![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is this BS? Racism is about race, not culture or religion! Islam is a brutal, totalitarian culture that has woved to convert, kill or enslave the rest of the world(I have read the Quran so I know what I'm talking about). Who would not oppose nazism which is much less of a threat than Islam? Please remove this accusation of racism written by some naive Halal hippie. Thank you :) 83.92.26.162 ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing an incorrect and unsourced statement from the section about Norway. See this article and the corresponding discussion page for more information. Dieus ( talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The previewed year is 2008 for Albania, but such date is unrealistic. Please change it into 2009. See reference [1] --Sulmues 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Where does the Nice Treaty state the EU can only have 27 members? It states what happens when the EU has more than 27 members (not every country gets a commissioner), but apart from that...? — Nightstallion 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with more in-depth insight of the issue refer to this and update the page if necessary? Check out the following article: http://euobserver.com/9/26870 It may show certain progress in Iceland towards EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.69.225 ( talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Iceland is going to apply for EU membership on the 27th of July 2009, if a resolution on the matter passes through the Icelandic congress. But that is the most likely outcome in this matter, as there appears to be a clear majority for a EU membership application in the congress. Here is a news on the current status on EU matters in Iceland, the news is in english. Since the Icelandic part of the article was written, Iceland has changed government. The main party in the Icelandic government is pro-EU party. There partners are anti-EU party. The status on Iceland-EU relation might change fast in coming weeks. Jonfr ( talk) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Icelandic Parliament has sad yes to a EU application, here is the news on that, Iceland's parliament votes in favour of EU bid. Jonfr ( talk) 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Iceland has formally applied for EU membership, the application can be found here. Jonfr ( talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
News about the Icelandic EU application can be found here, Iceland applies to join European Union, ANALYSIS-EU fast track for Iceland could dismay other bidders. Jonfr ( talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Iceland is now marked as potential candidate on EU enlargement website. The website is not ready at this point, but the map has been updated. Jonfr ( talk) 06:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This text is wrong and needs to be updated, "Iceland's current ruling party has recently endorsed holding a referendum on opening accession negotiations with the EU. The endorsement comes as a break with traditional Icelandic EU policy, but it is far from clear whether the population would support opening negotiations.[6] If negotiation were opened they would likely be completed relatively quickly as Iceland has already implemented large portions of the EU acquis through the EEA free trade agreement.". This was rejected by the parliament, and Iceland has already submitted it's application. Please update this text. Jonfr ( talk) 08:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see "how the geographic criteria is important", it's more like an editor's personal opinion instead of evidence.
As the caption states "IF Greenland rejoined" it's blatantly crystal-balling/speculation("IF?"). Until this moment, not one single piece of evidence shows that Greenland and Russia and Switzerland will join the Union. Naming it "European Union" doesn't necessarily mean it will be an All-Europe Union.
Without any evidence or any schedule, everything is speculative.
116.48.63.112 ( talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, including "If" totally violates policies on no-Original Research and no-speculation. If we can add "if" into Wikipedia content then why not "If EU includes the Western Hemisphere", "If EU conquers the world"(hey, so that we can shade all continents in green, huh?!) 219.79.30.145 ( talk) 10:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it may be useful to have a map showing all countries currently geographically eligible to EU membership according to the Copenhagen criteria. And there is already an attempt to create such a map in the Copenhagen criteria article, the only problem being that it is unknown what definition of "Europe" the EU uses. According to one definition, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are part of Western Europe, but according to most other definitions, they aren't part of Europe. As far as I know, there is also an EU regulation stating that any non-EU part of Denmark, France and the Netherland (and also of the UK?) may choose to join the EU if it wants to, which would mean that Greenland isn't geographically blocked from joining the EU. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 15:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
I think the intro of the article and the Iceland section need to be rewritten and reliable sources added.
The intro section says:
"However, although Croatia is considered to be the likely next member of EU, the 2008 financial crisis has prompted Iceland to reconsider its opposition to membership. It is expected to apply for membership in 2009 and will be fast-tracked due to the fact it is already heavily integrated into the EU via the European Economic Area (EEA). Due to this, it could join in 2011, alongside Croatia."
The Iceland section says:
Iceland has never applied for EU membership but is already associated with the union through the EEA (where it has access to the Single market) and the Schengen treaty. As of November 2008, the public opinion in Iceland shows a stable support towards joining the European Union, the only EFTA country with such support.
Like in Norway, fear of losing control over the fishery resources in its territorial waters is the single largest issue keeping Iceland reluctant to join the EU. However, the strong effect of the economic crisis of 2008 on Iceland has accelerated the debate considerably. The formerly ruling conservative Independence Party of former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, hitherto opposed to membership, has rescheduled a party congress from October to January 2009 with the express intent to decide quickly on a membership application, as well as on replacing the hard-hit Icelandic króna with the Euro. Iceland's prime minister has announced the set-up of a commission to investigate joining the European Union. An initial plan has already been drafted by the country's foreign ministry that would see a membership application made in early 2009, aiming for entry some time in 2011.
I think the main problem with this is that no Iceland sources are used. Only speculations from EUobserver and The Guardian which don't seem to reflect what the media in Iceland is saying.
-- Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson ( talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference for Iceland actually lodging the application? As far as I have read they have only voted in favour of doing so. In fact, they apparently intend to submit it to the general and foreign affairs council meeting in Brussels on the 27th.- J.Logan` t: 08:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against Macedonians but since EU still refers to this state as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" the articles about EU should use the this name. 195.114.112.247 ( talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the reasoning behind this division, but I think that at least for Northern Cyprus we should add some clarification in the text, as it is eastern geographicaly. Alinor ( talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know the EU does not plan to include any state that is not a candidate country or official potential candidate - eg. these covered by the DG Enlargement. And additionally I have reservations about the "not designed with microstates in mind". Malta, one "small" state, is already a member. Iceland and Liechtenstein are already EEA members (thus already deeply integrated in the economic structures of the EU) and Iceland has even applied for the EU (and the initial response is very positive from the EU side). I don't want to speculate, but just imagine that Liechtestein also applies - do you expect that the EU will respond "you are too small to join" instead of "OK, if you fulfill the established criteria, we will do the required arrangements"? Monaco and San Marino have similar populations to Liechtenstein, Andorra has twice. I don't see any established population/area/GDP criteria for EU membership, but maybe we should add details about potential problems to be solved if such microstates apply. Alinor ( talk) 06:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The table on the progress of negotiations in this article does not match those found in the articles for the accessions of Turkey and Croatia (no such table exists for Montenegro). After checking the first five chapters of the acquis in each table I have discovered several inconsistencies. The table for Turkey, while matching in rankings, does not match the color code used here. It would seem to be more useful to have a consistent color scheme for these tables to increase ease of reading. Croatia's discrepancies are more significant. On this page the first three chapters are listed as having "considerable difficulties", but on Croatia's accession page those same chapters are listed as "no major difficulties expected". These are quite different ratings. Could someone with more familiarity with the subject examine these tables and correct/update them as needed? Khajidha ( talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some links from official EU sources which can prove that Croatia could join EU in 2012 or later, very likely in a package with the other West Balkan countries; This is also due to the fact that SAME language is spoken in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro, so that it's a logical thing for them to join together or in very close time intervals. Some people's wishes presented in your article are one, but the reality is a totally different thing. Read and enjoy:)):
http://www.javno.com/en-croatia/advisor--balkan-countries-into-the-eu-together_218190
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/newsbriefs/2009/06/03/nb-01
regards;
207.216.132.157 (
talk)
