile internet forum trans-Atlantic spat about who's currency is better. Is there solid academic backing for singling out American economists vs. any other economists in this period? Maybe there is, but it seems like an odd subsection in a general article on the euro. I would advocate a reformulation of the section to a more general discussion. --Peregrine981 (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, it should be moved to the main history article.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Flamarande (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Issuing Euro

My understanding is that every member state issues Euro. How is it determined how much Euro can issue a country every year ?Srelu (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the national central banks and the European Central Bank work together every year to estimate what the demand for new notes and coins will be in the following year and then the work of issuing the new notes/coins is divided proportionally between the national banks. (Connolly15 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

Macroeconomic stability: badly writen and unsourced

This section reads like POV or original research. "Low levels of inflation are the hallmark of stable and modern economies." says who? Does it imply that there will be no inflation in the future? Are there such documented tendencies? "Because a high level of inflation acts as a tax ... it is generally viewed as undesirable." Very few would argue, common knowledge, should this really be mentioned in Wiki-article? It's like saying "Because diseases decrease the quality of life they are generally viewed as undesirable." Statement that Euro Bank's task is to maintain low inflation implies that other banks don't care or it's known how to keep inflation low. Are there such references?

I think this sections should be either rewritten or deleted. Yurivict (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Though you put it more strongly than I would, I agree that the section needs rewriting, and it needs more sources. The main problem, I think, is that it appears to present a rather one-sided and simple view as fact, when reality is more complicated. Another example is provided by the statements about the independence of the central bank from the pressures of national governments and the strong implication that it was the independence of the central bank alone that brought about low inflation in Germany, for instance. Even with respect to the Bundesbank, I doubt if Karl Otto Pöhl would agree that formal independence meant that he was not under (very effective) pressure from Helmut Kohl and his government. Sources could probably be found for more differentiated statements like "according to . . . countries with an independent central bank have lower inflation in the long run".--Boson (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

EMU Breakup?

It's been discussed before, but I'd like to add a new source [10] that says: "Without a dramatic change of heart by the ECB and by European leaders, the single currency could break up within weeks". Now, we don't know the future, but in the present there are surely talks of a breakup. Tony (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just comment that the quote you have lifted doesn't seem to reflect the whole article. I could also easily quote this: "Can anything be done to avert disaster? The answer is still yes, but the scale of action needed is growing even as the time to act is running out." or "Even as the euro zone hurtles towards a crash, most people are assuming that, in the end, European leaders will do whatever it takes to save the single currency. That is because the consequences of the euro’s destruction are so catastrophic that no sensible policymaker could stand by and let it happen." It should also be pointed out that even as the Euro apparently is collapsing, other countries are still clambering to join - Croatia's accession will be affirmed next week, Turkey recently said it was still interested in adopting the Euro and Poland confirmed that it would remain on track to adopt the Euro. Talk of the break up of the Euro is still highly charged with rhetoric from both sides and I think anything written on this would have to be carefully balanced and avoid opinion pieces and editorials such as the source you provided. (Connolly15 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

"Anglo-Saxon"

I saw this sentence in the article: "Moreover, private-sector indebtedness across the euro area is also markedly lower than in the highly leveraged Anglo-Saxon economies."

I do not think the term Anglo-Saxon in this context should be appearing anywhere in this article, firstly because it is ambiguous (do you mean the British? The Americans? Both?) and secondly because it is a weasel word, used in Europe and particularly France, in a somewhat derogatory way towards the British (who are, of course, correctly referred to as "The British", having ceased to be Anglo-Saxon circa 1066). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.65.31 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this was a quotation from the Economist Intelligence Unit, I have inserted quotation marks and rephrased the paragraph a little. I think the meaning is clear, in context. --Boson (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: "capital key"

The 'Issuing modalities' section includes this text: "The other 92% of the euro banknotes are issued by the NCBs in proportion to their respective shares in the capital key of the ECB". This is the first mention of "capital key". What's that? Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) All I could find is this: http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/ecbhistoryrolefunctions2004en.pdf -- and it didn't help me. Jo3sampl (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this page explains it (http://www.ecb.int/ecb/orga/capital/html/index.en.html) ... "The NCBs' shares in this capital are calculated using a key which reflects the respective country's share in the total population and gross domestic product of the EU – in equal weightings. The ECB adjusts the shares every five years and whenever a new country joins the EU. The adjustment is done on the basis of data provided by the European Commission." (Connolly15 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

potential resource

The Failure of the Euro; The Little Currency That Couldn’t by Martin Feldstein January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This leaves only Germany with the prized AAA rating, and continues to rattle investors.

What wait help? The Netherlands didn't get downgraded yet did it? Joepnl (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The reference given may have been referring to 'major' countries, but Wikipedia should not.

See "The Netherlands Unsolicited 'AAA/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Off Watch Neg, Outlook Negative". Standard & Poor's. 2012-01-13. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?articleType=HTML&assetID=1245327300815. Retrieved 2012-01-19. "Standard & Poor's is affirming the 'AAA' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term unsolicited sovereign credit ratings on The Netherlands." 

--Boson (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

S&P affirmed the AAA ratings of Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands.--Boson (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)