List of European Union member states by accession is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section begins with It is generally expected that the states of southeastern Europe will be the next states to join the European Union, and that it will still take some time for Iceland, Norway and Switzerland to join, since public opinion is not yet in favour in those three states I think this section should at least be rewritten as it is, in my opinion, insinuating that eventually Iceland, Norway and Switzerland will join. That it is just a matter of time. I know the Norwegian situation best, and it is far more likely that Norway will stay out than ever join the EU. This because: 1) Membership was turned down twice in Referendum already, and it's widely accepted in Norwegian politics that the "rules" wont be changed in case of a new membership application. Thus there will be held a referendum in that case. 2) Last years the opinion polls have mostly shown a "no" majority 3) Joining the EU is a greater step for the population each time, as the EU continues to include more national matters in its international cooperation. 4) The EEA has proved to work very well 5) The main arguments against entering the EU remains the same as before. Fisheries and agriculture being one of the main argues and the people not really seeing the need for joining as the economy is boosting and the everyday matters like work, education, travel etc are taken care of thanks to EEA and Schengen.
It's also worth mentioning that Iceland becoming member is also an unlikely scenario, especially if Norway don't. As i wrote, fisheries is one of the main reasons why Norwegians voted "No", Iceland is by far more dependent of it's fisheries than Norway and so the "fisheries-argument" is even stronger there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordenskrall ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2007 -- Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)(UTC) -- Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Geez, one might think that European Union member states was enough. Actually, that one was already pretty much redundant, but I guess you can never have have enough redundancy. That's why it's called redundancy.
People just seem to want to create more and more articles about the European Union, without even bothering to check if they are actually serving any need. Someone else please bother with all the merging and/or deletion tags that should be applied to this and the other article. Aris Katsaris 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I am seeing black colored cells in the table. Can we fix that please? Shawnc 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Akrotiri and Dhekelia are already listed under Cyprus, where they logically belong IMO; this can, of course, be discussed and changed, but the way it currently is feels intuitively "right" to me. — Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are Russia, Byelorussia, Moldova, and Ukraine not considered potential candidate countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.82.224 ( talk • contribs) . on 20:59, 16 February 2006
Could someone tell me, why did Denmark (and Norway) withdraw their application when the UK's was vetoed? I know why Ireland did, but can't think of any reason why the other 2 would've - Red Hot 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"On May 19, 2006, the European Union's Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said that he expected Iceland to join the European Union before Croatia would."
What is the purpose of this statement? What does it add? There's nothing in the paragraphs above that imply that there's some reason we should have thought that Croatia would join before Iceland. It gives the impression, like too many Wikipedia articles, that facts that have very little encyclopedic value are just thrown into the article as they happen. Unless some context is added that explains why anyone would care that Iceland might join the EU before Croatia, this statement should be removed. — Cleared as filed. 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:European_Union_as_a_single_entity_in_the_world.png is somehow not working properly as thumbnail. Watching the high res version does work, but I have o idea how to fix this.
Now that I've split off list of European Union member states by political system, which I'm going to expand shortly, what should the name of this article be?
Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right to me... Help? — Nightst a llion (?) 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
<removed DYK box> (reapperance because of the merging, the merged from article is what I beleive appeared in January. Please do not nominate this article again though... ) + + Lar: t/ c 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Should this article be merged into Enlargement of the European Union? Seems to cover a lot of common ground AndrewRT - Talk 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
The timeline suggests that the country is negotiating its entry. This, as far as I know, isn't true. It's been recognised as a candidate, but the negotiations are yet to be opened. Any thoughts on how to fix this? --20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) RedZebra
Hi all. There is a problem with the timeline under Cyprus. Here the timeline suggests that Cyprus part called "TRNC" is excluded from accession. 2 major issues arise from that.
I suggest the removal of "TRNC" as politically incorrect statement (this is ipso facto a political article) and the inclusion of "areas not under effective control" renaming to North Cyprus.