17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Regards too. It's not quite true that Croatia is light years ahead of the other candidates; maybe it is ahead just in some segments of the system, nothing else. Also, the newest EU enlargement reports that were presented on the net, say that it's considered to enter EU in 2012 ONLY if the 'heavy arms diaries' (which contain all the crimes that the croatian forces have done attacking civilians in Serbian Krajina) are presented to Haag Tribunal and Croatia admits its responsibility for them. Knowing today's nationalistically influenced cro-government, this might not happen untill the date which many EU circles appoint as an entry of the rest of the West Balkan to EU-the year 2014, which will mean that all the West Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia...) might enter EU together in 2014. As one serbian/croatian/bosnian/montenegrin proverb says: -'Zivi bili pa vidjeli' (-'May we be alive and see' or 'Let's wait and see'); Regards; 207.216.132.157 ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Croatia has already started and almost concluded the negotiations - the other states have not yet done this - even if they are technicaly ready, more advanced, etc. - going trough the process will take time (not mentioning the years it takes for just lodging application, getting it trough the EU decision process to get just a candidate status, then more time to start negotiations, etc.), so I think that it's not realistic to expect any country to join in 2012 together with Croatia. It is doubtfull even for Iceland, that is more advanced/prepared/etc. than all of the other candidates (regardless if some future referendum approves or rejects membership). Alinor ( talk) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In a November 2008 referendum, Greenlandic people voted to further loosen tights with Denmark, seeking for more self-government. -- Anna Lincoln ( talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The first map states that Belarus has shown no interest in membership, yet the second map states it as part of the eastern partnership and the accompanying text states "all members of the Eastern partnership have expressed interest in membership"
So which one is it? I do remember the Belarus president mentioning moving closer to Europe recently due to Russia reneging on something or other. Regardless, either the first maps is wrong or the text for the second is, and I can't edit the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.147.96 ( talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why should this article use American English? I originally reverted an edit which was made by User:Sourside21, who changed the article from British/Irish English to American English. He did this with no reasoning or explanation. I changed it back because:
However User:ChrisO comes along and reverts this. I have yet again changed it back to how it was before. Ijanderson ( talk) 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OMG You people are weird. Wikipedia used neither American nor British English. Since different people, from different countries, edit the article, they use different versions of the language. It's all in one. -- SleepySheepy ( talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
On the maps, can we please get rid of categories such as "expressed interest" and "membership debate", these are so vague as to be unhelpful and pointless. What amounts to interest, and how many years later does that one half hearted mention expire? What constitutes a debate? Can't we just have Member, Candidate, Applied, Official-Potential/SAA (just to cover Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo but nothing beyond that).
I mean, does anyone really think Azerbaijan will join in the next 50 years and it is even possible to have a debate in that country? Ditto for the others east of the current border. Why do we need to say Switzerland is having a debate? Some times we get more information across by keeping it simple. Only those who have concrete moves should be on the map, and perhaps the second map could be moved down to spread the data a bit?- J.Logan` t: 06:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
yes you're right - for example there's no membership debate in Switzerland and neither in Norway I guess. The same thing counts for San Marino and Monaco!! Olliyeah ( talk) 11:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Logan for producing a new map so quickly. I like it, and I think it includes all relevant official distinctions. I do think that the difference between candidates who are and are not officially negotiating is a relevant one, as it can be years before negotiations officially open. I think that the inclusion of countries that want to join, but have not officially applied, and haven't been given "potential candidate" status is a bit difficult. Who speaks for the country? If the prime minister gives an interview stating he wants the country to join, does that mean the country has "expressed interest"? Do we need an official vote? What if the opinion is divided. Etc... As to Norway and Switzerland, I'm open minded. Both do have some official status with the enlargement process, and could restart negotiations at any time, so I don't think they are irrelevant to potential future enlargement. Peregrine981 ( talk) 12:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this map in use on the Enlargement of the European Union page.
I hadn't seen it. I like the simplicity, but still think that overall Logan's most recent proposal is best, as it gives a very precise idea of how advanced each country really is, although the colour scheme is slightly more elegant in the other map. I am in favour of dropping Switzerland and Norway from the main map.
