Talk:Enlargement of the European Union/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Internal EU Debate about Enlargement

There was a section on the page, that was removed, because it was considered not appropriate in its current form. But I think that it would be beneficial if we rewrite and then include it. Here it is: ==> After the negative outcomes of two of the four referendums on the European Constitution some member states (France being the most notorious) have expressed fears about future EU enlargements and the EU absorbtion capacity. These states envisioned an "internal debate about the furthest extent of the EU and where enlargement should stop". The debate should be accomplished through both formal and informal consultation between the member states. It is due to finish in the first half of 2006. So, the conditions before the debate are leaning in direction of restricting enlargement and not of enlarging the EU and it is very unlikely that entierly new groups of states (like non-European) will gain possibility for admission.

When the leaders make announcements about the debate it sounds appropriate, but the problem is that some of the real reasons (most importantly Turkey) behind the worries of France (and others) are already out of the scope of this debate.

  1. There is no opposition in the EU against possible EU membership of the EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland).
  2. There is no opposition (despite the institutional reworking probably needed) in the EU against possible EU membership of the European microstates (Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City).
  3. Some non-member states currently have agreements with the EU that have clear provisions about their possible future EU admission as full members. These states are the current acceding countries (Bulgaria, Romania), the current candidates (Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia) and the states parties to the Stabilisation and Association process (Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina). There is nothing to debate about their membership - they will join after covering the European Union Membership criteria (the debate is not about "when to admit", but "if to admit at all". Timing is out of the debate's scope).
  4. In Treaty of Maastricht (Article 49) is written that any European state can eventually join. Definition of "European" is left to political assessment by the European Council. Here is the point where the debate can be productive.

The precedents in its practice so far have been the following:
A geographicaly non-european states generaly were not be recognised as european and thus can not join (for example: Morocco's application rejection). This practice is very unlikely to be changed (see introduction of this section).
B geographicaly non-european states were recognised as european (and so eventually join the EU) only if there are special political exceptions like Council of Europe membership or similar considerations (for example: Cyprus admission). Maybe this practice is open to debate.
C geographicaly partially european states were recognised as european, because of the part of their territory that's in Europe (for example: Turkey candidate status approval). This practice may be open to debate.
D geographicaly european states were recognised as european and approved for candidates as soon as they cover the political criteria of Copenhagen (for example: all eastern european states). Maybe this practice is open to debate.

If the debate is going to achieve a real formal political declaration about future enlargement prospects it has to produce a list of states, that are considered to cover the requierments of Art.49 (beign european) and so, that are possible future candidates for joining the EU. The list may not be full, because obvious non-problematic states (group 1 and 2) may be omitted for political reasons.

Debate outcome list Even if a so-called totally minimalist version (stopping enlargement immediately) is adopted:

probability enlargement to reach here: mostly certain
But it would be nearly impossible to deny membership possibility to the following states:

  • Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus (these are the remaining states of the precedent D category and so is most likely to be discussed together regardless of individual current sitations)

probability enlargement to reach (and to stop) here: very likely (strong support among multiple current members; strong precedent practice of admission for very similar states)
The real news will be about the following group of states:

  • Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan (these states are from two different categories - precedent C and precedent B, but they are almost aways discussed together)

probability enlargement to reach here: somewhat likely
The following states, among other things, have not expressed any wish to join the EU:

probability for enlargement to reach here: unlikely
The remaining especially remote possibilities for enlargement, but anyway open for discussion are:

  • Cape Verde (precedent B or precedent A category; to be discussed only if Portugal insists hard enough)

probability for enlargement to reach here: unlikely

  • Mediterranean states (precedent A category; discussion will occur but the outcome will be almost certainly negative)

probability for enlargement to reach here: very unlikely

Considering the conditions that inspired the debate (strong supportive for group 1 and 2; strongly opposing precedent A group), the states for which the EU already has clear commitments for membership (group 3) and the states that show no interest in joining the EU - the heart of the debate and its most heated part logicaly should be forced around: Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Cape Verde. On the other hand signals from the officials show that the debate would instead focus on Turkey (nothing to debate here), Ukraine, Moldova and the Mediterranean states (outcome already mostly certain). The real product of the "big debate about EU enlargement" most probably will be reduced to dealings with Ukraine and Moldova only. This is because the time for such "big debate" has already passed (when the principal agreements about group 3 states were made) and the states with "undecided position of the EU about their membership" are already too few and too small (even Ukraine is small compared to EU33 consisting of EU25 and the group3 states). It would be more appropriate to open such "big debate" if there were wishes from Russia and Kazakhstan to join, but currently this is entirely out of the question. <== 212.36.8.100 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

War criminals

I found it weird that Mladic and Karadzic are not mentionned and Gotovina is. So I added both (but everyone is free to put it in a better place or something). Does anyone have a list of war criminals in the balkan whose capture is a condition for entering the EU?

Comments in article space

Note also the voluminous body of work devoted to explaining and predicting the integration of the EU. Such theories include supranationalism, intergovernmentalism, federalism,etc. There is also a nascent theory currently being developed, described as cohesive expansionism. This model predicates continued integration on perpetual expansionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.200.126 (talk • contribs)

(Moved from article space to talk space.)

Turkey

I find some of the comments regarding Turkey as rather strange...

and maintaining of an extreme form of forced-secularism, often targeting its own Muslim majority.

I'm aware of some of Turkey's requirements such as banning the wearing of the headscarf in parliament and in schools. But is this really particularly unique? AFAIK France and several other EU countries have banned it in schools although admitedly not parliament...

radical Islamic teaching suppressing women's rights and free democratic principles

I'm not going get into an argument regarding the free democractic principles ones but AFAIK, Turkey has little radical Islamic teaching supressing women's rights. If anything, this is a bigger problem in other EU states such as the UK... Nil Einne 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Croatia section too large

Maybe we should make a separate page "Accession of Croatia to the EU" (like these for Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iceland), put the most content there and leave only a summary here.

Kyrgyzstan & Uluu Birimdik

Seems to me (after an academic database and google research) that this is a small movement/party or an opposition party, not a notable party in the government. Also, it seems that there is only one news story, told differently on different websites, not a repeated important expression for EU membership. Seems hardly worth of mentioning the possibility of Kyrgyzstan as a future member on this page. I will therefore remove Kyrgyzstan from the list, at least until things about this country become clearer. Sijo Ripa 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro

It implies in the article that should Montenegro decide (as they probably will) to enter negotiations for accession, that they wouldn't have any major problems, but would the issue of them using euro without any agreements permitting them to do so not be a relatively big obstacle? - RedHot 12:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That would probably start to be cleared up in the SAA negotiations, but I don't think it's that much of a problem. Heck, they're barely 700,000 people, what impact will they have on the euro's economy... It's not too different from having a currency pegged 1:1 to the euro, is it? —Nightstallion (?) 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No but I can't imagine that the ECB is too happy (not that they'll do anything though ;) ) that they have to bear the cost of printing and minting Montengro's currency. - RedHot 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, then we should let them join as soon as possible so that they contribute financially to the minting costs. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The only problem that could arise from other countries using the euro as their own currency, is that the demand for the euro would rise and thus that the the euro appreciates too much, thereby hurting the exports of the eurozone. With only 700 000 very poor people and a currency for 300 million very rich people, the effect will be very marginal. Moreover, an agreement is only necessary to obtain the right to mint your own euros (I think). Sijo Ripa 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
But it remains weird in a way; all new member states have to adopt the euro and most countries face many difficulties in meeting the criteria (e.g. the Lithuanian euro bid). Most difficult to meet is the inflation criteria, but also meeting the budget deficit criteria is difficult. So I guess Montenegro has to adapt to the criteria before LEGALLY adopting the euro... Maartenvdbent 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Banknotes (and coins) are essentialy a credit given to the issuer (in most cases a government institution, or inter-government like ECB) by the people that use the banknotes. By this point of view is that Montenegro gives CREDIT the Eurozone, because all montenegrin transactions and products are given in return of papers with "Euro" on them. The Montenegro Central Bank/Montenegro Republic does not make any profit on these banknotes (because it is not part of the Eurozone). But as the people above said - Montenegro is too small to have considerable impact in eighter way.
Montenegro does not have to cover the Euro-convergence criteria NOW, because it is not part of the Eurozone/ECB. It just uses the currency (like Andorra - without any special agreement). Euro-convergence criteria (budget deficit, inflation, etc.) are also NOT pre-conditions for EU membership. Montenegro (like every other /eventual/ new member state) can first join the EU and later, after covering Euro-criteria join the Eurozone. In the meantime it can continue to use the Euro like now. Using Euro and beeing part of the Eurozone are different things (from the point of view of central banks and governments). The only special thing in Montenegro case is that I can't imagine how would it enter ERM-II (2 year ERM-II membership is a pre-condition for Eurozone membership. ERM-II can be entered only by EU member states. ERM-II is practicaly a +/-15% band fluctuation of the state currency around the Euro) - this would mean "Euro fluctuating 15% around Euro). So, maybe the Montenegro exception would be that of the Euro conevergence criteria it would have to cover one less (ERM-II two years membership) - because it is not applicable.
So, IF at the time of joining the EU Montenegro does not covers the other financical convergence criteria - it would remain outside of the Eurozone until it covers the criteria (despite using Euro as currency during that time); ELSE if Montenegro covers the other fin.criteria at the time of joining the EU - it would also join the Eurozone at the same time (not possible for other candidates that have their own currencies). In summary - Euro use is not a problem for Montenegro. It eighter a benefit (bringing it closer to the EU) or a neighter benefit nor problem. Alinor 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

infinite enlargment?

just of curiosity.What do you people think about an endless enlargment orgie?--Ruber chiken 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently it is very FINITE - after the current candidates (with EU application or SAA application) only 5-6 east european states are left (combined population 70-80 million - less than the new member states of the 5th enlargement; as % of EU25/27 it is even smaller proportion) if we exlude obvious non-candidates like Russia, Switzerland, Monaco, etc. Also, look at Copenhagen criteria#Geographical. Don't be fooled by entries of Netherland Antilles and other dependencies listed in the article - they are too small to make considerable impact and they may enter only, because that they are parts of current EU member states... Alinor 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"if we exlude obvious non-candidates like Russia" O yea, why exlude russia?or say israel.and the central asia contrys(foren ussr).When i sed endless elargment i wasent talking about peanuts.I now the compehagen criteria,if you look 30 years ago,some thing like half of today members didn't foufil them,even turcuie has severe problems.The geographical critiria is miningless(it's a dead world),it has never been used(maroco was a dictatorchip),see turcy,if that's a european contry,i'm a marsian,what count's is if the eu whant's that contry,and not a pice of paper.The fact is that when a neibor of eu fulfils the political criteria,the eu accepts them olmost automaticly,only constrait is if she can afford it.--Ruber chiken 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much political interest within the EU itself for another great expansion anytime soon, they will probably focus on solving the issues they have with the disparity between the older and newer current members before accepting new members. They might pick the occasional Balkan country and allow them entry when they are deemed "ready" and obviously the doors are wide open to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland if any of those decided that they want to join (not likely any time soon). Larger and poorer candidates like Turkey and Ukraine are still at least 15-20 years away. Whether an expansion into Africa and Asia is likely or not only time can tell. --Bjarki 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but is this all true, or is it symptomatic of who is applying to join? The door was closed to Morocco and Tunisia, it seems and maybe even Israel, but these guys come with certain baggage the E.U. might not like. Hypothetically, what about other countries that can't make geographic pretense of being European, but may have less baggage or better cultural ties or whatever? I know a certain large country that's prime minister has described it as a northern european welfare state that might well be less objectionable? WilyD 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although at present, as stated, the expansion of the EU as being finite and will remain that way for the forseeable future that with the ENP as well as various other EU-International treaties that exist between EU and many near-European states I find it difficult to see a future where the EU (or any future transnational entity) is confined by such strict geological boundries as exist under the Copenhagen Criteria. Afterall, with each new country that joins a precendent is set for other geographically similar countries to consider application with Isreal being such one example (with reference to the admission of Cyprus, as in beng outside Europe). However, I don't envisage such an entity for a long time and is more likely closer as of now to fantasy than reality. It will be interesting to see the EU develop over the coming decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.3.55 (talk • contribs)

Personally I can see gradual enlargement continuing for decades more. Although there is significant reluctance among current member states citizens for more enlargements the politicians at the top see enlargement as a very useful carrot promoting democratisation, reducing conflict in the neighbourhood and giving the European Commission a powerful intervening role in all the candidate countries - not something they want to lose! Remember there is a European Commissioner (roughly a Secretary of State) for Enlargement. As this article shows there is plenty of scope for enlargement in the next 20 years! Eventually I think it will come to an end when Europe meets another Bloc/country it wants to deal with as an equal - e.g. Africa. AndrewRT - Talk 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is partly what I touched on in my last post. And I agree with your comments, there is certainly scope for enlargement for the next few decades. After that, it's difficult to predict but the EU-AU relations may well be the foundation of another transnational union at some point. And like you said, at the end of the day it's the politicians and right now, despite public opinion many see no need to halt expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.3.55 (talk • contribs)


I can't see much more expansion taking place. Primarily because as the EU expands, the founding members will dilute their voting share. Although as Europes position in the world diminishes due to the population explosion elsewhere, this might become less of an issue as the EU's voice will be heard louder than its constituent members. Also, infinite expansion would just lead to another UN. If the purpose of the EU is to stop conflict in Europe, the only state left to join really is Russia! Can't see Turkey joining Islamophobia is just too strong. Anyway, only Constantinople or the Greek colonies were every truly European. Had to laugh, I read somewhere that apparently someone called for the return of the Haghia Sophia to be part of entry requirements!!! Everytime 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine

perhaps there should be written more bout the Ukraine. I think it's good when u can see what's going on with Ukrraine and EU and then un see Turkey and EU. In the German one there is now an own Article bout this. Perhaps anone can translate this? The german one is: (in German) de:Ukrainischer EU-Beitritt. --134.147.116.98 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue of the Ukraine as part of the EU is something that should be discussed. It is still a long way from becoming a reality, for a number of reasons. For one, Ukraine's motivation to join will increase once Romania is formally admitted, as the Ukraine/EU border will expand. Until then, the EU will still seem less important to the average, everyday Ukranian. Also, this will allow the EU to look at the Ukraine more seriously as a candidate. For two, there is the problem of Moldova. Russia maintains an Army division in the Trandnistria region. If the Ukraine were to join the EU, this militarily occupied region would be completely surrounded by EU member states. Given that the Romanians are sympathetic to the Moldovans and not the Transdnistrian Russian population, and the EU as a whole must defend the interests of it's member states (which will include Romania's interests), Russia is going to be in a bit of an uncomfortable position. It is unlikely that they will withdraw their troops, despite EU pressures. Russia has traditionally taken a heavy handed approach to military affairs, and has only withdrawn from a conflict or an occupation when not doing so would have damaged the integrity of the country as a whole. It would be out of character for them to withdraw, and since the EU does not (as of yet) have any military forces, the nature of Russia's response to this situation is one that we can only hope will not be a violent one. The third reason why Ukraine's admission to the EU is complicated is the matter of the CIS. The CIS and the EU have competing interests, as far as trading blocs go. Ukraine would have to decide which side it wants to be a part of, and I rather doubt either side would be willing to entertain the notion of Ukraine being a part of both. The fourth consideration is the matter of Belarus. Lukashenko, if he is still in power at the time Ukraine becomes a serious candidate for admission, will not take lightly the idea of a) a former SSR and current CIS member changing sides or b) the EU almost completely surrounding his country. Whoever it is that takes his place may feel similarly. Given the ever increasingly close ties between Belarus and Russia, Ukraine's fate as a potential EU candidate is again tied to the response her former/current allies will make. Fifthly, Ukraine will have to clean up the organized crime problem which is rampant throughout the country. Sixth reason: the multi-tiered pricing system would have to go. Seventh? Political corruption. The idea of admitting a country to the Union where a Presidential candidate was poisoned with dioxin by the incumbent opposition during the most recent election is going to disturb Brussels quite a bit.

