Jump to content

Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 116.48.63.112 (talk) at 10:14, 10 November 2008 (→Image:European Union maximum enlargement.svg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEuropean Union Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


"most oppose the accession of a large Muslim country, indicating the opposition from a racist frame of reference"

What is this BS? Racism is about race, not culture or religion! Islam is a brutal, totalitarian culture that has woved to convert, kill or enslave the rest of the world(I have read the Quran so I know what I'm talking about). Who would not oppose nazism which is much less of a threat than Islam? Please remove this accusation of racism written by some naive Halal hippie. Thank you :) 83.92.26.162 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard the terms "religionism" or "culturism", like "racism" is to "race". I think the article is well put, particularly after the recent changes made to the Turkey section. If this IP user thinks the opposite, he/she can do the changes by him/her-self. And 100% backup to Andrew: NPA. My two yen worth opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and high seas fishermen

I'm removing an incorrect and unsourced statement from the section about Norway. See this article and the corresponding discussion page for more information. Dieus (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes sense, but I would suggest to change what it used to say here than erase it. What it used to say in this article is correct, but it is not the whole truth... Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's application for candidate could be in 2009 (declaration of Prime Minister)

The previewed year is 2008 for Albania, but such date is unrealistic. Please change it into 2009. See reference [1] --Sulmues 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Iceland and EU enlargement

Can someone with more in-depth insight of the issue refer to this and update the page if necessary? Check out the following article: http://euobserver.com/9/26870 It may show certain progress in Iceland towards EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.69.225 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this, this having been mentioned here as well. But I think this might be overly recentist on this - more general - article. Thing is, there's some reasonable chance this'll just turn out to be a red herring - that Iceland won't end up applying to the EU as a result of all this - and for now I think it probably belongs on the article Iceland and the European Union and not here. Pfainuk talk 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, way to much detail develops in this article because people add so many small events. Best see what happens, or at least take a much broader view of it (i.e. talk about the economic crisis in general rather than this one event).- J.Logan`t: 09:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Nice limits members?

Where does the Nice Treaty state the EU can only have 27 members? It states what happens when the EU has more than 27 members (not every country gets a commissioner), but apart from that...? —Nightstallion 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, been looking for ages. I have a feeling it is in one of those semi-legal declarations they usually don't stick in the online texts. Or of course they are just hiding it in jargon - you know, when it has that meaning in principle but reads something like "when the Union's territory includes between twenty-six and twenty-eight members and owns a small coffee shop in Sofia, then those countries to the west, south, north and east can not have canteen privileges at EU summits until the treaties are amended to the effect that the vice president of the economic and social committee can not have a second job"... or something. I'm trying to find someone who cites it but they're probably all citing us (maybe including Sarko) so it may take some time.- J.Logan`t: 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:European Union maximum enlargement.svg

I don't see "how the geographic criteria is important", it's more like an editor's personal opinion instead of evidence.

As the caption states "IF Greenland rejoined" it's blatantly crystal-balling/speculation("IF). At this moment, not one single piece of evidence shows that Greenland and Russia and Switzerland will join the Union. Naming it "European Union" doesn't necessarily mean it will be an All-Europe Union.

Without any evidence or any schedule, everything is speculative.

116.48.63.112 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union&oldid=250843543"