Talk:Enlargement of the European Union/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image

(Moved to File talk:EU27-further enlargement map.svg as it relates more the the image than this article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Image (2)

(Moved to File talk:EU27-further enlargement map.svg as it relates more the the image than this article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Speculation

I recently removed the following from this article:

Croatia is expected to join shortly after a new EU Treaty (Lisbon Treaty or Reform Treaty as it was originally known) is in place, however it may be delayed due to its border dispute with Slovenia. Furthermore, it may see another country joining before or along side it, due to the change of sentiment in Iceland in light of the global late 2000s recession. Iceland is already heavily integrated to the EU via the European Economic Area and if it does choose to join the EU, it could likely do so by 2011.

We don't know if, much less when, Lisbon will come into force and it is by not means certain when Croatia will join. It is by no means a certainty.

There is a debate in Iceland about joining but that hardly merits saying that accession is "likely" and giving a date.

On reflection, I wouldn't mind including this so much were any of it sourced. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Iceland accession to the EU

There is a good chance that Iceland is going to apply for EU membership. Please see the Iceland and the European Union article (wiki) in regards to that subject. This would then be first EU membership application that Iceland if it goes trough the parliament.

Jonfr (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Iceland is going to apply for EU membership on 27th of July 2009. More details in this BBC News, Iceland moves towards joining EU. Jonfr (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iceland has applied for EU membership, the application for EU membership can be found here. Jonfr (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is news on Icelandic EU application, Iceland hands in application to join EU, Iceland, Croatia in race to become EU's 28th member. Jonfr (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline - Malta Frozen its Application

Malta had frozen its EU membership application for 2 years (1996-1998) when back then the eurosceptic party won the national elections but its goverment lasted only 2 years as another election was called and the pro-EU party won the election and continued with the EU talks – this should be reflected in the EU timeline--Melitikus (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide relevant sources of this information first. --Dima1 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

here - this is an official source from the EU website http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/past_enlargements/eu10/malta_en.htm

scroll down and find this - Application for EU membership: 16th July 1990, Frozen in 1996 and re-activated in 1998. Official opening of Accession Conference with Malta in February 2000 --Melitikus (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some uncertainity/contradiction about the exact dates. Please look here and here. The firm dates are the elections of 1996 (26.10.1996) and of 1998 (5.9.1998). The froze came between these two dates and the re-activation is between the second date and October 1998 (date of council decision for restart as per one of the links). The more problematic is the froze date - it seems that the 1996 MLP government had the aim to froze the application, at thus many sources cite 1996, Nov.1996 or similar date. But one of the links (from the European Parliament I think) gives Feb.1998 as froze date. It is possible that in 1996 some minister or other official expressed "intention" to froze negotiations, but it was not done "fully" until Feb.1998? Alinor (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Would it be better if we distinguish with one more color between "application submitted, no candidate status yet" and "official candidate recognised by the EU as such" (eg. Turkey between 1987 and 1999, and all others also) - becasue currently it seems that negotiations start with the submittal of application, but this seems wrong - I think that the EU/ECommission starts negotiations discussions with the candidate state government after it gets "candidate status". Before that time there are internal EU procedures (between Commission, Council, etc.) to decide if to invite the applicant state to negotiations or not (eg. to give it "candidate status" or not). I think this is an important point in the enlargement process - the decision for a third country to be official "candidate".

As shown with Morocco the decision was not to invite it (I can't see in the article the date of Morocco application rejection) on geographical grounds - thus its color should not be yellow.

Council Decision of 1 October 1987 Alinor (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the end date for Morocco in the timeline to 1.10.1987 (instead of 1 day after application submittal). Additionaly I corrected the dates for the text "negotiating" for Croatia and to put artificial dates just to align the text. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we could apply yellow/negotiations color to the initial six states - after all they negotiated the ECSC Treaty between themselfs. But again, I can't find dates for the begin of these discussions. Alinor (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

sixth enlargement - again

Somebody again added this "sixth enlargement to BG, RO" thing. The link provided is just some journalistic interpretation. And it is wrong: there are multiple links showing the the EU treats all 12 new member states (10 in 2004 and 2 later in 2007) as "two rounds of the fifth enlargement". I can dig them out from the europa.eu site if nessesary. Alinor (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The EU does treat them as two rounds of the fifth enlargement, although that is only their interpretation. I don't see how it is necessarily unreasonable to label BG+RO as a sixth enlargement. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, it occurred at a different time to the others so it is reasonable to call it sixth, though perhaps with a note on the Commission's interpretation (which perhaps isn't strictly based on logic) if it doesn't take up too much space. Makes sense.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO that the offical EU name of the enlargement rounds is more notable than some journalistic report naming them differently. The logic for the EU naming is very clear - EU Enlargement is not a "event" - it is a "process". The exact date of entering into force is just the end date of this long process. About the 12 states of the officialy-fifth enlargement: 6 of them started negotiations in 1998. 6 more in 1999. Then, soon afterwars the negotations of both groups were "joined" (eg. join Accession conferences, etc.). In the end 10 of the states succeeded to conclude negotiations, fullfill the various benchmarks and conditions, etc. in 2003 (they joined in 2004 after ratification procedures, one more monitoring report, etc.). The other two made it in 2005 (and joined in 2007). For the most part of the Enlargement process these 12 states worked in the same "group" (besides Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia - all of wich also made steps toward the EU in the same period, but were not part of this "group"/"enlargement round"). If need to divide them - we can also focus on the 1998/1999 6+6 division istead of the 2004/2007 10+2... Anyway, the EC clearly treats all 12 states as part of the "fifth enlargement" [1]. Alinor (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would propose the reverse format: to use the official classification and just add a note like "The fifth enlargement round concluded in two waves - 10 states joined in 2004, and the last two in 2007" Alinor (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a table with official enlargement numbering and "unofficial" - where in the unofficial we will include every case where EU law coverage is extended over additional territories (eg. East Germany, future Mayotte, Netherland Antilles enlargements, etc. similar cases). Alinor (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye good point, if we had a table or something though. Bit harder in prose if you want to formalise that. Can I just suggest that we prefix each mention of the number as "what the Commission considers as the" and try to steer clear of too much talk about numbers? In fact I'm sure we could write it without mentioning numbers at all. I notice the current text seems to have developed into a monologue of how they are numbered which is rather straying from the point, and also please don't put external links in the prose, its against MOS.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Image: EU-GDP-Population.svg

Why is there such an outdated image (EU-GDP-Population.svg) in the "Criteria and process" section? In my opinion the image should be either updated with current information or removed. It can cause more confusion rather than helping, and plus I personally don't see it of being much benefit, especially with data from 2003. Jaysont34 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Crap

This whole article needs to be cleaned up. I would start with the most obvious - the UK's Sovereign Base Areas forming part of the European Union, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.160.168 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to quote the sentences about the sovereign bases that you are not happy with?--Boson (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For a guess, the anon IP fails to grasp that all UK sovereign territory (including Great Britain) is part of the EU unless HMG has choosen to except them in its accession treaty - such as it did for the Channel Islands, for example. So Akrotiri is certainly part of the EU. --Red King (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP user could make some constructive suggestions. As I currently understand it, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are formally not part of the EU, being specifically excluded (with exceptions) by treaty, though they are part of the customs area of the Community and many other EU provisions apply, possibly making them de facto virtually part of the EU. Perhaps we should change the text somewhat and add a footnote to clarify the precise position. The cited reference has the following amendment to the Treaty establishing the EC:

This Treaty shall not apply to the United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus except to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements set out in the Protocol on the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and in accordance with the terms of that Protocol."

--Boson (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

EU associative agreement with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia

I came across this article, it should be reflected in the article. Neftchi (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

sentence doesn't make sense

The second sentence of the third paragraph in the "Success and fatigue" section currentl y reads:

Commission President Romano Prodi favoured granting states "everything but institutions" to the EU's neighbours, allowing them to co-operate deeply, but now to but added strain on the EU's institutional framework.

however this does not make sense, specifically I cannot parse "but now to but added strain". Could this be "but not to put added strain"? Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks for the flag.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-cold-war figure

The Iron Curtain's fall enabled eastward enlargement. (Berlin Wall)

File:Strike Gdansk 1980.jpg

1980 strike at Gdańsk Shipyard, birthplace of Solidarity, movement that made eastern enlargement possible.