There is also a fundamnetal POV error in the Notes under "L" as well. The referendum that was held was between the two major communities in Cyprus and not between the "Republic of Cyprus" and the "Trnc" as the original editor suggests. see "DRAFT ANNEX IX: COMING INTO BEING OF THE NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS" on the actual annan plan here. Thoughts? Aristovoul0s 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:EU Accession Croatia.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How about merging these into one sortable list? Would require each on its own line and a bit of reorganisation but not too hard to do. But would it be a bit to complicated?- J.Logan` t: 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly prefer to keep these two lists as they are now, as they have different content for a reason. — Nightstallion 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
List of European Union member states by accession is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section begins with It is generally expected that the states of southeastern Europe will be the next states to join the European Union, and that it will still take some time for Iceland, Norway and Switzerland to join, since public opinion is not yet in favour in those three states I think this section should at least be rewritten as it is, in my opinion, insinuating that eventually Iceland, Norway and Switzerland will join. That it is just a matter of time. I know the Norwegian situation best, and it is far more likely that Norway will stay out than ever join the EU. This because: 1) Membership was turned down twice in Referendum already, and it's widely accepted in Norwegian politics that the "rules" wont be changed in case of a new membership application. Thus there will be held a referendum in that case. 2) Last years the opinion polls have mostly shown a "no" majority 3) Joining the EU is a greater step for the population each time, as the EU continues to include more national matters in its international cooperation. 4) The EEA has proved to work very well 5) The main arguments against entering the EU remains the same as before. Fisheries and agriculture being one of the main argues and the people not really seeing the need for joining as the economy is boosting and the everyday matters like work, education, travel etc are taken care of thanks to EEA and Schengen.
It's also worth mentioning that Iceland becoming member is also an unlikely scenario, especially if Norway don't. As i wrote, fisheries is one of the main reasons why Norwegians voted "No", Iceland is by far more dependent of it's fisheries than Norway and so the "fisheries-argument" is even stronger there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordenskrall ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2007 -- Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)(UTC) -- Tordenskrall 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Geez, one might think that European Union member states was enough. Actually, that one was already pretty much redundant, but I guess you can never have have enough redundancy. That's why it's called redundancy.
People just seem to want to create more and more articles about the European Union, without even bothering to check if they are actually serving any need. Someone else please bother with all the merging and/or deletion tags that should be applied to this and the other article. Aris Katsaris 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I am seeing black colored cells in the table. Can we fix that please? Shawnc 07:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Akrotiri and Dhekelia are already listed under Cyprus, where they logically belong IMO; this can, of course, be discussed and changed, but the way it currently is feels intuitively "right" to me. — Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are Russia, Byelorussia, Moldova, and Ukraine not considered potential candidate countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.82.224 ( talk • contribs) . on 20:59, 16 February 2006
Could someone tell me, why did Denmark (and Norway) withdraw their application when the UK's was vetoed? I know why Ireland did, but can't think of any reason why the other 2 would've - Red Hot 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"On May 19, 2006, the European Union's Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said that he expected Iceland to join the European Union before Croatia would."
What is the purpose of this statement? What does it add? There's nothing in the paragraphs above that imply that there's some reason we should have thought that Croatia would join before Iceland. It gives the impression, like too many Wikipedia articles, that facts that have very little encyclopedic value are just thrown into the article as they happen. Unless some context is added that explains why anyone would care that Iceland might join the EU before Croatia, this statement should be removed. — Cleared as filed. 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:European_Union_as_a_single_entity_in_the_world.png is somehow not working properly as thumbnail. Watching the high res version does work, but I have o idea how to fix this.
Now that I've split off list of European Union member states by political system, which I'm going to expand shortly, what should the name of this article be?
Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right to me... Help? — Nightst a llion (?) 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
<removed DYK box> (reapperance because of the merging, the merged from article is what I beleive appeared in January. Please do not nominate this article again though... ) + + Lar: t/ c 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Should this article be merged into Enlargement of the European Union? Seems to cover a lot of common ground AndrewRT - Talk 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
The timeline suggests that the country is negotiating its entry. This, as far as I know, isn't true. It's been recognised as a candidate, but the negotiations are yet to be opened. Any thoughts on how to fix this? --20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) RedZebra
Hi all. There is a problem with the timeline under Cyprus. Here the timeline suggests that Cyprus part called "TRNC" is excluded from accession. 2 major issues arise from that.
I suggest the removal of "TRNC" as politically incorrect statement (this is ipso facto a political article) and the inclusion of "areas not under effective control" renaming to North Cyprus.
There is also a fundamnetal POV error in the Notes under "L" as well. The referendum that was held was between the two major communities in Cyprus and not between the "Republic of Cyprus" and the "Trnc" as the original editor suggests. see "DRAFT ANNEX IX: COMING INTO BEING OF THE NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS" on the actual annan plan here. Thoughts? Aristovoul0s 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:EU Accession Croatia.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Turkey EU logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How about merging these into one sortable list? Would require each on its own line and a bit of reorganisation but not too hard to do. But would it be a bit to complicated?- J.Logan` t: 22:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly prefer to keep these two lists as they are now, as they have different content for a reason. — Nightstallion 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)