Talk:Denmark and the euro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion at United Kingdom Euro Coins[edit]

Hi, there's a discussion currently ongoing about the potential renaming or merge/redirecting of this and other articles at Talk:United Kingdom euro coins#Crystal Balls that you may want to look at. I suggest that further discussion remain there. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 12:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Consequences Section[edit]

I have removed this section because I think it invites people to speculate.

I think we ought to take the gleeful predictions of a domino effect if Denmark votes yes with a pinch of salt. Similar predictions were made about Denmark, Sweden and the UK in 2002, after their populations been to the eurozone for our summer holidays - and this wasn't exactly close to the mark. If it's speculated elsewhere, we can report the speculation, but we can't speculate ourselves.

If you have a reliable source that a Danish "yes" vote would make Swedish entry more likely (or whatever) then I think it's probably relevant. A bit tangential, and more relevant to Sweden and the euro, but relevant. Pfainuk talk 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, but they might include not following the WP:OR policy:
In the Swedish euro referendum in 2003, the city of Haparanda (located just at the border with Finland) voted in favour of joining the eurozone (although only at a very narrow marigin of 50.2% in favour, or something like that). In other municipalities close to Haparanda, there maybe 80-90% voted against the euro, that part of Sweden being the most anti-EU part of Sweden. The fact that Haparanda voted in favour was most likely the proximity to Finland: everyone in Haparanda (and also in Torneå on the other side of the border) have to use both the currency of Sweden, and the currency of Finland (and have done so for a very long time). If both Sweden and Finland were to use the same currency, these people would only need to keep one currency in their wallets. Official referendum results at municipal results can be found somewhere at [1]. I think there were newspaper articles printed in Sweden right after the referendum that discussed the outcome of the referendum in Haparanda that could be used as a reference on Wikipedia.
Lots of Swedes and Danes live in Malmö or Copenhagen, and work on the other side of the sound. These people have the same problem: they need two currencies (SEK and DKK). Now let's say that Denmark adopts the euro. In that case, you might have the same "Haparanda effect" in Scania, with lots of people becoming in favour of the euro. Note that while Danes resident in Copenhagen may not vote in a Swedish referendum, those resident in Malmö may. Swedes resident in Denmark may vote. Don't know if there are any sources anywhere that can be used here.
My personal guess is that Swedish politicians plan to stay low with regard to the euro question, and then, if Denmark votes yes, wait for Denmark to adopt the euro and after that immediately bring it up again & attempt to hold another referendum. But then again, there's WP:CRYSTAL. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I agree, fundamentally, with your comment and your assessment. People who cross the sound every day and people who live in towns that border with the eurozone are likely to find it convenient to use the euro themselves in their own country. I would expect border areas in Northern Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland and so on all to use the euro far more than other parts of those countries, and to be more in favour of those countries joining the euro. The Oresund link means this would probably apply to Southern Sweden. I don't think WP:NOR allows us to extrapolate this on a larger scale, though, even if we include it here.
I think - maybe it's on Sweden and the euro - I found a BBC source from the lead-up to the 2000 referendum which said that the Danish result would have an impact on the chances of Swedish public opinion becoming pro-euro in either case. My own perception is that the fact that this time around euro coins and notes would be used immediately on adoption (whereas in 2000 it was still going to be kroner) would only intensify this impact - that's OR mind. Otherwise I don't see the situation has changed significantly.
Can [2] (in Swedish) be used as a reference here? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't speak Swedish so I've used Google to translate it. I think it could be used to state that the Danish referendum would have an effect on the Swedish debate as to whether to join. Not that Denmark joining would make it more likely for Sweden to join (I think it's likely that it would, but it would be OR in the article) but that any debate in Denmark will have conesquences for Sweden.
Dima, I'm going to revert that title. If this does go in, I think it belongs in the section about the 2008 referendum, not in a separate section. As I say we're not talking about euro adoption here specifically, but the debate on the subject of the euro whether the referendum passes or not. And I rather feel that having such a section title encourages people to write things under it despite your warning, just so that there's something there. Fact is, unless we can find sources giving the practical consequences of euro introduction in Denmark, then the section is useless. Pfainuk talk 22:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted that people take place in discussion of this section. Anyway, I think that we need section of such type. But we need to provide it with reliable sources and exclude all the speculations. People must know what POSSIBLE consequences could be. --Dima1 (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have sources for it, then add it. But the sorts of sources we're likely to get would be Danish government sources (fine, though the section would be better renamed Currency changeover plans or something.

