![]() | Opt-outs in the European Union was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that four
member states of the
European Union have
de jure
opt-outs and do not participate fully in all common policies? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think Sweden shouldn't be marked on the map, it is misleading. They have defacto yes but shouldn't be listed the same as the others. Also perhaps as the map is very simple, it could incicate more clearly the types of opt outs or numbers? - J Logan t: 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweden have import restrictions on alcoholic beverages by private citizens - does this not constitute an opt-out of the free movement of goods or food/drink? AadaamS ( talk) 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Edinburgh Agreement could easily be merged in here, it would help indivudal sections develop to include this detail. - J Logan t: 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is currently POV. This is obviously a controversial issue. Jim Murphy, the British minister, has stated in a letter to European Scrutiny Commission that: "The UK-specific Protocol which the Government secured is not an “opt-out” from the Charter. Rather, the Protocol clarifies the effect the Charter will have in the UK. The UK Protocol confirms that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. In particular, the social and economic provisions of Title IV of the Charter give people no greater rights than are given in UK law. Any Charter rights referring to national law and practice will have the same limitations as those rights in national law. The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied upon before the courts, it does not change the status quo." ( Letter from Mr Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman of the Committee, 31 July 2007) Intangible2.0 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has quite a lot of problems:
Best regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The table is not accessible to people with red-green color blindness. -- Beland ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just removed the ifc tag, since it appears the image has been fixed. Rswarbrick ( talk) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you dislike about the way it's currently organised? I think it's okay... — Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sweden has an opt-out from the snus ban. Should Sweden be listed as having an opt-out because of this? ( 212.247.11.155 ( talk) 10:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
The EU has currently regarding the BG and RO have some mechanisms similar to opt-out (but resemling keep-out): Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification for Bulgaria and Romania.
"When they joined the EU on 1 January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria still had progress to make in the fields of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime. To smooth the entry of both countries and at the same time safeguard the workings of its policies and institutions, the EU decided to establish a special "cooperation and verification mechanism" to help them address these outstanding shortcomings.
The reports on progress in Bulgaria and Romania: The Commission reports under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism every 6 months on progress with judicial reform, the fight against corruption and, concerning Bulgaria, the fight against organised crime."
So, as I understand, currently BG and RO do not participate as full members in these fields (judicary&security) of the European Community institutions, etc. - similary to opt-out. They have to cover some criteria, as described in the regular reports, and afterwards the verification mechanism (keep-out clause) will be lifted... This is very similar to Eurozone/Schengen membership... And dissimilar to the various temporary provisions in the treaty about delays for implementation of certain policies of the EU in particular member states (about these maybe we should mention some general date like "end of last transition period for Malta: 2014".
Maybe in the future enlargements there will be similar cases also. So, I propose to add these three areas (judiciary, corruption, organised crime) to the opt-outs article. Alinor ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is the same thing as an opt-out. An opt-out means that a country has opted not to be part of certain things. As far as I've understood, the member states concerned may at any point choose to drop an opt-out on their own (in some cases requiring a referendum). But in the BG/RO case, it seems that the countries do want to be parts of certain things, but they can't be that until someone (European Parliament? European Commission? Other member states?) choose to accept them. There are also a few temporary measures (e.g. "derogation on eurozone participation" = obliged to join the eurozone eventually, but convergence criteria not yet fulfilled, and temporary suspensions of the right of movement for certain countries, and "Schengen not yet fully implemented" (BG/RO/CY)). It would be nice to have a separate article about those temporary things. Some things are mentioned in Eurozone and Schengen Area, but it would be nice to have it all collected at one place. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
Map error: Bornholm should be red instead of purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The European Council has taken the decision to add Czech Republic to the protocol for UK/Poland opt-out. To be added with the next accession treaty [1]. See also the Ireland-clarifications declaration from 2008 [2] (not a opt-out, but likely to be included with the same accession treaty). Alinor ( talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There is also a de-facto opt-out in Czech Republic from the EMU. Euro is not a valid currency in Czech Republic and it does not seem to be at any soon time (while at some shops it is possible to pay with euro, in most of them it is not possible. All other internal transactions occur in CZK currency)... ( talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Semi)
There are the following types of inequalities of EU law application in regards to member states:
permanent inequalities | request by states to cooperate more than EU (post-accession: request for same as EU instead of less) |
request by states to cooperate less than general EU |
allowed by the EU | Enhanced co-operation |
Opt-outs in the European Union Legislation derogations/exemptions (minor) special territories status Accession treaty exemptions (minor) (if any??) |
not allowed by the EU |
Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification EMU/Schengen suspensions (post accession; benchmarks for adoption) |
potentially any Legislation adopted per QMV instead of unanimous |
We have two also articles focusing on the differences in the cooperation levels in Europe: European integration and Multi-speed Europe. The first focuses on more pan-European issues and the second on more EU-focused issues.
I think that we should:
I am pretty certain the UK and Ireland have an opt-out regarding the whole former Justice and Home Affairs pillar, and not only the PJCC remnant that was left after Amsterdam. As far as I know, the whole issue has nothing to do with to qualified majority voting in PJCCM. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you take for example the December 2008 Commission proposal for the Conditions Receptions Directive of the second phase legal instruments for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was part of the JHA part transferred by the Treaty of Amsterdam to the Community pillar, the Commission argues the following:
Legal basis
This proposal amends Directive 2003/9/EC and uses the same legal base as that act, namely point (1) (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 63 of the EC Treaty.
Article 1 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, states that Ireland and the UK may ‘opt in’ to measures establishing a Common European Asylum System.
In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom gave notice, by letter of 18 August 2001, of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of the current Directive.
In accordance with Article 1 of the said Protocol, Ireland decided not to participate in the adoption of the current Directive. Consequently, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the aforementioned Protocol, the provisions of the current Directive do not apply to Ireland.
The position of the above mentioned Member States with regard to the current directive do not affect their possible participation with regard to the new directive once it comes into force.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not bound by the directive nor is subject to its application.
The Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland was changed by the Treaty of Lisbon to Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice. It states very clearly that the UK and Ireland have an opt-out (with the possibility of opting in) for the complete chapter, not only for PJCCM matters:
Article 1
Subject to Article 3, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The unanimity of the members of the Council, with the exception of the representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, shall be necessary for decisions of the Council which must be adopted unanimously.
For the purposes of this Article, a qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I have no idea why it was written down here that the UK and Ireland only have an PJCCM op-out. The only times I read that is here on Wikipedia. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Sweden doesn't have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In accordance with the treaties, Sweden has a derogation from the euro participation because it does not fullfill the convergence criteria just like Poland, Lithuania, Hungary etc. This is a transitional provision ( article 139(1) TFEU), which will cease to exist when Sweden eventually fullfills the criteria. This is the same situation as for example the Czech Republic and Hungary. All since the Swedish referendum on the euro adoption, which resulted in a "no", its governments have deliberately failed to fullfill the convergence critera. But also the governments of the Czech Republic and Hungary are reluctant to adopt the euro. That does not mean that they have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In principle there are no differences between the Czech/Hungarian situations and the Swedish. So, Sweden should be removed from this article (or should all member states outside the eurozone be included). -- Glentamara ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The two colours (not the red) used in the table near the bottom and the image on the top right corner of this article are not very easy for some to differentiate, especially those of us who are colour-blind. Perhaps someone can edit them, I would if I could... 119.235.86.3 ( talk) 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Schengen treaty is legally not part of EU law, since there are non-EU states participating in this treaty: Norway,Iceland,Liechtenstein,Switzerland
Can anybody update this in article ?
Siyac 05:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been three years since it was discussed and Sweden is still mentioned in this article ?!? And why is there a need for discussion at all ?!?
All EU member states not participating in ERM 2 have got a de facto opt-out. There is nothing special about Sweden. Simple as that.
So remove Sweden or add BG, HR, CZ, HU, PL, and RO. Knisfo ( talk) 07:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Danish citizenship clause really constitutes an opt-out from the EU treaties.
I know that sources do describe the Danish citizenship provisions as an opt-out, but they do so as well with the Irish provisions: [3]. This describes the significance of Danish citizenship provisions as "limited" and says they are "little more than a clarification of the treaty". For consistency, I think we either need to include the Irish provisions, or drop the Danish citizenship provisions. Perhaps the best approach is to have a separate section on "legal guarantees". What do others think? TDL ( talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the table in the end of the article, shouldn't we write out that Denmark participates in the Schengen agreement on an intergovernmental basis, and not on a supragovernmental basis like other member states do?
I also propose that "(opt-in)" is added for the UK and Ireland when it comes to the Schengen agreement, since these two countries can opt-in into parts of the Schengen acquis, just like they can when it comes to other policy areas in the area of freedom, security and justice. -- Glentamara ( talk) 07:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to a declaration attached to the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish government intended to review its opt-out from the area of freedom, security and justice within three years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Does anyone know if the Irish government (or parliament) has adopted any report reviewing the opt-out? -- Glentamara ( talk) 08:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What do others think about this recent change which lists the UK and Poland as having "NO" opt-out from the Charter. There is certainly legal debate about the effect of the Protocol (see for example [4]) but I'm not convinced it has been conclusively resolved that the Protocol has no effect.
If we are not going to list these provisions as an opt-out, obviously it needs to be done consistently throughout the article (ie sectioning and the map). Should we move these charter provisions to the legal guarantees section? TDL ( talk) 04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Opt-outs in the European Union. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Unclear sentence...
"This allows them to opt-in or out of legislation and legislative initiatives on a case-by-case basis, which they usually do, except on matters related to Schengen."
Since opting-in or opting-out are the only two possibilities, telling us that they "usually" opt-in or opt-out tells us nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
What is said about EMU in the article, is actually concerning the introduction of the euro, which is just a subset of EMU. I would therefore suggest that we replace "Economic and Monetary Union" by "Introduction of the euro" in, e.g., titles and tables. Denmark participates fully in the EMU otherwise, just like the other non-euro EU countries. -- Glentamara ( talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Opt-outs in the European Union was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that four
member states of the
European Union have
de jure
opt-outs and do not participate fully in all common policies? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think Sweden shouldn't be marked on the map, it is misleading. They have defacto yes but shouldn't be listed the same as the others. Also perhaps as the map is very simple, it could incicate more clearly the types of opt outs or numbers? - J Logan t: 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sweden have import restrictions on alcoholic beverages by private citizens - does this not constitute an opt-out of the free movement of goods or food/drink? AadaamS ( talk) 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Edinburgh Agreement could easily be merged in here, it would help indivudal sections develop to include this detail. - J Logan t: 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is currently POV. This is obviously a controversial issue. Jim Murphy, the British minister, has stated in a letter to European Scrutiny Commission that: "The UK-specific Protocol which the Government secured is not an “opt-out” from the Charter. Rather, the Protocol clarifies the effect the Charter will have in the UK. The UK Protocol confirms that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. In particular, the social and economic provisions of Title IV of the Charter give people no greater rights than are given in UK law. Any Charter rights referring to national law and practice will have the same limitations as those rights in national law. The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied upon before the courts, it does not change the status quo." ( Letter from Mr Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman of the Committee, 31 July 2007) Intangible2.0 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has quite a lot of problems:
Best regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The table is not accessible to people with red-green color blindness. -- Beland ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just removed the ifc tag, since it appears the image has been fixed. Rswarbrick ( talk) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you dislike about the way it's currently organised? I think it's okay... — Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sweden has an opt-out from the snus ban. Should Sweden be listed as having an opt-out because of this? ( 212.247.11.155 ( talk) 10:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
The EU has currently regarding the BG and RO have some mechanisms similar to opt-out (but resemling keep-out): Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification for Bulgaria and Romania.
"When they joined the EU on 1 January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria still had progress to make in the fields of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime. To smooth the entry of both countries and at the same time safeguard the workings of its policies and institutions, the EU decided to establish a special "cooperation and verification mechanism" to help them address these outstanding shortcomings.
The reports on progress in Bulgaria and Romania: The Commission reports under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism every 6 months on progress with judicial reform, the fight against corruption and, concerning Bulgaria, the fight against organised crime."
So, as I understand, currently BG and RO do not participate as full members in these fields (judicary&security) of the European Community institutions, etc. - similary to opt-out. They have to cover some criteria, as described in the regular reports, and afterwards the verification mechanism (keep-out clause) will be lifted... This is very similar to Eurozone/Schengen membership... And dissimilar to the various temporary provisions in the treaty about delays for implementation of certain policies of the EU in particular member states (about these maybe we should mention some general date like "end of last transition period for Malta: 2014".
Maybe in the future enlargements there will be similar cases also. So, I propose to add these three areas (judiciary, corruption, organised crime) to the opt-outs article. Alinor ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is the same thing as an opt-out. An opt-out means that a country has opted not to be part of certain things. As far as I've understood, the member states concerned may at any point choose to drop an opt-out on their own (in some cases requiring a referendum). But in the BG/RO case, it seems that the countries do want to be parts of certain things, but they can't be that until someone (European Parliament? European Commission? Other member states?) choose to accept them. There are also a few temporary measures (e.g. "derogation on eurozone participation" = obliged to join the eurozone eventually, but convergence criteria not yet fulfilled, and temporary suspensions of the right of movement for certain countries, and "Schengen not yet fully implemented" (BG/RO/CY)). It would be nice to have a separate article about those temporary things. Some things are mentioned in Eurozone and Schengen Area, but it would be nice to have it all collected at one place. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
Map error: Bornholm should be red instead of purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The European Council has taken the decision to add Czech Republic to the protocol for UK/Poland opt-out. To be added with the next accession treaty [1]. See also the Ireland-clarifications declaration from 2008 [2] (not a opt-out, but likely to be included with the same accession treaty). Alinor ( talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There is also a de-facto opt-out in Czech Republic from the EMU. Euro is not a valid currency in Czech Republic and it does not seem to be at any soon time (while at some shops it is possible to pay with euro, in most of them it is not possible. All other internal transactions occur in CZK currency)... ( talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Semi)
There are the following types of inequalities of EU law application in regards to member states:
permanent inequalities | request by states to cooperate more than EU (post-accession: request for same as EU instead of less) |
request by states to cooperate less than general EU |
allowed by the EU | Enhanced co-operation |
Opt-outs in the European Union Legislation derogations/exemptions (minor) special territories status Accession treaty exemptions (minor) (if any??) |
not allowed by the EU |
Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification EMU/Schengen suspensions (post accession; benchmarks for adoption) |
potentially any Legislation adopted per QMV instead of unanimous |
We have two also articles focusing on the differences in the cooperation levels in Europe: European integration and Multi-speed Europe. The first focuses on more pan-European issues and the second on more EU-focused issues.
I think that we should:
I am pretty certain the UK and Ireland have an opt-out regarding the whole former Justice and Home Affairs pillar, and not only the PJCC remnant that was left after Amsterdam. As far as I know, the whole issue has nothing to do with to qualified majority voting in PJCCM. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you take for example the December 2008 Commission proposal for the Conditions Receptions Directive of the second phase legal instruments for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was part of the JHA part transferred by the Treaty of Amsterdam to the Community pillar, the Commission argues the following:
Legal basis
This proposal amends Directive 2003/9/EC and uses the same legal base as that act, namely point (1) (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 63 of the EC Treaty.
Article 1 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, states that Ireland and the UK may ‘opt in’ to measures establishing a Common European Asylum System.
In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom gave notice, by letter of 18 August 2001, of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of the current Directive.
In accordance with Article 1 of the said Protocol, Ireland decided not to participate in the adoption of the current Directive. Consequently, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the aforementioned Protocol, the provisions of the current Directive do not apply to Ireland.
The position of the above mentioned Member States with regard to the current directive do not affect their possible participation with regard to the new directive once it comes into force.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not bound by the directive nor is subject to its application.
The Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland was changed by the Treaty of Lisbon to Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice. It states very clearly that the UK and Ireland have an opt-out (with the possibility of opting in) for the complete chapter, not only for PJCCM matters:
Article 1
Subject to Article 3, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The unanimity of the members of the Council, with the exception of the representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, shall be necessary for decisions of the Council which must be adopted unanimously.
For the purposes of this Article, a qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
I have no idea why it was written down here that the UK and Ireland only have an PJCCM op-out. The only times I read that is here on Wikipedia. Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Sweden doesn't have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In accordance with the treaties, Sweden has a derogation from the euro participation because it does not fullfill the convergence criteria just like Poland, Lithuania, Hungary etc. This is a transitional provision ( article 139(1) TFEU), which will cease to exist when Sweden eventually fullfills the criteria. This is the same situation as for example the Czech Republic and Hungary. All since the Swedish referendum on the euro adoption, which resulted in a "no", its governments have deliberately failed to fullfill the convergence critera. But also the governments of the Czech Republic and Hungary are reluctant to adopt the euro. That does not mean that they have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In principle there are no differences between the Czech/Hungarian situations and the Swedish. So, Sweden should be removed from this article (or should all member states outside the eurozone be included). -- Glentamara ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The two colours (not the red) used in the table near the bottom and the image on the top right corner of this article are not very easy for some to differentiate, especially those of us who are colour-blind. Perhaps someone can edit them, I would if I could... 119.235.86.3 ( talk) 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Schengen treaty is legally not part of EU law, since there are non-EU states participating in this treaty: Norway,Iceland,Liechtenstein,Switzerland
Can anybody update this in article ?
Siyac 05:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been three years since it was discussed and Sweden is still mentioned in this article ?!? And why is there a need for discussion at all ?!?
All EU member states not participating in ERM 2 have got a de facto opt-out. There is nothing special about Sweden. Simple as that.
So remove Sweden or add BG, HR, CZ, HU, PL, and RO. Knisfo ( talk) 07:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Danish citizenship clause really constitutes an opt-out from the EU treaties.
I know that sources do describe the Danish citizenship provisions as an opt-out, but they do so as well with the Irish provisions: [3]. This describes the significance of Danish citizenship provisions as "limited" and says they are "little more than a clarification of the treaty". For consistency, I think we either need to include the Irish provisions, or drop the Danish citizenship provisions. Perhaps the best approach is to have a separate section on "legal guarantees". What do others think? TDL ( talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the table in the end of the article, shouldn't we write out that Denmark participates in the Schengen agreement on an intergovernmental basis, and not on a supragovernmental basis like other member states do?
I also propose that "(opt-in)" is added for the UK and Ireland when it comes to the Schengen agreement, since these two countries can opt-in into parts of the Schengen acquis, just like they can when it comes to other policy areas in the area of freedom, security and justice. -- Glentamara ( talk) 07:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
According to a declaration attached to the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish government intended to review its opt-out from the area of freedom, security and justice within three years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Does anyone know if the Irish government (or parliament) has adopted any report reviewing the opt-out? -- Glentamara ( talk) 08:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
What do others think about this recent change which lists the UK and Poland as having "NO" opt-out from the Charter. There is certainly legal debate about the effect of the Protocol (see for example [4]) but I'm not convinced it has been conclusively resolved that the Protocol has no effect.
If we are not going to list these provisions as an opt-out, obviously it needs to be done consistently throughout the article (ie sectioning and the map). Should we move these charter provisions to the legal guarantees section? TDL ( talk) 04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Opt-outs in the European Union. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Unclear sentence...
"This allows them to opt-in or out of legislation and legislative initiatives on a case-by-case basis, which they usually do, except on matters related to Schengen."
Since opting-in or opting-out are the only two possibilities, telling us that they "usually" opt-in or opt-out tells us nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 ( talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
What is said about EMU in the article, is actually concerning the introduction of the euro, which is just a subset of EMU. I would therefore suggest that we replace "Economic and Monetary Union" by "Introduction of the euro" in, e.g., titles and tables. Denmark participates fully in the EMU otherwise, just like the other non-euro EU countries. -- Glentamara ( talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)