There is a disgreement between IP_89.204.197.8 and myself as to which image should be used to open the section "Post-cold-war". Status quo has been the figure on top showing the fall of the Berlin Wall. The IP proposes to use the Solidarnosc picture below instead.

The purpose of any figure is to symbolize the end of the cold war, which enable eastern enlargement. I don't want to deny the crucial role Solidarnosc played in these events. However, I believe that there were many events paving the ground, but it was foremost one (the fall of the wall) that marked the end of the cold war. It may be that (being a German) my view on this is somewhat biased. Certainly, the fall of the wall has earned much more attention in my country then anywhere else. That's why I would like to hear the IP's but also third opinions on the question: Which is the most relevant picture to illustrate the end of the cold war?

Perhaps a third picture ... Tomeasy _{T C} 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

An images in this section are absolutely dispensable. Ron 1987 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand one thing Iron Curtain was not an material object, it was a sphere of influence of USRR in Europe and that is why you can't identify it as a Berlin Wall.The event that started to demolish communist regime in Europe was Solidarnosc movement in Poland which lead to semi free elections, then it was Hungary who made democratic reforms and asked Russian soldiers "to go home", after them it was East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and after all that finally USRR ceased to exist.So you can see now that fall of the Berlin Wall was neither the "start event" nor the final destruction of Iron Curtain as there still were countries that struggled to end communist regime like Romania.Thats why I support the picture with "start event" or if the consensus cannot be find we shouldnt put any picture at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.189.200 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What was the start? Solidarnosc is one among many possible answers. Others being, e.g., the Afghanistan war, Prague Spring, election of Pope John Paul II, NATO Double-Track Decision, election of Mikhail Gorbachev. It is as wrong to say that Solidarnosc was "the" start as it would be to say that the fall of the wall was "the only" event of the whole process. I am not claiming the latter, I just believe that it is the event most commonly referred to when speaking about the end of the cold war.

I can also imagine that there will be no imagine in the end. Perhaps we can hear some more opinions on that. Tomeasy _{T C} 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the Berlin picture. It quite nicely adds up to the info in the section. Every person in the world (who is aware enough that is) associates The fall of the Iron Curtain with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and hence most of the readers will find it appropriate and informative in the context of the section. I hope such a third opinion help you resolve the dispute. --Laveol ^T 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Solidarity is very important and often overlooked from a western perspective. However the Berlin Wall/Iron curtain is broader and more symbolic and as we only have room for one image I'd say we stick with that. However we should look at including the Solidarity image on other pages with more space (History of the European Union for example).- _J.Logan`^t: 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fall or the Berlin Wall was and is the symbolic end of the Iron Curtain in Europe. That the image we should have on this page. The Solidarity image could be included in History of Europe or in any number of related pages. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the main problem in that dispute is that terms Berlin Wal and Iron Curtain are used as a synonyms but actually they are words describing two compeletly different things.Iron Curtain is a non material border between two different spheres of influence, Soviets on the eastern part and American dominated western Europe on the other.Berlin Wall is a material border in a divided city and is distinctive for only one country:Germany.Iron Curtain is describing the whole group of Central and Eastern European countries.While Berlin Wal fell down as a result of Solidarity achievements in Poland which influenced whole region and Europe as a whole, the demolishion of the wall wasnt neither the most important nor the final climax of the Iron Curtain destruction.Its important to remember that for Bulgarians, Romanians, Czechoslovaks, Yugoslovians the Iron Curtain was still in place and ended only after their own revolutions and finally ceased to exist after USRR dissolution.I think Berlin Wall picture is not shownig the whole complexity of that process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.52.181 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OCT status of the Netherlands Antilles

After doing some research, I think the info on the OCT-status of the Netherlands Antilles is wrong. Indeed in 1957, with the signing of the Treaties of Rome, a special Protocol on the application of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Dutch: Protocol betreffende de toepassing van het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Economische Gemeenschap op de niet-Europese delen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), and a special Protocol on the application of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands so both Treaties of Rome did indeed apply only to the Netherlands proper and Netherlands New Guinea at the time of signing.

The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community was worded as follows:

“ Treaty establishing the EEC - Protocol on the application of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 227 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 227, be entitled to ratify the Treaty on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea only.

Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven.

”

The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community was worded slightly differently:

“ Treaty establishing the EAEC — Protocol on the application of the Treaty to the non-European parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

ANXIOUS, at the time of signature of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, to define the scope of the provisions of Article 198 of this Treaty in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty:

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by reason of the constitutional structure of the Kingdom resulting from the Statute of 29 December 1954, shall, by way of derogation from Article 198, be entitled to ratify this Treaty either on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in its entirety or on behalf of the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea. In the event of ratification being limited to the Kingdom in Europe and Netherlands New Guinea, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands may at any time, by notification to the Government of the Italian Republic as depositary of the instruments of ratification, declare this Treaty also applicable either to Surinam, or to the Netherlands Antilles, or to both Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles.

Done at Rome this twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven.

”

BUT, and this is a big "but", this EEC treaty was later amended with the Convention amending Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, with a view to making applicable to the Netherlands Antilles the special regime of association defined in part IV of the said Treaty (link shows the agreements' text in French, German, Italian, and Dutch (from page 288)--French (official): Convention portant revision du Traité instituant la Communauté Economique Européenne, en vue de rendre applicable aux Antilles néerlandaises, le régime spécial d'association défini dans la IV° partie de ce Traité], Dutch (official): Overeenkomst tot wijziging van het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Economische Gemeenschap ten einde de bijzondere associatieregeling van het vierde deel van het Verdrag op de Nederlandse Antillen van toepassing te doen zijn). This agreement/treaty was signed on 13 November 1962 in Brussels, and entered into force on 1 October 1964. It appears to have been signed and ratified together with the Protocol concerning imports into the European Economic Community of petroleum products refined in the Netherlands Antilles at a proper IGC (see the Final Act cited here).

A nice summary about the IGC can be found at this Exposé des Motifs of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives (in both French and Dutch).

Another citation about the 1962 IGC: [2]

I guess this agreement not only applies to this article, but also to Treaties of the European Union, as the agreement seems a proper treaty (and if the Greenland treaty is mentioned, this one should be mentioned as well I guess). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional remarks

This treaty revision was already anticipated with a declaration of intent attached to the original Treaty of Rome:

“ Declaration of Intent on the association of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community

THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS,

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the close ties which unite the several parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

ANXIOUS to maintain and intensify the traditional trade flows between the Member States of the European Economic Community on the one hand and Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles on the other, and to contribute to the economic and social development of these countries,

DECLARE THEIR READINESS, as soon as this Treaty enters into force, to open negotiations at the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with a view to concluding conventions for the economic association of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles with the Community.

”

This whole situation, which is a bit weird I agree, stems from the fact that the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Suriname were equal (and for the three countries stemming from the now dissolved Netherlands Antilles: are) equal partners in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands cannot sign treaties that apply to these parts of the Kingdom without having the consent of these parties.

Remarkably, Suriname in the end seems to have not wanted to associate itself with the EEC, as the agreement only applied to the Netherlands Antilles. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suriname turns out to have been an OCT after all!

The provisions of Part Four of the Treaty were applied to Surinam, by virtue of a Supplementary Act of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to complete its instrument of ratification, from 1 September 1962 to 16 July 1976.

Are there more mistakes like this in the table? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Potentially eligible member states is OR

I think the above picture needs to be removed from the article. At very least, the green color code has to be removed as it bears no solid grounds. It is original research (OR) at its best.

Lately, we had to remove similar map from another EU-related article showing the maximum possible extension of the EU—including Russia. As much as that one was the fantasy of one editor, I think it is the fantasy of another editor, here, that such an enlargement is impossible. Also, why are the microstates not green.

We should really avoid crystal balling however reasonable it may seem. What we can do instead is color countries in various shades according to the relationship they enjoy with the EU and/or their current applicant status. Something along the lines of the following two examples: File:Further European Union Enlargement to Eastern Partnership.png, File:Further European Union Enlargement2.png. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am against any images showing any states beyond the current official agenda. It is pure OR as we have no authority to draw the boundary - it is a political decision and other attempts to categorise beyond the present agenda, aside from eligibility, are deeply flawed and unhelpful. We should only show candidates, applicants and SSA states. Nothing more in the context of enlargement.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion in this particular discussion, I just wanted to point out that the highlighting of states which fulfull the Copenhagen geography criteria isn't "fantasy". The European Continent does have established, traditional borders. I think that is relevant in principle, and the European Council evidently thought so too when they blocked Morocco's bid. - SSJ ^t 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The color code of the map above does not follow the Copenhagen criteria. Tomeasy _{T C} 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And there are numerous borders, some of which exclude Cyprus. Then there is also the debate as to whether Turkey is "European"; as in the cultural, not geographical, definition of the word. It is fantasy for us to declare what borders the European Council would decide.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out File:Europe political map.png and Europe#Definition. I'm not saying that the European Council is in the business of recognising the exact borders of continents, but this this version appears to be very widespread, and Sarkozy and many others have said that the geographical Europe ends with the Bosphorus Strait. I'm not arguing that a "maximum enlargement" map is needed in this article, but I do in principle think that the fact that by most definitions, Russia, Kazhakstan, Georgia and Azerbaijan are partly in Europe, is relevant in relation to the Copenhagen criteria. - A somewhat likely possibility that we could mention, not a fantasy. Policy nazis may say that "somewhat likely possibilities" are always OR that have no place in Wikipedia, but I don't appreciate that people say it's "my fantasy", because it's not. - SSJ ^t 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You di observe that in the above map, Russia, Kazakhstan, Andorra, Liechtenstein, ..., are not green, while, e.g., Armenia is? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Until such time as the European Council votes on a definition of what is Europe, which it won't, then we shouldn't make a map on ideas of what countries are included - just as we haven't through text.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY IT MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.36.205 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

European States?

• Are Cyprus and Turkey European States?--Deguef (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe says "Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey are considered part of both Europe and Asia. Armenia and Cyprus are entirely in Western Asia, but are sociopolitically European countries."
  • Copenhagen criteria#Geographic criteria (q.v.) says ". . . various definitions of Europe exist so that whether a country is European is "subject to political assessment".

--Boson (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TURKEY IS NOT AN EUROPEAN COUNTRY, IT'S A SOCIOPOLITICALLY ASIAN COUNTRY, IT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE., I WILL DO IT PERSONALLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.36.205 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That is wrong. The EU has decided that Turkey is permitted as a candidate. Then we can't write otherwise, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum or a campaign site. --BIL (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible members

I think that it is better not to colour possible members, and just mark the accepted candidate members. Reasons: (1) Russia is left out - why? Personally, I think that it is highly unlikely that Russia would ever be accepted as a candidate member, if the latter would even ever apply to do so. But no official document rules out Russian membership. (2) Then, we have the Azerbaidjan, Georgia and Armenia issue. Not once are these countries mentioned as possible future members in EU documents. Seen the disputable geographic location of these countries (Europe or Asia), it is too bold too assume they are considered to be possible future members. (3) It is becoming increasingly clear, albeit in a subtle tone, that Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are an enlargement-bridge too far (see e.g., the opposition by France). Sijo Ripa (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with it, but regards to the eastern countries, it is based upon the intentions of the countries. Georgia, Ukraine, Moldava and Armenia I believe it is a declared goal to join the EU (see the key for the image). Azerbaijan is technically possible but there hasn't bee much movement to warrant the same level - though I personally think it shouldn't be on the map as there is so little and such little chance. Russia has never had any intent, there is no debate or goal. Just because you can't find anything to rule it out does not mean they are considering, find a Vatican document ruling it out. The terms used though are very broad of course, I think Iceland should be considered separately from Norway, Greenland and Switzerland - who have hardly any 'debate' whatsoever.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, how about this as new categories;

1) European Union

2) Candidate States: Turkey, FYROM, Croatia

3) Applied: Montenegro

4) Preparing for application: BiH, Serbia, Albania, Kosovo (?), Iceland

5) Withdrawn or Suspended application: Norway, Switzerland

6) Potentially* fulfils geographic criteria: all others but in a very pale colour so the concentration is on the above

(*=so we avoid the "but they are/aren't European!" argument)

This way, we don't list the whole earth, Iceland won't have to be in a category of its own (we should have our own definition of preparing, i.e. a public statement that an application is being prepared or it is SSA so that by default) and we remove the "debate" aspect from Norway and Switzerland.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me. I think such a map, or a strongly similar one, already exists, I just don't recall on which page. I did not know that Iceland was officially preparing an application - I just thought that they were discussing whether they should apply. Thanks for the feedback, Sijo Ripa (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted they still may not lodge the application, but I doubt they would drop the idea without even going into negotiations. They have an application under preparation for when they do make the decision as they'll be submitting it shortly after the election.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CROATIA WHICH IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY IS NOT LONGER A CANDIDATE, IT'S A FUTURE STATE, ALL THE MAPS SHOULD BE UPDATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.36.205 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The commission has suggested an entry date of July 1, 2013, but first all member countries must approve that.--BIL (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Map of the EU

Why does Wikipedia keep perpetrating the faulty, inaccurate map of the EU -- an one which does not show EU member states' territories in South America and the Caribbean (e.g. Guyane Francaise bigger in size than half of the EU members in Europe)?

This is totally silly.

N.B. A map of France without Guyane is like a map of the UK without Northern Ireland, or of Finland without Aaland Islands.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.72.196 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you believe that you'll believe anything! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Norway

I read in some articles of wikipedia that Norway keeps the application frozen after the referendum of the 90's rejecting the accession. But I find not links. I would like the article solve this doubt clearly. What is the exact status of the Norway application?--83.33.107.240 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We typically put new topics at the bottom rather than the top and even Wikipedia editors don't know everything! After a bit of searching I found this document from the European Parliament which says that Norway's application was implicitly withdrawal. On the other hand this web page say that, "Norway and Switzerland applied in the past, and may one day reactivate their applications." — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Serbia official candidate

From today Serbia is official candidate state. Please correct this on map and in relevant text, as soon as relevant references become available. Thank you. --178.253.213.21 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-serbia-to-receive-eu-candidate-status-but-accession-talks-remain-in-limbo/2011/10/12/gIQAFrfpeL_story.html#

--178.253.213.21 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As has been discussed in the recent edits at Accession of Serbia to the European Union, it was just a recommendation by the European Commission to have it become an official candidate; it wasn't actually granted that status yet. It might be worth noting somewhere in this article, though. --Waldir ^talk 12:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tables and timelines

At the moment we have three tables/timelines in this article:

1. A template that is only used here, is quite good but is squeezed too much IMHO.
2. A table which seems more concerned with territories than member states.
3. A timeline which seems a bit of an overkill.

I proposed to replace them all with a single table along the line of this table which is based on the template but has space for more info. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your table looks better than the template, and I'd support replacing it, and coding it directly in the article if the template isn't used anywhere else. The "details" table should indeed be renamed (but not excluded, because information would be lost -- some other way to present that information would be welcome). As for the timeline, I believe it is a useful visualization that shouldn't be removed either. --Waldir ^talk 12:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Serbia resource

EU Leaders Consider Serbia's Candidacy by GORDON FAIRCLOUGH Wall Street Journal DECEMBER 9, 2011, excerpt ...

European Union leaders, wrestling with the contentious issue of how best to save the euro, face another vexing question at their summit Friday: whether to grant Serbia candidate status for membership in the group. What they decide could profoundly affect politics in Belgrade, where a pro-EU government confronts an increasingly vigorous and nationalist opposition that favors strengthening ties instead with the Balkan country's traditional ally, Russia.

99.181.136.158 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

EU enlargement gif image

For what concerns the wonderful EC-EU-enlargement animation.gif, someone should add Croatia for its entrance in 2013. Thanx, cheers --Larry.europe (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is 2012 now, not 2013, so you have to wait for a year. --Glentamara (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But they've already officially decided... Like for Soccer World Cup next editions, counted in the list, I think we should insert Croatia into the entrance country gif image. --Larry.europe (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The accession of Croatia is not concluded until the last deposition instrument has been deposited at the Italian Government. --Glentamara (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Map of the future enlargement

I know not the way to change the map, but I propose a change for Switzerland and Norway. I propose two options. To create a new category for the countries that applied but stop the process (without being rejected by the European Union). Or to let the yellow color for "Potential candidates" and paint both countries in yellow. Other countries that were in the same situation in the past (Malta, Ireland and Denmark) finally become members of the EU.83.46.201.64 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First Enlargement

The paragraph about the first enlargement (UK, Ireland, Denmark) states: "the US encouraged the UK to join in order to counterbalance French influence. Other EEC members were also inclined to British membership on those grounds." This sentence is ambiguous. Which other EEC member countries? Which grounds? Because they were prodded by the US, or because they wanted to counterbalance French influence? Sources please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Iceland

On the Future enlargement section, Island is coloured as "potential candidate", I believe it should be coloured as "candidate country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.77.46 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though it is technically correct, does it not look odd for Iceland's status to be "frozen"? Well, Duh! How do you think it got it's name???? Fork me (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of Berlin

A recent change seems to give the impression that West Berlin was explicitly excluded before 1990. This seems somewhat at odds with other parts of the article, including the footnote on the topic of Berlin, and appears to be an interpretation that is not consistent with the Federal Republic of Germany's standard declaration that all such treaties applied equally to Berlin (or with the de facto application of the treaties) What was the intended meaning of the change? Does this require further clarification? --Boson (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada

I think this section should be removed. Of the three citations given, two are from highly speculative articles and the third is a blog post that literally details a blogger's daydream. If there really is any serious suggestion that Canada could join the European Union, a proper source needs to be found. It doesn't help that the text is duplicated word for word over on the article on Canada–European Union relations. Shinigami27 (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We only need to introduce one map for this article, not three

This map File:EU2004-2013.svg is better than the animated one because when it's not animated, I don't have to sit and wait to see what the map will eventually tell me. We don't need three different maps to tell us what we want to know about this article. --Makkachin (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Could we get rid of the timeline please?

I just can't see that it adds anything to the article, other than a lot of white space. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact very useful as far as I can see. it is a quick visual summary of when every country applied and acceded, and is a good comparison for the length of time the negotiated. Even if all that data was in the text, it wouldn't be as clear. Even if we had a table with all that (and we have enough already) you couldn't get it as quickly and cleanly (it also demonstrates the time between enlargement and little things like that). I see no need to remove it. Improved, sure, removed not.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Timeline is an excellent graphic; it sums up a lot in one very efficient space. I suggest enhancing it somewhat and updating it. Furthermore it should show the eurozone start date as 1999, not 2001; that will also make Greece's entry date clearer. I'll see if I can do the updates.HendrikDeLeeuw (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Points

Can I ask... Why is Montenegro not on the line? Lemonade100 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been updated. Anyone want to do it, I am not familiar with the code.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the timeline broken? 24.193.28.27 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111028143123/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidates/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidates/index_en.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130916073616/http://vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/novosti_i_najave/2013/lipanj/ek_ulazak_hrvatske_u_eu_dokaz_da_je_europska_perspektiva_realnost to http://www.vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/novosti_i_najave/2013/lipanj/ek_ulazak_hrvatske_u_eu_dokaz_da_je_europska_perspektiva_realnost

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212064553/http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title to http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428003205/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk:80/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1085326325096 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1085326325096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

colours

The colour schemes used in graphics and table cells in this article are completely haphazard. They need to be made consistent. Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn vs Frozen

Regarding the applications of Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland there are conflicting informations about whether they are frozen or withdrawn (with the former allowing to re-enter the process more easily). I do think that all three have officially withdrawn, but somebody with more knowledge should take a look at it and correct the article accordingly. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. The Swiss candidacy had been frozen since the negative popular vote on European Economic Area in 1992. Recently, seeing that public opinion had not moved in almost 25 years (or if it did move, it moved rather more firmly against joining), the Swiss Federal Council officially withdrew the candidacy. I'll dig out a source and correct the statement + history. — JFG ^talk 13:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote

IP editor 204.40.130.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently added a hatnote saying that this article covered only the current enlargement, and pointing readers to Future Enlargement of the European Union if they want to learn more about that. I reverted, saying that the current article as written covers all enlargements, past, present future and prospective. IP counter-reverted without comment and without arguing their point on the talk page, so I'm happy to open the discussion myself instead. What do other editors think about this hatnote, which in my view is both unnecessary and wrong? — JFG ^talk 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That is a WP:SUBARTICLE of this one. All of that content is summarized here. TDL (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia on map of potential enlargements

@Глеб Соколов: Sorry, I had to revert your change again. If you want to add Russia to the map of potential future enlargements of the EU, you must back this up with a reliable source that says this is a serious possibility. In the meantime, the previous map must remain in place. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Change "Enlargement" to "Enlargement and Reduction"?

Ditto for the article on "Future Enlargement," which is equally presumptuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.34.75 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"European expansion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect European expansion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#European expansion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)