Potential enlargement of the European Union was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 3, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Potential enlargement of the European Union appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,731 times ( disclaimer) ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and a majority of Israel's population support future enlargement of the European Union to incorporate Israel? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 30 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Future enlargement of the European Union. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Russia–European Union relations#Membership|Russia–European Union relations]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

In the timeline table:

Council decides to open negotiations 24 Mar 2020 26 Jun 2012 24 Mar 2020 28 Jun 2013

Council sets negotiations start date 26 Jun 2018 26 Jun 2012 18 Jun 2019 17 Dec 2013

Should it rather be the other way around? Surely setting the start date can't happen before deciding to open negotiations? P.S. For all other countries that reached this point in the timeline, 'Council sets negotiations start date' happens after 'Council decides to open negotiations.' Hoinar-in-lume ( talk) 20:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The "Constituent territories of former EU members" is unnecessary and misleading. Scotland cannot accede to the EU while remaining a part of the United Kingdom. Upon session (as the SNP campaign for), Scotland would be applying for membership like every other independent state (at which point the section becomes null). However, the section infers quite heavily that Scotland could apply to join without first seceding. ZElsb ( talk) 07:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Possibly this is a hangover from before Brexit. When the UK as a union was a member, then it was argued that the former members of a dissolved UK had equal right to continuity of EU membership. "Update needed". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 08:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ZElsb: I don’t think it implies “that Scotland could apply to join without first seceding” at all. It clearly says that the SNP “supports joining the EU should Scotland […] become independent in the future”. I do think, however, that it doesn’t make sense for the section “States not on the agenda” to have two subsections, “Sovereign states” and “Constituent territories of former EU members”, just to include one sentence about Scotland in the latter. I propose we merge the two and simply mention Scotland in “Other proposals”. Brainiac242 ( talk) 09:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It does imply that through the title without stipulating it isn’t constitutionally or legally possible (both from a UK and EU perspective). The sentence you reference doesn’t fit with the title, as that scenario would make Scotland former territory of a former member state.

Moving it to the “other proposals” section seems like a reasonable compromise, though. ZElsb ( talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ZElsb: I thought you were talking about the content of the section instead of its title, which I guess could be misleading. Anyway, done. Brainiac242 ( talk) 12:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So, what do we do about Georgia, after today's news? See here and here. Xolani ( talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"Halting" is a very ambiguous term. It does not mean that Georgia's candidacy has been officially revoked. From what I understand, its more of a "pause" until Georgia repeals the "foreign influence" law. Once that precondition is met, negotiations may begin. For now, its best to wait and see what more comes of this rather than any editor making WP:CRYSTAL speculations. Cheers, Archives908 ( talk) 01:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, with the 2024 Georgian parliamentary elections around the corner, its projected that a Pro-EU gov't will replace Georgian Dream and subsequently repeal the law. Archives908 ( talk) 01:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What was the criteria to change the status of Turkey's accession negotiations? I was wondering whether Georgia is at the same point as Turkey, right now. Xolani ( talk) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Far from it, actually. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour to suspend negotiations with Turkey, since then no new chapters have been opened or closed. Georgia's current position is nowhere similar to that of Turkey's. For one, Georgia hasn't even started negotiations, and like I said above, their candidacy isn't officially suspended, it's more of a "pause". Archives908 ( talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Folks- Georgia's EU candidacy status has not been formally revoked. Their negotiations to acceded to the EU has been halted. They are still technically a "candidate country". Please comprehend the difference. Regards, Archives908 ( talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In 2020 EU adopted a revised enlargement negotiation methodology. This revised methodology was even integrated into similair revised provisions for the earlier adopted negotiation frameworks for Montenegro+Serbia in May 2021. Thus all 6 negotiating candidates currently follow the same 2020/21 revised enlargement negotiation methodology.

In line with the revised methodology:

• No further negotiating chapters will be closed before the interim benchmarks for chapters 23 and 24 are met.
• Once the interim benchmarks for chapters 23 and 24 have been met and closing benchmarks set for chapters 23 and 24, the rule of law action plans will need to be updated. Specific key issues identified as regards the functioning of democratic institutions and public administration reform will be phased in and included in the rule of law action plans. This will help better steer the reforms in this area.
• The two rule of law chapters (chapter 23+24) should be closed last.

On 26 June 2024, Montenegro just met the interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24. At the press conference, this achievement was described by the following words: "the opening phase of negotiations has now been completed, and the closing phase of negotions can now begin". The European Commissionair expected a "critical mass of chapters will now be closed during the second half of 2024". While the Prime Minister of Montenegro added his country now aspired to become an EU Member state by 2028 at the latest.

Perhaps the Wikipedia article should also mention the coined phrase "closing phase of negotiations" as an intermediate step for the negotiation status (referring to when a negotiating candidate met the interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24)? Or perhaps we should just mention "interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24 met" along with a linked explaining note what this means? Or should we continue to stay silent about this negotiation milestone, and only report how many chapters have been closed?

As we have witnessed for Montenegro and Serbia, it can take several years to achieve the milestone "interim benchmark for chapter 23+24 met", which mean a long period with no progress to report on the number of closed chapters. As Montengro now passed this milestone, they are now obviously one major step ahead of Serbia in their negotiation process. Furthermore my understanding is, that the revised enlargement methodology dictates that no chapters can be closed for Ukraine+Moldova+Albania+North Macedonia, before they reach the same milestone "interim benchmark for chapter 23+24 met". In my point of view, it would therefor also be relevant for the next step status table, to somehow reflect that this milestone step has now been achieved for Montengro. But let me know what you think? Danish Expert ( talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply