Talk:Enlargement of the European Union

Ratification progress

Has any W. European country ratified the treaty? David.Monniaux 16:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

the one for enlargement? I'm not sure but I think it is all done and dusted. -- Cabalamat 02:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

According to [1], only Cyprus, Denmark, Malta and Poland have ratified the treaty. Interesting - I wonder whether some skeptics will try to derail enlargment by voting against it in the national parliaments.David.Monniaux 00:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Edit war over Czechia vs. Czech Republic

I've protected the page. Please could all those involved in this edit war come to some decision on the talk page rather than reverting incessantly. Thank you. Angela

Good grief, has this edit war just been over what to call the western bit of the former Czechoslovakia? I know that the government of "Ceska Republika" have been trying to get English speakers to use an analogue of "Cechy", but quite simply "Czechia" is a name which is never used by native English-speaking people. -- Arwel 19:14, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arwel, I am a native speaker of English, and I use "Czechia". Just thought you might want ot know that -- Cabalamat 06:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How long have you been doing that? No-one I know (and this is a circle of people who go there quite often) does. Arwel 12:02, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Look - I don't mind the edit war on Czechia and Czech Republic. As if there's a lot of difference. I personally prefer Czech Republic because it's common, but Czechia is probably more correct and a lot more convenient. Anyway, protecting the page is a bad idea I think. It doesn't let the people who want to edit other parts of the article do so. For example, the incorrect GDP stats. The UN stats are out of date - we should go for the CIA Factbook 2003 stats, they are public domain as well and they are what Wikipedia uses most of. I've seen in the last months a slight rejection of the CIA Factbook by Wikipedians, but it remains the most standardised and up-to-date source for facts. For example, Romania's GDP PPP is $7,400 not $5,830. Croatia's GDP is not as high as listed. Hungary's GDP is inaccurate. Let's make an effort to make Wikipedia accurate. And, protecting the page is not necessary for minor things such as the Czechia issue. If there was mass vandalism, or revertion of the entire article, I suppose it would be right. But does it hurt if people argue over Czechia or Czech Republic. I think Wikipedia is fast changing in the bad. It's changed from an open-content, collaborative encyclopedia, to one that is ruled over by sysops and administrators who protect pages, and other Wikipedians like Shallot who choose to use proprietary sources. -- Ronline.

There would be no point in you making those changes in the middle of an edit war - they would simply be reverted along with everything else. It wasn't the fact that someone was changing Czechia to Czech Republic, but the fact that an edit war was going on that led to the article being protected. Without this, the edit war simply continues, filling up recent changes and polluting the article history. As it's been three days, I've unprotected it for now. Hopefully people will attempt to come to some agreement here this time rather than editing in a way that will lead to further protection. Angela 00:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First of all, I did not _add_ the GDP numbers from the UN source, I merely normalized them according to the source listed on the page when I saw it (and notice how I mentioned in the commit message that it looked fishy). The source simply needs to be consistent; if you want to replace them with CIA Factbook numbers, sure, but make sure you use a single edition (not all Economy of foo pages on Wikipedia are using the same edition so you have to look it up upstream). On that matter, I also don't see why the UN is any more or less proprietary a source than the CIA. They should both be getting fed data from the local statistics bodies anyhow. --Shallot 18:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The term "enlargement"

Q: How long have been the word "enlargement" used to refer to "accession of some state(s) to the CEE/EU"? Just wondering. Thanks. --Ann O'nyme 13:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can find a Reuters release from 1995 using the term - see [2] - and that's without looking very hard. Morwen 13:18, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

And here's one from 1992 - [3]

More colours to distinguish new states

Would it be possible for the image for each enlargment to show the new states in a different colour? It's not that easy to tell when you have to scroll up and down. --Phil 15:39, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Shallot 18:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Figures in euros

Wouldn't it make sense to give the GDPs and such figures in euros instead of US dollars? -- Kimiko 18:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, giving subtotals and a total for each enlargment without giving the corresponding figures for the old EU is not as useful as it could be.

And what about possible enlargement by other European countries like Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland? -- Kimiko 18:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talking to myself here :o) Here are some numbers:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=1-11032004-EN-AP-EN&mode=download

Any objections to using these to replace the current ones? -- Kimiko 18:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nah, forget it. That link only gives GDP, not GDP/capita. GDP/capita is available somewhere else on europa.eu.int, but only from 2001. And I really don't feel like digging trough 10 or more national statistics websites. -- Kimiko 14:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you're talking to yourself, does this mean that you're ordering yourself to forget what you suggested? ;-)

James F. (talk) 15:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could, but that only makes it worse.. :o) -- Kimiko 00:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

after may 1st: Merge Tables and delete the 2004 expansion section

After 1st May, someone should merge the first table with EU-15 countries with the 10 candidate countries information. TheWikipedian 20:24 GMT+2

Narrowing of the EU

What about narrowing of the EU? Article on dependant states mentions that Greenland left the EU on February 1st 1985, after acquiring home rule from Denmark. --Romanm 14:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

It is already covered in the Special member state territories and their relations with the EU wiki

Missing Issues, language problem, transitional measures, and job shift to the east

Languages: multiplying interpreters' costs

• Language problem, In the European parliament all languages have to be translated in all other languages. At least the facility must be there. The amount of interpreters and the cost of translation would rise sharply. E.g. Latvian into Dutch needs a special interpreter. -- Andries

Regarding languages and translation, I think that subject would be best covered in one or more separate articles, after all it is an aspect of operation of the EU and not enlargement. -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important enough to be included here because the number of interpreters is a square function of the number of languages. Before May 1st there are 11 languages which means that 0.5(11^2-11)=55 interpreters are needed . In the case of 8 more languages on May 1st (I didn't include the language spoken on Malta because I don't know whether this is a separate language), the quantity of interpreters is 0.5(19^2-19)=171 That is a big difference and a lot of money. I don't know enough about the subject to contribute myself. Andries 13:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course, you go back to linear costs if everything goes through a fixed number (1 to 3) "working languages": you have one translation between language A and a working language, then a second translation between the working language and language B. Not very good for quality and spontaneity, but... David.Monniaux 22:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Transitional Measures

• Transitional measures, Labor market protection and limited access of food processing companies to the EU market. Do farmers in the new EU states get money from the EU, just like the farmers in the old EU states? -- Andries

Farmers in new EU countries will get a lower rate of subsidy than fartmers in existing countries, as a transitional measure. I think (but am not sure) that transitional measures will last for up to 10 years. -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andries 09:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shift of jobs from old to new members statest

Today I read an article in the German magazine der Spiegel (nr. 18 26.04.04) that treated the shift of jobs from Germany to the new members states. This will be, I think, an important consequence of the enlargement. Andries 18:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sealand

I don't see why including Sealing is making fun of the wikipedia. After all, it is not legally recognised as a state, but neither the UK nor the UN have done anything to stop Sealand acting a fiscal paradise. Theoretically, the Vatican City could also apply to join the EU. Is that funny too?

• But The Vatican is already associated with the EU. It even has its euro coins. I don't know if it can... Probabily not. Sealand doesn't exist! And I find a stupidity that it even got a page like if it were a country. It is only a curiosity, we also have got our fantasy kingdom: Kingdom of Berlengas Islands (Reino das Berlengas)... on real Islands! "Governed" today by an Old man and his grandchild. Sealand? be serious! Pedro 02:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the vatican has no asociation agreements with the eu. It is allowed to mint its own euro coins (in fact, minted by Italy) because of the existance of a previous agrement with the italian state.

Until the UN rules out the statehood of Sealand, no matter how silly or stupid a contry might be, it is still a legal uncertainty. If the Uk invades Sealand some day, this issue will be over.

Of course that in practice to consider sealand a state does not make sense. But it is a legal exception that should be considered, at least in the miscellanius subsection.

That why I support reintroducing Sealand in this wiki. case.It is unknown wether this "country" could join the union (in theory). In practice, the UK has never acknowledge Sealand's independece, so it is unlikely that a sea platform could be recognised a a state of the union.

What's Italy? What's the EU? From the article:(...)Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) They are the European Union. Think a little about you've written: Until the UN rules out the statehood of Sealand, no matter how silly or stupid a contry might be, it is still a legal uncertainty. If the Uk invades Sealand some day, this issue will be over. That's not stupid, that's a lunatic POV. Sorry for that. It even unlikely that they'll think about that, and it is a lost of time debating such a thing. In Northern Italy, there's a more serious fantasy country that even has border control. And the numorous european nations under the rule of european states, what about them? Excepting for Portugal and Ireland, every country of the EU has other nations under control, how many declared independence? In Spain, almost every autonomony is a fantasy country (Catalonia, Galicia, etc...) and they believe that they are countries, what about that? --Pedro 16:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cyprus

The Cyprus article states that: EU Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen declared that Green Line, dividing Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Greek Authority of Southern Cyprus, will be the border of union beginning from 1 May 2004.

I think this article should reflect that too. The total area of the island is 9,250 sq. km and the population a little over 770,000. So the numbers in the box should also be changed to include the Greek part only. But I have no idea what the figures are for the 2 parts.

Do the 2 UK sovereign bases of Dhekalia and Akrotiri form part of the Union or not? D.D. 09:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I want to see a cite for that quote before we run with it. It seems unlikely, especially considering the use of the term 'Greek Authority of Southern Cyprus'. Morwen 09:36, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at [4], [5] and [6]. D.D. 10:00, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Out of the perspective of daily practice Mr. Verheugen's statement is of course right, but still, according to international law (and according to the EU, since they have no intention (yet?) to recognize the Turkish republic of Cyprus as an independant state) the whole island joined the EU, not just the southern part. Gugganij 13:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I changed the data for Cyprus since only the southern (Greek) part of Cyprus acceded to the European Union. See Cyprus and Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004. Either this article should remain like this or this and all other articles should be changed to reflect that the whole island is (officially - not de facto) part of the EU. D.D. 13:17, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Since in my point of view, the article should reflect in first place the legal status according to international law, the opinion of the Union and virtually the opinion of all countries in the world, which regard the Government of the Greek part as the legitimate government of all Cyprus, the article should be changed (with a footnote added that EU law is currently not applied in the northern part). Likewise, all the articles you mentioned should be changed accordingly as well. Gugganij 14:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

... and, indeed, seemingly from the (desired, at least) point of view of the Turkish Cypriots themselves, given the referendum result.

As far as I think Wikipedia should state, Cyprus is a single country with a good third of it occupied by a generally-unrecognised militia (but that significant steps have been taken in the direction of reuniting the island). We don't claim that FARC-held land is another country, for example.

James F. (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Latin America

Isn't this part really going overboard!? Is there anything to corroborate thing "de facto members" theory? David.Monniaux 21:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I wonder where is the supporting document? I have never seen one, even being somewhat of a europhile. Though myth may say otherwise, most of what the EU does is well-documented. -- Kaihsu 21:58, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Even too wel documented, it's impossible for a mere mortal to grok all the relevent documents, and even if theyt usually don't mean anything

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/la/

In any case, which bit in that site supports the statements (verbatim from what I deleted)?: The European Union seeks close relations with the states of Latin America (mainly Chile and Mexico which are near the European level) and to a lesser extent Brazil and might in the future accept them as de facto members although formal membership is of course out of the question. -- Kaihsu

Norway

Norway, like most other Scandinavian states, is reluctant to surrender sovereignty to a central European government. The Norwegian government also wishes to keep control of fishery resources in their territorial waters. Norway has applied twice for EEC and EU membership, but the two referenda on the issue have been lost by the government.

I found this confusing. Does it mean to say that the people don't want to join but their government does? If so, can someone clarify the paragraph for easier reading, and it would be very interesting to hear about this discrepancy; as an outsider, I would think the government would drop it, if the people are as reluctant as the article seems to claim. Tempshill 23:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, twice now Norwegian governments have negotiated entry terms to the EEC/EU, and had the plan rejected in subsequent referendums. Norwegian public opinion seems quite variable, and I believe is currently more favourable to to membership. Arwel 11:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia

re: Koraths Revision as of 06:07, 2 May 2004 [7]]

I think most readers aren't aware of the diffrence between the communist regime in the Former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Bloc so this should be mentioned in the text as it's relevent when considering Yugoslavias chance in the 1980s.