It is regrettable that these possibilities weigh so heavily in the fate of Ukraine. It would be insane to ignore these problems, no matter how disturbing they are. Wandering Star 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most political factions of Ukraine advocate joining the EU and developing ties with Europe." - This is only sort-of true, most political factions do support closer ties, but there is a very large opposition to an EU entry for Ukraine. The Current government is for, most of the East is against. This section should be rethought a bit. Crocodilicus 18:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lukashenko, if he is still in power at the time Ukraine becomes a serious candidate for admission, will not take lightly the idea of a) a former SSR and current CIS member changing sides"
Three former Soviet Socialist Republics have already joined the EU: the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSRs (although they never joined the CIS). What was Belarus's (and Russia's) response to that? (58.188.97.134 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Russia objected verbally when the three countries joined the NATO. I don't think Russia objected so much when they wanted to join the EU, mostly about the change in Visa policy, Russians would have to get a visa to visit the three countries and to travel by road or train to Kalingrad. Russia and Belarus will probably object if Ukraine wants join the EU, but only verbally, plus raising the oil and gas price to world market prices. What Belarus says is less important. -- BIL 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just made a "pro Ukrainian EU-membership" "userbox" feel free to copy it! Mariah-Yulia 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This user supports Ukrainian membership of the European Union.

Israel again

"How Israel's Law of Return would interact with the free migration of citizens within Europe is also an unresolved issue, though EU countries like Germany, Finland and Greece have similar immigration laws."

Germany, Finland and Greece have nothing like this, do they? An equivalent to the Israeli LoR would be allowing all Anglo-Saxons to "return" to Angeln and Saxony and all Gaels to "return" to Gallaecia. —Ashley Y 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the have sort of "ethnically based immigration criteria", such as the german diaspora and Germany. WilyD 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe, Israel could be a serious candidate for EU membership. They are one of the wealthiest states in the Middle East and the only country with a stable democratic system. They have freedom of religion, press, and human rights for everyone. I am not sure how their tough stand against terrorism would compare to the EU's liberal rules, but Israel is defenatly a important candidate. They are also located outside of Europe which is a major requirement, but if a country such as Turkey will be allowed to join, Israel should be as well. (LonghornJohnny 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
The main obsticles towrards Israel joinig are the size of the teritories still occupied mainly in the west bank and parts of the goaln height reigion. Also their use of covert assination of terrorists would be incompatible with the human rigths convention and Isreals stance againt the International Criminal Court is another major obsticle. Turkey may be 95% in asia but that 5% that is in europe makes it eligble for EU membership. Cyprus Has been classified as Culturally a european country so was eligible to join on cultural grtounds. Isreal is highly unlickley to ever join the EU as it is not classified as a european culture and is not in any part within europe.--Lucy-marie 13:20, 2 September 2006(UTC)


Israel enter their sports clubs in European Competitions though (albeit for political reasons). Could that help? RandallFlagg Scotland 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That Is highly unlickley as Australia do a similar thing by entering there clubs into asian competition it dosent mean they are going to join any asian union.--Lucy-marie 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel might not be in Europe, but it sure has a european culture hence most of its population came from Europe. They do ahve serious problems with terrorism and they are fighting them effectively. As far as I'm concerned you do not need to be a signed and ratified member of the International Criminal Court Treaty. LonghornJohnny
Cyprus was the exception to the rule of being a non-european country admitted to the EU. It Is highly lickley that the EU would use the Morocco rule to reject Isreal.--Lucy-marie 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the last time, ISRAEL IS NOT IN EUROPE!!!!Therefore, it cannot join the EUROPEAN Union! Sorry for all the exclamation points, but this one's a no brainer.Sealpiano 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but as the article says, there is enough support behind it among European leaders to warrant mentioning it. --Hemlock Martinis 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

animated

Ive put the enlargement maps together, thought they might work well as an animation? --Astrokey44 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Canada?

I have heard some theories about Canadian membership in the EU. Please create an article or add information about this issue. I believe, Canada is not in Europe; therefore, it is not entitled to become a EU member state. However, I would gladly read an article that discusses all opportunities for Canada, and different positions that certain countries are taking regarding this issue (if there has been any). Thank you, (LonghornJohnny 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Great idea! Sadly Canada is not geographically part of Europe, which is a condition for membership (not that that stopped Cyprus, Greenland, French Guinea or, for that matter, Turkey which is 95% in Asia) - so the chances aren't too good. Also they would probably have to leave NAFTA. This article should stay focussed on the most likely candidates, but this doesn't mean we can't start a new article. There are plenty of websites about it - [1] [2] [3] and even an article the german newspaper Der Spiegel: [4] and an online petition [5] AndrewRT - Talk 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I read through all the articles that you mentioned above and I got the feeling that Canada's EU membership advocates are all biased against the United States. This is an unfortunate situation because I would not want Canada or the EU to become alienated from our nation (USA). Canadian membership in the EU might be a long term possibility, so it is worth to discuss it even though it may not ever become reality. (LonghornJohnny 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
Due to Canadas geographic positoning and cultural backgorund It Is highly unlickley Canada will ever become part of the EU. I am using the same criteria used to reject Morocco.--Lucy-marie 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Those citations actually make it possibly worthy of mention. After all, Canada's prime minister has already described her as A northern European welfare state - so maybe the Cyprus rule can apply, instead of the Morocco rule (after all, are either hard and fast? I doubt it) - but if there's serious talk about it ... WilyD 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I included a short mention of it in list of European Union member states by accession, so I'd naturally consider a few paragraphs here (or even an article about Canada and the European Union?) a good idea. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting concept, but I have not heard much of any such movement... then again, I live in the most provincial of the provinces (British Columbia). Perhaps this is less true in the eastern part of the country, but integration with the EU does not make much sense given the geographic distance. While politically Canadians are more closely aligned with Europeans, culturally we are undoubtedly under American influence- to the point where the border sometimes ceases to exist. Much more so than the global situation, we are dominated by American culture: We watch a lot of US television and identify with their stars... Our artists generally "make it" when they make it in the US... Our sports are completely integrated, including our own, much-loved hockey league (did anyone ever consider which country the word "National" refers to in the National Hockey League ?)... and even our everyday Canadian English is becoming more and more Standard American English (Ask anyone under 20 what a "chesterfield" is). Nonetheless, Canada can serve as a tremendous bridge between Europe, Asia and the US- and this potential role cannot be ignored by our polititions and business leaders. We don't need to join the EU to succeed in this, however. 207.6.233.239 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada (together with Australia and a number of other countries) are part of Western Europe according to the United Nations, at least in the sense of electing non-permanent members of the UN Security Council[6]. On the other hand, Canada shares its international dialling code (1) with the United States. (58.188.97.134 09:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Beyond the geographic aspect, and as people have pointed out, the EU extends far beyond Europe, is the economic issue. All member states, and prospective members, are heavily integrated economically. While a great deal of this came about through membership of the EU, it only developed and supported pre-existing trends. Trade between member states and prospective member states runs at a minimum of 50%+, with figures as high as 60-70% being the average. Canadas trade with the USA is 80% of its exports, Canada is economically the 51st state! Joining the EU would make no sense as the EU is first an for most an economic block, and would result in having to have trade barriers with the USA (80%) so that she would not have barriers with the EU (under 20%). The same is also true for Australia and New Zealand. However, for Israel, this is not the case. Matchrthom 11:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. Still, as far as sympathies go, I'm pretty sure most Europeans would *love* to have Canada with us. I certainly would. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Canada is part of the NAFTA group so they're not real interested in the EU. Besides, if they join, America might as well join too and that would be absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.7.171.66 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Even though Canadians do share many European values (though nationalism and ethnic stereotyping seems to be more accepted in Europe than it is here), the chance of the country joining is practically zero. The only one who's even saying something close to it is the premier of Quebec, a province which culturally isn't especially well-integrated with the rest of Canada owing to a different language and a lack of interest in English Canada in the culture from that region. However, even if Quebec were to separate (which seems unlikely given that support for both sides has wavered above and below 50% for many years), it would still be on the North American continent and its main trade partner would be either Canada or the US. There may well be political cooperation between Canada in the EU, which is what you are currently seeing, but there is unlikely to ever be strong economic union in the foreseeable future. Esn 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Monaco?

No one has written up on Monaco in the Microstates section, even though San Marino, Andorra, and Vatican City have writeups. Can someone please add a writeup? Inkan1969 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems someone added a proper Monaco section. Alinor 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit. Hope you like it! AndrewRT - Talk 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldova and Roumania

The Roumanian government stated sometime in 2006 that it would only consider a union with Moldova AFTER both were members of the European Union. I think writing about an East Germany Scenario as such is misleading.

Find the source, and mention it in the text. Removing the East Germany scenario altogether might be a bad idea -- there's still the possibility that Romania might reconsider. (58.188.97.134 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Russia

I like the present article's section on Russia - succinct but well sourced quotes that go straight to the point. Thanks everyone for your work, especially User:Nixer. -AndrewRT - Talk 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Uk Dependencies

Should we have a small section on the Isle of Man and Channel Islands?? AndrewRT - Talk 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. —Nightstallion (?) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of Gibraltar. As far as I'm aware this is part of the EU. Can someone expand please? Bazonka 09:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes add Gibraltar, but note that it is one of the British overseas territories while the Channel Islands ie Guernsey (including Sark) and Jersey and the Isle of Man are each a Crown Dependency Hugo999 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gibralter is part of the EU, they vote in the south west england constiuancy in the perliment elections. The isle of man and the chanel Islands are not part of the EU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.143.5.160 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Articles

I would like to propose a reorganisation of articles about the EU, including merging and renaming as follows:

Does this sound feasible? AndrewRT - Talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I disagree entirely. —Nightstallion (?) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia or FYROM (to the anon IP)

The name of the article on Wikipedia is, rightly or wrongly, Republic of Macedonia. As long as there is no change in this respect, the name of the section dedicated to this country will remain the same. Anyone who wishes to do something about it should start here and not on this page. Note that as soon as there's a consensus regarding a name change there, all the relevant sections here, and throughout Wikipedia will be renamed accordingly. I hope this clears the misunderstanding. --RedZebra 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a citizen of the EU ,(not aware if you are also) I know that, rightly or wrongly, it does not recognise that state as Republic of Macedonia, but as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So, in the articles that have to do with EU, I found it improper not to follow the official policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.234.86 (talk • contribs)

I see your point. However you should note that Wikipedia isn't affiliated with the EU and consequently its decisions aren't binding. The current name of the article dedicated to Macedonia clearly demonstrates this. This doesn't mean of course that a note explaining the squabbles between Athens and Skopje shouldn't be added whenever it's deemed appropriate to do so. In this article this happens to be the case and has in fact been done already. Please read the whole paragraph dedicated to the country and you'll find ample information regarding the stance of Brussels on the issue. --RedZebra 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I think the countries who have agreed to the "Rep. of Macedonia" have agreed to do so only during bilateral diplomatic relations between themselves only. In the European Union, United Nations, NATO and other international organisations where more than 2 countries are involved the name is always "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and therefore unless you are claiming that Wikipedia concerns only 1 country and should be viewed only by 1 country, the name of any country should and MUST adhere to the consesus of all countries! I believe "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (or FYROM, in want of a shorter term) is the accepted standard until the dispute is resolved and a new name is agreed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.127.248 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Optimistic Albanian entry.

The entry for Albania has been edited by an IP user over a series of edits and I don't really want to puncture their enthusiasm but it seems to have a bit too much WP:OR. I wouldn't call Albanian "mature" even in the context of the Partnership for Peace and it seems to be WP:OR to conflate the Partnership for Peace with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (one being NATO and the other being EU). Finally are there any polls to support "which Albania's citizens expect to happen by 2012." ?. I'll tone this down unless there is some supporting evidence to the contrary. Ttiotsw 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd probably revert the whole section, but this would look somewhat drastic. By the way, there seems to be some inexplicable obsession with 2012 as the year when the potential candidate countries expect they should join the EU. What exactly is this based on? I can't find any piece of information that would support it. --RedZebra 12:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've {{fact}} it and put in inline comments as some IP address based user is doing multiple edits without the preview so they are obviously looking at the text in detail. Hopefully they will see what is needed else it'll start to get messy. Ttiotsw 09:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well they have been back and I've reverted it and added more stuff with inline comments asking for them to explaine what they are doing. Anyone concerned if this just goes on for a while until they get bored ?. Its either that or get the page protected for a short while from IP addresses. The IPs are either dialup or DHCP allocated with short leases based in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Ttiotsw 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section. The NATO bits are out as well as the unreferenced claims about the date of entry. On the other hand, there is some info now from a Le Monde article on the stance of the EU Commission regarding Albania. --RedZebra 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the version. It needs to be expanded with relevant data and possibly rewritten with useful EU-relevant information.--RedZebra 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And again. IP back with cut+paste in a similar way. A wee bit annoying but clearly now it is vandalism as there has been no attempt at using talk and just simply reverting of edits. Ttiotsw 01:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe

This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in Josef Stalin with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views [7] and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--Nixer 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the best course of action is to state your case here --RedZebra 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why fact tags added to Potential_candidate_countries

In Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Potential_candidate_countries I stuck in some {{fact}} tags as I felt that,

  • There is some creep in the countries listed (i.e. addition of Georgia) and I can't find the appropriate paper to confirm this and
  • I feel that Olli Rehn is being misrepresented as his view in other speeches or statements is also that enlargement is good for Europe so I feel he's being misquoted.

Thus I'm after refs/cites/links where the EU said the bit (which now mentions Georgia) and where Olli Rehn said his bit. Ttiotsw 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

moved 27 member limit to introuduction

Moved it from Croatia subsection because an article on Enlargement of the European Union should not that the Union can not be leagilly enlarged at this time.--mitrebox 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the 27 limit a big problem? Since all members have to approve the membership of Croatia, can't they at the same time approve a change of the limit to 28 ? -- BIL 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Legally you are right, enlargement would require ratification anyway so changing the limit could easily be done at the same time. Politically it's different: some eurofederalists are saying they want to block enlargement until the new European Constitution is in place; this makes decisions making easier by increasing QMV and re-weights votes away from middle sized countries. Hence Croatia could be affected by enlargement. Having said that Enlargement Commissioner Rehn think otherwise: Rehn: EU constitution debate should not block enlargement AndrewRT(Talk) 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Enlarg.jpg and Image:Enlarge27.jpg

Are both of these really necessary in the article? I think we should only include the most recent photo. --James Duggan 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the older one and replaced it with the GDP image, which I moved from the candidate countries section where it didn't belong. --James Duggan 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo/Kosova

In the map Kosovo appears as just a country that has expressed interest to join. Kosovo since 2002 is part of Stabilisation and Association Process and the EU produces regular progress reports on Kosovo's progress towards the EU. Please check: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/kosovo_progress_reports_en.pdf

GA failed

This is a good article, and was quite interesting to read. However, this article falls short of the 'good article' criteria (see WP:WIAGA).

  • It needs a good read-through to catch grammar and spelling mistakes. Punctuation is nasty in some spots.
  • Copy-editing: There's puntuation before and after some citations.
  • References are not in order; some have no names and are not formatted correctly.
  • Placing external links in the middle of sentences is sloppy (see section 'Isreal'). Also there are references mid-sentence, which should go at the end of the statement (Cape Verde section is one example).

I believe this article could pass in the future with a collaborative effort to tackle copy-editing, some general clean-up, combined with fixing the problems I noted. My list is no way exhaustive however.

For citation help, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. To assist with copy-editing, see Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Changed Image

I've changed the image under 'Current Enlargement Process'. It may not be as suitable (showing other countires bar from members and nations in negotiations) but I think it's a better image to have there. Aesthetically, as well as not removing information that was there before, just replacing it. Comments?

Angry Croats

Here's how many Croats feel about EU. This song is made by croatian singers and is full of balkanisms and primitivisms offending EU. Just follow this link please: http://www.slobodnajugoslavija.org/sloyumedia/zabava/neEuniaHrvatska.html Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Scotland / Wales / N. Ireland / England

With nationalistic politics gaining ground in the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, I think it is definitely worth investigating the possibility of Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and England acquiring full EU status. With the SNP now in power in Scotland and a referendum on independence to be held in three years, it should definitely be mentioned. Full EU status is a policy of Plaid Cymru in Wales, whilst independence from the rest of the UK is not. Furthermore, this year's granting of status of Irish as an official EU language is seen as controversial as twice as many people speak Welsh on a daily basis, yet it is not an official language in Brussels. N. Ireland should be discussed in relation to the Republic's full EU status, whilst England could be mentioned as the only country in Europe without its own government, and the CEP's efforts of an parliament for England would support this view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. Scotland is not likely to have an independence referendum in this parliament IMO. The all party unionist-nationalist split is 79-50 in the Scottish parliament and the unionists will not vote for a referendum - the Lib Dems refused to join in a coalition with the SNP for precisely that reason.

2. No party with representation in Cardiff Bay, Westminster or Brussels advocates Welsh independence in the short term. Plaid's apparent aim to be a member state of the EU without becoming independent first belongs in a box marked "you really haven't thought this through, have you?".

3. No party with representation in Stormont, Westminster or Brussels advocates Northern Irish independence. If NI were to join the Irish Republic, then this would be a transfer of territory, not an enlargement.

4. No party with representation in Westminster or Brussels advocates English independence. I'd be very surprised if any party with a council seat in England advocates English independence. An English parliament is an issue, yes, but is not relevant to the discussion of the enlargement of the EU.

The issues you raise may be controversial, but nonetheless I don't see any relevance to the enlargement of the EU unless they result in the growth of nationalist sentiment to a level where an independence referendum is a genuine possibility. We only really see that in Scotland. And even in that case, we're talking a pretty liberal definition of the word "enlargement", since the EU would not get bigger except that the 27 would become 28.

In any case, anything we put in the article on the subject is likely to be highly speculative - we'd basically be saying "what if Scotland/Catalonia/Flanders becomes independent?". I think that would stretch WP:CRYSTAL a bit too far. If the EU have already got a plan in the general case, and if can we can source it, then a discussion of that plan would be fine IMO provided that there is a consensus that it counts as "enlargement"... Pfainuk 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Pfainuk, and thanks for your comments.

The possibility of independence was a key criteria for the election of the SNP, who now rule Scotland. With an independent Scotland a strong possibility within the next twenty years, a small article focusing on the absorption of her unique political position in the EU would not go askew, and would be rather foolish to ignore. Your attitude surprises me, especially when considering that an article on possible Canadian entry was once included in the article. Many articles on Scottish-EU relations are to be found online, and can easily be sourced and cited. And an increase of EU members from 27 to 28 would still be considered to be enlargement of the European Union. Do the maths.

Plaid Cymru have themselves stated that they do not wish to be independent from the rest of the United Kingdom, but stress that official recognition of the Welsh language as an official EU language is the main basis for the argument of having independence in Europe. Subsequently, the non-inclusion of smaller, minority nations such as Wales, Catalonia, Fresian Islands etc should also be addressed, conveying the views of independent political parties in those countries. If you can include Corsica and the Isle of Man, why not Wales and Scotland? I do concur that Plaid's policy would be bending a lot of the EU entry rules, but possible amendment of these rules shouldn't mean that any possibility of separate seats for Wales and Scotland to be ignored. May I suggest that you leave your own political views aside when assessing the possibiltity of including articles on these issues.

However, I do agree with your statements on England and Northern Ireland.

First of all, this is not a real enlargment. Secondly, this would open the door to too many aspirant countries. I'm already disatisfied that the article didn't stay to the official candidate countries and to the European countries which whom the EU has concluded or is negotiating an association agreement. For instance, Flanders is in many respects much closer to independence than Schotland. Other movements exist: independence for the Basques, for Northern Italy, Corsica, Faroer islands,... Even more: what about the possibility of a break-away region in non-EU countries? Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabach, South Osetia, Kosovo, the split of Ukraine, Kourdistan, etc. Sijo Ripa 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But Scotland already has its own self-governing parliament, unlike many of the regions you have just mentioned. Scotland and Wales are countries in their own right, but are represented politically by the United Kingdom, a sort of mini-EU in itself.

EU membership is open to anyone who is a country and is in Europe. May I therefore put forward a motion that countries close to independence or country status may share already established countries' interest in joining the EU, and that this needs to be mentioned briefly in this article, or in more detail on a separate page.

Monaco is not a country, neither is San Marino. They are principalities almost completely dependent on their large neighbours, yet they are still mentioned on this article.

Flanders: the Flemish parliament and Flemish government exist far longer than the Scottish Parliament and have more competences, Basque: Basque Country (autonomous community) which includes a parliament and government, and the Corsican Assembly gives a limited degree of autonomy. Furhermore, South Osetia, Nagorno Karabach, Kosovo and Transnistria are de facto independent. Put differently, they are already countries, they are only not (yet) recognized. And as you can have read, I'm opposed to the inclusion of most countries in this article - but European ministates are still countries. Sijo Ripa 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL forbids us from adding speculation regarding countries that aren't independent and that don't have large secessionist movements (such as England, Wales and NI) - I find that pretty clear cut. It also forbids us from including a "what if the EU changes the rules" discussion unless they actually consider doing it. As I said before, discussion regarding countries with an active independence movement could be OK to include IMO, provided that all the information can be sourced, preferably from the EU or another reliable neutral source, and provided we have a consensus that this constitutes "enlargement" (since the EU would not get larger in terms of land or people) - I am not sure on this latter point.

As I say, I'd put it in in general terms, since chances are the same things would apply to Scotland as to all of the other areas (see User:Sijo Ripa's remarks for some good examples, I'd also add Catalonia...) - and there seems little point in repeating ourselves for each one. Pfainuk 19:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove future enlargement possibilities and expand other sections

I think that the article should focus on the past enlargement waves, the gradual change in elgibility criteria (acquis communautaire increased, Copenhagen critera since 1993), the impact of these waves (e.g. change in voting shares, economic consequences (static and dynamic welfare effects, emigration,...), the shrinking of the EFTA area, how it parallelled NATO expansion, etc.), the rejection of, the rejection by, or withdrawel of states (resp. Morocco, Norway, Switserland, and Greenland) and on the the present recognized candidates (focusing on the progress made and what are the remaining chapters to be completed, what are the problems? what is the public opinion in these states and in the EU?) and on the countries which the EU has officially recognized as potential candidate countries. A short section could mention the current eligibility criteria and on the European states that have officially declared EU membership as a priority. This would solve the following problems: (1) OR: synthesis of information to advance a position: collecting some statements and opinions to advance the position that a certain country could become a member in the future, (2) the POV which is inherent of such a position, (3) it would create a never ending adding of new countries (Cape Verde and Israel as well as some central Asian states are already added, some proposed to add Canada, others want to add potential break-away countries) and (4) it would put the focus back in the article. Now the future possibilities constitute 1/2 of the article. If other editors agree, I propose the following main structure:

1. Eligibility criteria
2. Founding (1952)
3. Turkey's application (1963)
4. First enlargement (1973)
5. Second enlargement (1981)
6. Third enlargement (1986)
7. Morroco's application (1987)
8. Fourth enlargement (1995)
9. Fifth enlargement
9.1. Part I (2004)
9.2. Part II (2007)
10. Candidate countries
10.1. Current candidate countries
10.2. Potential candidate countries Sijo Ripa 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This proposal needs to consider togethe the structure and title of other articles. We already have an article - History of the European Union - which would duplicate much of the above.
I see no problem in having an article that discusses blue sky possible future candidates - subject to the accepted criteria regarding notability and sources. After all, Wikipedia is Not Paper! However I take your point that including it here leaves this article unfocussed. Theefore can I suggest instead, a spun out article maybe called Possible future enlargement of the European Union?? This would return the focus of this article to the proper place without losing the valuable material on future possibilities. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aruba

Aruba is not a sovereign country, though the people did vote for independance in 1977. The changes to the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1986 that gave Aruba a status aparte originally included a reference to future independence, but this reference was deleted out of the Statute in 1996 on behalfof the government of Aruba. Indepence is no longer an aim for the Aruban government. Maarten 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

I find a statement about Armenia very strange:

However, Armenia has traditionally been regarded as culturally associated with Europe because of [...] its Indo-European language, [...]

Now, using this argument, it would also be possible for all American countries, most African countries, Iran, India and a couple of other countries to apply, wouldn't it? Is this language argument really relevant? (Stefan2 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Lets just say Cyprus was let in because it was seen as being culturally European despite being geographically Asian. On the other hand Morocco was rejected explicitly because it was neither culturally nor geographically European. So if a country could show it was culturally European it might have a chance, even if it wasn't geographically so. Of course Armenia is part of the Council of Europe now so you could say it is politically European too. As for the language, I take your point, but it could be say to be part of the European culture issue generally. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I saw was the one with the Indo-European language. I don't see any problem with the other arguments. (Stefan2 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

and 2007

Apologies to 85.108.233.56 for reverting that legitimate correction, I wasn't quite awake and thought it was the other way around! - J Logan t: 10:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OR

while thes article contains considerable number of footnotes, still it contains a huge amount of opinions, which must be attributed or deleted. (This is probably the article covers a large number of relatively independent topics "EU vs. "some state").

Another problem is that significant text is written in the "today-ish" style political analysts write in newspapers. Encyclopedia article mus be wrintten in style independent of time. `'Míkka 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please attach {{cn}} to any statements that you think are unsupported, and I'll try to dig out appropriate sources. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

Hello, I am working on the german article about this subject instantaneously and get an question, where the coloring in the table in "Progress of future enlargements" is from. The link there is dead, can anybody fix it? Queryzo 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Okay, it has been agreed that this article should call "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to the Republic of Macedonia because that's the name the EU recognizes for its candidacy to membership. But does that really mean that we have to call that poor country "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in every single mention to it? For the sake of simplicity, I think that the country should be referred to as "Macedonia" through most of the article, as it's implied that such term would refer to the aforementioned "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Húsönd 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My country name is Republic of Macedonia . Our constitutional name (R. of Macedonia) is recognized by 121 countries.Last state did that Paraguay on 30 Octobar ,and before them ,Canada .We are peacefull country and we dont have anything against our friends and naybors Greece. Just leave us alone and call us Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. Thank you. 03:16 ,16 november

As a neutral, how about giving the long EU name once, stating that Macedonians are not very happy with that name, and thereafter simply either "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia"?MRM 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But all EU documents still refer to the country as FYROM. Already discussed this a number of times. --Laveol T 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes we have, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't use FYROM in this article. I'm just saying that we don't have to refer to the country as FYROM every single time. Because, well, it's unnecessary and slightly annoying I think, it's like referring to the UK as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" a hundred times in the same article. Once would suffice. Húsönd 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Its not same! Our constitution name is Republic of Macedonia ,so short would be just Macedonia.I can agree with both names.(Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia)Mo1981 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
FYROM is the worst ...Its like UK to be TUKOGB and add Former sometshing ...Former something TUKOGB. Greece would be Former Ottoman Province - Greece or FOPG. Would Greece agree to be called FORG??Mo1981 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
We don`t have anything against our friends and neibours Greece so this Greece "problem" is stupidMo1981 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia is recognized as Republic of Macedonia by 121 countries ,including United States ,Japan ,Russia ,China ,Canada . Laveol ,your contry Bulgaria recognized us like Republic of Macedonia so what`s the problem?! Its like I am calling you Former Ottoman Province-Bulgaria .Its ugly and its not acceptible. we will never agree on anything except Republic of Macedonia .this its not name of pet,its name of state and it can never be changed .Its our dute toward our families.. Mo1981 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the European Union here, remember. And I told you - this was already discussed and the consensus is what you currently see. Read this - europa.eu and it has FYROM everywhere. This is the official EU standard for now and untill the whole issue is resolved (hopefully in the next 6 months it'll be all over). --Laveol T 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know the outcome of the discussions regarding the application of FYROM on Wikipedia and I'm aware that the EU always refers to this country as FYROM on every single mention of every single document or declaration due to Greek pressure. Still, Wikipedia is not the EU and for the sake of simplicity we should drop FYROM in most appearances of the name of the Republic of Macedonia in articles that actually require application of the name FYROM at all. Húsönd 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:MOSMAC. If the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is too cumbersome, FYROM is the suggested shorthand. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How would anyone else like it if France was called the former Nazi Republic of France. Is it OK to call Greece, the former Ottoman Republic of Greece. If and when Palastine becomes a state, would you call it the former Israeli State of Palistine. Is Kuwait called the former Iraqi State of Kuwait. Macedonia is a peaceful nation, who only want to be friends with their neighbors and should be called their own name, Macedonia. Is it OK to call black people the N-word, or disabled people "cripples", because those are the words that used to be used. 2007apm (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Someone needs to mention Kosovo rather better. Not only has it just declared itself a country, but the EU is actively intervening to make it so and make it ready for membership. If it werent for foreign intervention, principally by EU states and the EU itself, this would not be happening. Sandpiper (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure if it belongs to this article. Kosovo is not even recognized by all the member states and did not start the accession process. Could anyone provide at least a citation proving that the EU's relations with Kosovo are responsibility of the Directorate-General for Enlargement? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clealy right to say that Kosovo is not part of Serbia. No Serbian Police potrol the streets, no Serbian judges execute the law, no Serbian sborder police protect its borders, and no Serbian soldiers defend it. Most importantly, no Serbian government governs and no Serbian parliment passes laws that apply in Kosovo.

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shorty find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So Dear 2007am - what about Kosovo's participation in UN, COE or OSCE? Why it cannot be part of this structure? How country that is not part of UN can be part of EU? What do you know about international public law and about United Nations Charter or The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe?--Siekierki (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
: The EU and UN are seperate organisations, you don't need to be in the UN to join the EU, any more that you need to be in the EU to join the UN. The majority of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the Group of Eight (G8) leading countries in the international community swiftly recognised Kosovo's independence and a majority of members of the European Union and NATO have recognised Kosovo or are in the process of doing so. 2007apm (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Kosovo is recognized by many countries so far, many major ones as well, perhaps with the clear exception of Russia. It does belong to the article. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

]

Let's make a deal- You leave Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and I "recognize" Kosowo.--Siekierki (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair ,OK then --82.114.77.19 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure - if you have something to write about Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, definitly go ahead. I think they were empty stubs when I deleted them. 2007apm (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia

This sentence: "As of 22 February 2008, negotiations with Serbia have frozen due to uncontrolled anti-West rioting in Belgrade where the US, British, Croatian, Belgium, German and Turkish embassies were attacked"is not complete, as there's not any mentioning of the reason behind all that riot in Belgrade. Instead of presenting Serbs like barbarians, you should put why a part of those demonstrators were so angry that they attacked some embassies. The reason is: The recognition of serbian province Kosovo as an independant state from some of those countries. How would any other nation feel if a part of its national teritory ilegally declares independancy and a recognition of some countries follows? Of course there would be riots and angry attacks. As the things are going, there will be much bigger and more horrible riots in the world, caused by any other 'Kosovo-followers', such as Corse, Catalonia, Abhazia, Scotland, Istra, Northern Cyprus, and many more. Greetings;24.86.110.10 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a short explanation to the article.[8] Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Map update

shouldn't this map be updated to include kosovo as a potencial candidate now that kosovo has declared it's independence which is currently recognized by 27 countries ?--Cradel 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in support of this plan. I'm afraid I don't think that I would be able to do it myself. 2007apm (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A country can't gain potential candidate status automatically; it needs to be approved by the EU. So Kosovo currently isn't a potential candidate. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

It is acordnig to ec.europa.eu


I've spent some time regarding this page on EU enlargement and I have created a map based on various wikipedia maps, that shows all territories held by EU member states and shows enlargement zones as well as EFTA and ENP areas. It's 'speculative' - but perhaps you could share your opinions on it. Perhaps it can be added to this page, or under some other rubric.

There is no general over view map on wikipedia that displays all, or even some of these characteristics together. Took quite a bit of work too, and I am up for suggestions. Click for EU map (Lexxus2010 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Why would Greenland be a part of the EU by 2025, when it used to be a part of the EU but then left. Also Moldova and Ukraine have plans of joining the EU too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The map must be changed

accordnig to [9] , Kosovo is treated as a separate pontential candidate under the 1244 resolution , so the map must be changed to include it --Cradel 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've have updated it now --Cradel 10:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a correct interpretation. The line between Kosovo and Serbia proper is dotted, whereas the line between Serbia and Monetnegro is solid. I'm guessing this is including Kosovo as yellow as it is an old map which recognised Kosovo to be legally part of Serbia. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This article strikes me as being frequently vandalized by IP editors, how about requesting semi-protection? Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 09:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatia 2011

Apparently Croatia is to join by 2011, not 2010 :( [10] Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern Partnership Plan

Poland is now presenting an East Plan (dunno how is it called in English, actually, nor what is its official name in any language) that is to create a mass association with easter countries, preparing them to access EU if possible. Countries that the plan is aiming at are: • Ukraine • Belarus (conditionally) • Moldova • Georgovia • Azerbaijan • Armenia The plan is to be oficially presenten during the upcoming months. I suggest someone should check it out if possible. My knowledge and intereste aren't so thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.251.218 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I found out that the accurate name in Polish is "Plan Partnerstwa Wschodniego", which means literaly: The Eastern Partnership Plan. - WhizzKid from Polish Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.53.40.58 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

i think this plan is very significant - it's a joint Polish-Swedish plan that the Czechs - who are due to be President in 2009 - have put their backing behind. The Poles see it as a way of sidestepping "enlargement fatigue" and putting these countries firmly on the path to membership in the way that the balkans are. This EU Observer article quotes the Polish minister saying "We all know the EU has enlargement fatigue. We have to use this time to prepare as much as possible so that when the fatigue passes, membership becomes something natural" This seems to me to be a significant boost to Armenian and Azeri membership prospects in particular.
I may be being a bit premature here, but should we restructure the article around "former Soviet states" to separate out the Eastern Partnership countries from Russia and Kazakhstan who seem to be on quite different membership paths (if at all). AndrewRT(Talk) 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed this discussion -- see Eastern Partnership, I've already written up a short article. I agree that those six states are obviously to be treated differently from Russia and Kazakhstan. —Nightstallion 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent article - thanks very much for that Nightstallion. I've been bold and changed the heading - please let me know if you think it's ok or premature! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, if you ask me. —Nightstallion 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Norway

"High seas fishermen especially would gain from membership as the cost of entering the EU market would disappear and they would be able to fish in all EU waters."

I'm removing this nonsense. Norwegian fishermen wouldn't gain a penny. On the contrary, they would have to let the other member states have a piece of their share. The Common Fisheries Policy has been a disaster; it has lead to overfishing and the EU waters are quite empty. The Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea have the greatest populations of fish in the entire Northern Atlantic Ocean, and the Norwegian fishermen are already using their entire quota. 213.167.96.196 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article referenced right before this sentence and you might understand why there're "wins" if Norway join. There are also "loses", and balancing it all together you might be right. But the sentence you removed is correct in the context. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to microstates

Can somebody comment on the recent changes to the microstates section about democracy as a precondition to join the union? It sounds like a valid reason but I would love to see that properly referenced. Thanks Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor (although an IP one) already added the citations. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Denmark missing in the front table ...

... was it in 1973? Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maghreb

I would like to see some more information on the EU and the Southern Mediterranean. When did Morocco apply for membership, on what grounds, why was its application rejected?

Regarding geographical concerns, I seem to remember that Algeria was part of the European Community before Britain even entered it. The Canary Islands, to the south of Morocco, are to this day also EU territory, and so are bits and pieces in the Americas and elsewhere.

Malta and Cyprus are also doubtfully more European than African and Asiatic respectively from the geographical point of view.

The issue of religion rather than geography for EU accession should be discussed in the article.

91.104.81.68 (talk)

Algeria etc. were/are part of another EU member as an overseas territory, Algeria was integral to France and hence isn't comparable to Morroco which was an independent country outside Europe trying to join on its own merits rather than being attached to a European country (they would not be divided, that would be needlessly stripping a member of its empire - though that happened in most cases due to the political climate of the day). Religion is not an issue, you could argue "culture" as a whole is for some but it is primarily geographic in this case, and then following the Copenhagen criteria. If you are implying that the EU won't accept a Muslim country, I point to the large populations in Bosnia and Albania (a majority in the latter) which are both on the road to EU membership, and the EU's siding with Kosovo Albanians (Muslims) over Serbs (Christians) in the war and membership negotiations at present. Morroco is outside Europe, hence not included in the project for that reason. Turkey has issues of size, geographic extent and location, political instability (relative) and human rights. Cultural aspects are in play for some but there is no formal criteria in for that and indeed the present EU is already rather diverse culturally.- JLogant: 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2004 page

Allo all, for a long time I've thought we've needed a decent page dedicated to the '04 enlargement, given its huge importance and the amount of issues related to it. The existing pages are too limited so I've started drafting one from scratch. Its a big job, so if you could give me a hand (especially with sources - lets get this solid from the start) it would be much appreciated. My draft page is here: User:JLogan/2004 Enlargement - it'll be moved to the name space I've shown at the top but that won't be for a while so please feel free to propose names on its talk page before it goes up. Thanks.- J.Logan`t: 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge into this article

List of European Union member states by accession deals with the same issues as this, with some overlap and some information that ought to be in this article. I propose it be merged in this article.- J.Logan`t: 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's definitely an overlap. The by accession article is a "featured list", but nevertheless I agree we should merge. Hopeless stubs like Absorption capacity, Accession countries and EU-15 should also be merged into this one (I reckon that process is easier than deletion debates) - SSJ ☎ 22:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
List of European Union member states by accession has two huge and intricate tables, as well as a big wiki timeline. I think we should shorten some sections in this article (especially those about EU candidates) so the result of the merge will be high quality text in summary-style only. - SSJ ☎ 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we can cut down most of the data in the three candidate sections (these get very long with each person adding a line every time something small happens) that ought to be just the bones of it considering we have a future article and individual articles for all three. We could cut out potential all together IMO. Antilles could be cut to a paragraph without its own section maybe? Needs to be mentioned of course but it is but three small islands.
Absorption capacity defiantly, we need that kind of data. Accession countries and EU-15 though have some dictionary merit, I'd suggest a soft redirect with a Wiktionary connection.- J.Logan`t: 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
(I've done it to Accession countries, does that look okay?)- J.Logan`t: 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Antilles don't deserve a separate section. The soft redirect looks okay. But on second thought: wouldn't the most correct thing be to redirect it to Accession? - SSJ ☎ 23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"That deals with a rather different subject, in fact we ought to have a link from there to the enlargement page...- J.Logan`t: 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Accession#Other_meanings mentions EU enlargement. For the sake of global POV, shouldn't we link to that section?- SSJ ☎ 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If you think the EU context is completely dominant (and it probably is), I'm fine with the soft redirect. - SSJ ☎ 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree because the article List of European Union member states by accession is a Featured List, it sounds to me instead that that list requires some cleanup. If we are going to work together to get this current article promoted to Featured Article, post merge with the list previously mentioned, then I definitely agree with the merge proposal. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
SSJ: I've done more of a disam on it, that should work I hope. Miguel.mateo, being a featured list dosen't make it sacred, it is just a list. This page ought to be featured though, if we can get all these details together then of course we can work on it. Though it sounds a bit odd to keep it just because it has a star to its name. Though IMHO featured list is a bit of a farce, regardless though; its real value would be the same even if it was within another article (though you don't get it recognised of course).- J.Logan`t: 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with the changes you've made and reverted them. The non-list content in the list is only an excerpt of the most important facts, which is precisely what it should be. Please discuss further changes beforehand. —Nightstallion 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a list of member states by accession, why on earth does it need to have details on enlargement? About Ukraine, Canada and stacks of links. This shouldn't be a page about enlargement, it is a list of member states. Given how off track it is, I again make the point that it should be merged.- J.Logan`t: 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Because list articles should have a bit of text content to establish the precise content of the list. —Nightstallion 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The context is the past, not the future.- J.Logan`t: 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's where we disagree -- as the accession of more states is planned and projected, that should be mentioned, as well. —Nightstallion 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well mentioned yes, but not disproportionately. We don't need two sections on details of each country joining, just an overview of the process and whos up next with an equal amount of space given to history and the nature of membership itself. But that is besides the point, as the proposal is for merging...- J.Logan`t: 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Which I'm absolutely against. —Nightstallion 20:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why?- J.Logan`t: 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't you like the merge because it's a featured list you've worked on? - SSJ ☎ 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the very name of List of European Union member states by accession implies that the table in Member State of the European Union makes a separate article redundant. Included and excluded special territories is interesting information, but not really within the scope of the by accession article per its name. The special territories have now been successfully inserted into the EU members article. The application/notes table falls within the extended scope of the article as written in the first sentence ("list of European Union member states' dates of application and accession"). The information in that table is covered in the prose of this article, but we have to discuss what to do with the table if the articles are merged. - SSJ ☎ 22:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Allow me to propose: why don't we come with a simple layout of what the new article will be, and for each of the section what is the main article that will cover the deep details? Only then we can see a good picture of what should and should not be included. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what great reason is to merge the article. It puts a different emphasis on the way in which the member states are listed and treats the aspect of accession in greater detail than the general list, and noone saw any problems with the scope when it passed the Featured List nomination. —Nightstallion 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo, it is just really a case of sticking the lists into the enlargement article as one of the sections. All the data mentioned in this article in the prose is already in the Enlargement, Future Enlargement or Member State articles -which is one of the reasons I find it so redundant here (especially as info changes so quickly, if you have several articles all talking about the same issue they won't all be updated and hence there will be a conflict between articles on facts).
Nightstallion, firstly I'd just like to say I consider the notion of "featured list" on a par even with GA status to be a farce. A list may be of good quality and style, but it is in no way on a par with a well written article. It is after all, simply a list, and a list should support an article. Here you have a list trying to link in with an article semi detached from the point of the list, hence it is not playing its full role. If it were to be put along side the article itself, easy comparison improves its worth. A list should be independent where there is no appropriate article or it is of an unmanageable length which dominates the article. I consider these lists to fulfil neither of those criteria and hence the project would be better served by combining them.
I am not suggesting that you are against the move because it is a feature under your belt, I do respect you and your work enough not to accuse you of holding such motives. However I do believe you -indeed all of us- should reanalyse the the structure of our content and detach ourselves from that which is established. One of the joys of computers is you can rip up the foundations and rebuild for efficiency with great ease and we should take advantage of that.- J.Logan`t: 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Alternative option, rename the article to List of European Union member states by date of application? List by accession is common in most tables, an application focus - with the reduction in future enlargement emphasis and greater past and present information - would give the article some credibility on its own. I still favour a merge though, lists are better in the proper context of an article unless they are incredibly long.- J.Logan`t: 17:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also in favour of a complete merge. But if the article is renamed, the name should perhaps be List of countries by date of application to acceede to the European Union or List of applications to acceede to the European Union, as Norway and Morocco etc. are also on the list. - SSJ ☎ 18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
How about List of applications for membership of the European Union? But anyway, so far the only person opposing the merge is Nightstallion, so Nightstallion, would you agree to the merge if Miguel.mateo's condition, to make this an FA, be met? Surely that would be a worthy move and the list would be useful for this being an FA. All other information is already here. What do you say, want to work on it?- J.Logan`t: 22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that I was asked ;) but yes, I am in favour and I would help where ever I can to make it FA. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh? "If we are going to work together to get this current article promoted to Featured Article, post merge with the list previously mentioned, then I definitely agree with the merge proposal." What do you mean?- J.Logan`t: 10:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant to say that this is a good topic to get it promoted to Featured Article, if we are going to strip this article out and put it back together in good shape and form post merging with the list you proposed, then is fine with me. Summary, this article should be promoted to FA, but it just requires some work, not only merging the list into it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh of course. We need data on the accession process and the political situation, it needs citation and it needs a general clean up. When we should be ready for an attempt - see what the GA brings up.- J.Logan`t: 12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, do what you will with the list. —Nightstallion 16:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

...what? You can't just give up. Do you have any idea how boring that makes things? Come on, debate, new ideas, progress and so on.- J.Logan`t: 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than busy with Austrian legislative election, 2008 right now. ;) —Nightstallion 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Then I'll do the merge now. - SSJ ☎ 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about you're new version of the table. I feel too much is lost through it. It wouldn't be too much to have the entire original table in there would it?- J.Logan`t: 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
What is lost? I thought the new table was informative as it includes the dates of both application and accession. The smaller table below contains failed bids. The table in the merged article didn't really have anything more, it just occupied 20 times more space. - SSJ ☎ 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Granted, but its the clarity of it. Having each one as they applied then the result of each bid mentioned. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I think the presentation looses something. Maybe there is someway to enhance the table, I'll have to think.- J.Logan`t: 10:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I merged the two tables. Does it look ok? - SSJ ☎ 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Absorption capacity"

I just deleted the last segment of this article. The reasons are that (1) it was dribble (2) it looked like it was written by some semi-literate economist (3) it had one reference, which was irrelevant (4) it did not try to present both sides. I think there is certainly a legitimate debate to be had, about where the limits of "Europe" or the "Union" lie, but I think that both sides need to be presented. It wouldn't be hard: those who want more expansion just need to look through the Guardian's archives, those who want less just need to look through La Figaro. But that section was just useless. So I deleted it. Wikidea 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Today (07:32, 4 September 2008), User:Siekierki moved the page to "History of enlargement of the European Union". Thanks to User:Husond for moving it back. This page is not a simple history, it is meant to deal with the issue as a whole and the title would be misleading and limiting to its content.- J.Logan`t: 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spains application

The table in the section "Historical enlargements" says that Spain applied 28 June 1986 and was accepted 1 January 1986. This can't be right since the application date lies before the acceptance date. --Santac (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo, was '77, same as Portugal. Has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out,.- J.Logan`t: 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One step closer to the United Federation of Planets. Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia

According to http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1999/index_en.htm negotiations with Slovakia started in December 1999 not on 27 June 1995 as it is shown here, I suggest a change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunikm (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Future Enlargement map

why are Ukraine and Georgia included in the same group as SAP countries? SAP countries are considered potential candidates, while Eastern partnership are not ... (officially)... we should change that, but I don't know how. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreeed those countries are not even included on the main map on the Future enlargement of the European Union article. ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/European_Union_member_states_with_applications.svg ) I would support either switching the current image with the one i just mentioned or an edit does need to take place to grey out Georgia / Ukraine etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enlargement_of_the_European_Union/Archive_3&oldid=1145854882"