It's a position that is appropriate elsewhere as well - Scottish independence for example. In that case, there are all sorts of practical consequences - would Scotland automatically join the EU or would it have to re-sign the treaties? Would it have to join the euro or would it be covered by the British exemption? What would happen to Britain's armed forces, Britain's nuclear arsenal, and so on? What would the name of the rump UK be? And would its flag change? There was a discussion on that talk page where someone asked and the answer was ultimately that we couldn't put it in the article, because it would all be speculation.

Ultimately, the only consequence that I think could be stated with any certainty would be that Denmark would use the euro instead of the kroner, just as happened in Greece, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus, the eurozone countries that were not part of the zone in 1999. If you can source further possibilities then go ahead but I wouldn't be surprised if this was difficult to do. And I don't think the section title should go in the article unless we have something concrete to go underneath it. Pfainuk talk 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we add something like this:

There has been some speculation as to whether the Danish referendum may affect the possibility that Sweden will adopt the euro.[1]

Comments, anyone? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'll go for that. It might need rewording slightly (...speculation that the Danish referendum will affect the Swedish debate on the euro.[ref]) , but the source is fine so no OR issues. Pfainuk talk 09:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added the text with your proposed rewording. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ Utspelet kan höja temperaturen i den iskalla svenska EU-debatten (in Swedish)


Polls[edit]

Why do you think that 2002 polls have less importance than polls held in 2007? In order to reflect the full topic we need them both. I completely disagree with removing it. --Dima1 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit said:

Poll commissioned in January 2007 by the financial paper Boersen and released a week ago shows that opinion is turning, with 57% of Danes saying they would now favour adopting the euro. [1]

I have several issues:

  • The edit says the poll was commissioned in January 2007, based on a source that was written in January 2002.
  • The edit says the poll was released "a week ago". The source says it was released "a week ago". But the source was written in 2002, and the edit was written 66 78 months later. The poll was not released on 10 July 2008 (or so), it was released on 10 January 2002 (or so).
  • An encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia should not use wording such as "a week ago". It would be pointless extra work to have to keep on adding a week every 7 days just to make sure that it's right. Note that the BBC publishes and dates its articles and leaves them there. Wikipedia does not date its articles, so "a week ago" implies a week ago - right now that's 10 July 2008.
  • The edit implies that this is a current trend. It says that it "shows that opinion is turning" (emphasis mine). A poll from 2002 can't be used to show that public opinion is doing anything very much in 2008. It can only tell you what it was in January 2002.
  • The edit states that "57% of Danes [say] they would now favour adopting the euro" (emphasis mine). The source says pretty much that. But the source was written on 17 January 2002, so "now" means "on 17 January 2002". Not on 17 July 2008 or on any date in the future as the edit implies.

In the proper context, yes it is perhaps appropriate to refer to historic polls. But they should not be used as if they demonstrate that is some kind of ongoing trend unless our sources outright say that and were written reasonably recently. Ideally though, it should give trends rather than specific moments.

January 2002 in particular was a moment when there was a significant bounce in support for euro membership among the peoples of Denmark, Sweden and the UK - largely due to the notes and coins being issued in the eurozone. We should be wary of implying any long term trends based on polls in that month. The fact that none of the three countries have joined in the 6½ years since then is rather significant in judging how important this bounce was overall. Pfainuk talk 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without your extrapolation as detailed above, all we have is one data point. All your source can be used to say is:

A poll commissioned in January 2002 by the financial paper Boersen showed that 57% of Danes were in favour of adopting the euro. [2]

I've been trying to find a way that this can actually coherently fit in with the current bit without original research, and I can't. Nor did I find any source that describes trends from the time - both before and after that data point.
What I did find was the Eurobarometer archives. One of the questions on the Eurobarometer is (or at least was) on the euro. I quote Denmark from research done in March-May 2002:

Almost half of the Danish population are positive towards replacing the Krone with the Euro

47% of the Danes consider it to be a very good or a fairly good idea, if the Krone is replaced with the Euro. However, there is also 20% of the population, who are neither positive nor negative. Consequently, from the Eurobarometer Poll nothing can be predicted as to how this group of 20% will vote in case of a referendum on this question.

So, using all of the Eurobarometers, we can give the state of the polls at many other times. It would be OR to use this to imply trends, but we can list them. A long table of Eurobarometer results seems pointless to me, and I don't have time to go through with it, but I don't mind if it goes in.
The current opinion polls, and trends, are more significant in any case as they give our readers a sense of what the Danish public think now.
In conclusion, I will be re-reverting your edit as it uses a six-year-old poll imply current trends, when implying any trends is OR unless cited with a source that actually does this interpretation. Pfainuk talk 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1762452.stm
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1762452.stm


Picture Captions[edit]

I can't work out how to edit picture captions, so I thought I'd mention this here. There are two pictures in the article (one of a sign in the airport, another of a receipt) that use the plural 'euros' in the caption. The correct plural of 'euro' is 'euro'; a simplification decided upon, I remember hearing at the time, to avoid confusion from different plurals in different languages of the Eurozone.

If I'm wrong, please let me know. If I'm right, can someone change the captions please?

--Pigsmoke (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Linguistic issues concerning the euro#English and Talk:Linguistic issues concerning the euro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch?[edit]

How does this statement from the "Status" section:

The ECB is also obliged to help protect the Danish currency in the case of speculative attacks.

Fit together with this one from the section "Consequences of a euro adoption":

Furthermore the ESCB does not defend the Danish krone exchange rate. This is done by Danmarks Nationalbank, and the Danish government. In a crisis it can be tough for a small country to defend its exchange rate.

--79.223.61.108 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polls II[edit]

Are there no newer polls than February 2013? --134.176.205.246 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is, january 2014: http://img.borsen.dk/img/cms/tuksi4/media/cmsmedia/2246_content_2_4038.pdf
30% yes, 62% no, 8 undecided. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties[edit]

Which of the bigger parties favours introduction of the euro and which opposes that? --134.176.67.239 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead of (and as part of) the elections to the European Parliament in May 2014, the positions were revealed. The opposition leader proposed agreement between yes-parties about a common European agenda, without including a common position how to deal with the 4 sensitive optouts. However, during the election campaign it became clear all yes-parties recommended to delay the 3 optout-elections ("Common Security and Defence Policy", "citizenship", and "adoption of the euro") until after the next parliamentary elections in 2015, while they all agreed it would be in Denmark's interest to schedule a "police and justice" opt-out election very soon - not to remove it but to transform it into an opt-in solution (providing the Danish politicians the power to choose who much of it we shall join, so that it would become possible for us to continue being part of Europol when it change status to become an EU-collaboration on 1 January 2015). Among the 9 Danish parties currently represented in the parliament, it is only the far left Red-Green Alliance + Socialist People's Party[3] and far right Liberal Alliance[4] + Danish People's Party who currently are against Denmark's adoption of the euro. All other 5 parties campaign for a yes, and argued the only reason for delaying the planned for euro referendum until "after the next parliamentary elections", was a reasonable need first to await the finalizing of the Banking Union plus the settlement of the dust from the european government-debt crisis - so that voters would fully know exactly what they were voting about. Danish Expert (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

Under the title "Pre-eurozone documents (1992–1999)" the article reads:

The Maastricht Treaty originally required that all EU member states except the UK join the euro. However, following a referendum on 2 June 1992 in which Danes rejected this treaty, Denmark negotiated the Edinburgh Agreement, under which Denmark was also allowed to opt out from eurozone membership, which was accepted in a referendum on 18 May 1993. As the result, Denmark is not required to join the eurozone.

This is incorrect. In the original Maastricht Treaty, signed on 7 February 1992, there are two attached protocols, one concerning the United Kingdom and one concerning Denmark, giving the two countries the possibility of opting out from the introduction of the euro. As a result of the Danish referendum, the Danish government activated the clause in the protocol concerning Denmark on 3 November 1993. However, the possibility of opting out was NOT a result of the referendum, it was included already in the treaty text. In other words, the Maastricht treaty did not require all EU member states except UK to join the euro. Denmark was also excepted from the very beginning. Actually, it would not have been possible to change the treaty text retroactively without a new ratification process. --Glentamara (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. I've gone ahead and rewritten it. Hopefully this addresses the problem. TDL (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you, --Glentamara (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit[edit]

Does the Brexit has an influence on public opinion in Denmark t join or (still) not join the euro? (Because DK will be the only counttry with an opt-out) --2A02:908:C30:3680:19E:28D8:822C:24D6 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denmark and the euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to the article[edit]

I'm doing a class on European Economic and Monetary Union and our assignment is to alter a wikipedia page. I have created new content for two sections for this article. The first section is the "Status", which I suggest to call "Current status - ERM II", where I have explained the situation of Denmark's opt-outs more in detail and what the current status of the Danish cooperation with the eurozone countries is. The second section I wish to contribute to is the "European Monetary System and pre-euro monetary co-operation" where I also have created a more detailed explanation of the monetary cooperations systems that have been before Denmark entered into the ERM II system. I hope you will find these contributions complementary. I look forward to your remarks. AnnikaFørgaard (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denmark_and_the_euro&oldid=1206934645"