Thinking over the issue of the second map, I think that there is some utility to a second, less strict map, which shows the current relations of "potential potential candidates". The CPH Criteria say that any European country can join, so I think there is some use in a map showing the present relationship of all European countries to the EU. I think it is more or less fine as it stands. The only possible quible is that it might be useful to indicate that iceland is a member of EFTA but also a potential candidate state. However, since that is listed on the other map it isn't a big deal. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, been thinking, if it is elaborated something like this, it could work;
- J.Logan` t: 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For simplicity's sake I suggest sticking to this:
EFTA/Eastern does make it a bit busy. Perhaps we leave that to a separate map. I like the chart to keep track of the details. Peregrine981 ( talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add to these that in the ENP Action Plans of the Eastern partnership states (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan; Belarus has no ENP AP) there is the remark: "The EU takes note of the european aspirations of country-xxxx". I think this is enough to denote "expressed interest"? Alinor ( talk) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see "Is Montenegro an EU Candidate now?" the answer is no, so please remove. The Commission recommended its recognition as a candidate, but it is not officially a candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the Kosovo status, because the EU in its relations with the region doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo (see this official site), so it's absolutely wrong show Kosovo with the Republic of Kosovo flag. The EU still recognizes the UNSCR 1244, so the UN flag must be shown instead of the ROK-one. Oikema
Recently these maps were removed from their respective sections with the reasoning "They are incredibly unhelpful as they fail to present the political reality. They are merely a geographically based fantasy.". Every other section has a map showing the EU plus the countries discussed in the respective section. Some of them are also geographical fantasy at this stage(like Belarus in the EU, etc.). The only difference is that the other maps show the EU and the third countries with different color, not uniformly as these two that were removed. I think that the removed maps do not use different colors, because they show "maximums" (eg. all of Europe in the EU, etc.), but anyway - I post here to check your opinion. Should we remove these two maps, should we put them back as they are, should we put them back with color division between current EU and "theoretical enlargement states"? Alinor ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are the maps (some new and some that I found already uploaded):
Can we go one by one. Which is the one that you would find most appropriate to be added to the article? I will then take a concrete look at that one. Tomeasy T C 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
From my side, none of your maps is accepted. To be hones, please do not take it bad, I am fed up with this discussion. Tomeasy T C 08:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that recently were added Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh (albeit with a very short sections). If we want to keep these two entities, then we should similarly list South Ossetia and Transnistria - or alternatively: none of these. In any case the current situation is strange - discussing only some of the four that have very similar status and history.
Of course, Kosovo and TRNC, at both of witch have been made substantially more EU-actions (having their own sections in the DG Enlargement of the EC), are also part of the article since long time. Alinor ( talk) 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask why is there no flag beside Kosovo? I have changed this a number of times only to come back and find it changed back again. Rctycoplay ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
the world map shows Switz. as part of the EU in blue! Wrong! Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.76.157 ( talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Can Somebody edit the table and place a date (24th november) where Serbia's next empty space is.Its the commision presents questionnare to applicant space.I have the source here that it will be in November and it was said to be the 24th: http://www6.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=10&dd=27&nav_id=70529
I did it, and since your source doesn't mention 24th of November, i've found a different one which does. here Tomi566 ( talk) 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Its The 24th so the date in the BRACKETS needs to be taken off and put into a normal date in BLACK. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.223.107.83 (
talk)
16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw this article on Serbia's B92 [10] however I'm not sure if this is official yet? IJA ( talk) 10:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not yet until the Council makes such decision. Tomi566 ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. Commision made a recommendation that Montenegro should get the candidate status and now the council will start the procedure which normally takes 3-4 months.
Is three times larger than the other countries and is written as a pamphlet. A "key regional power" with a big "geopolitical sphere of influence" from the Balkans to Central Asia. Come on, the Ottoman Empire is over, get a grip. The article does not mention that the roman province of Asia is located in Turkey, nor it stresses the complete cultural difference, ranging from the use of a non-indoeuropean language to the widespread majority of muslims, etc. 201.252.18.173 ( talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So... What more can I say to keep the "Kosovo (UNSCR1244)" flag in the right way? Must I repeat another time that the blue-and-yellow flag only represents the Republic of Kosovo, and not the Kosovo under the UN mandate that the EU recognizes? Ok... so I will repeat it, another time. I wait for your opinion, one more time. Oikema ( talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
The article states: "Some claim that allowing Israel into the EU would create a precedent for other geographically non-European countries to apply for membership, but in fact[original research?] this precedent already exists as Cyprus, which is already a member state, is geographically in Asia. Proponents of Israel's accession to the EU claim that Israel's situation is similar to that of Cyprus - a country outside of Europe geographically, but a part of Europe culturally and socially." - the OR tag was added recently, but I don't understand what it challenges - that Cyprus is in the EU, that Israel isn't in the EU, that Cyprus is in Asia, that Israel is in Asia, or something else? Alinor ( talk) 08:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently the following paragraph was added in the Turkey section: "A main concern is Geography, but this is bound to be controversial, as the geographical limits of Europe are unclear. Europe is geographically a subcontinent in a larger Eurasian continent, and the geologically arbitrary limits have changed over time."
This text has the following issues:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is this BS? Racism is about race, not culture or religion! Islam is a brutal, totalitarian culture that has woved to convert, kill or enslave the rest of the world(I have read the Quran so I know what I'm talking about). Who would not oppose nazism which is much less of a threat than Islam? Please remove this accusation of racism written by some naive Halal hippie. Thank you :) 83.92.26.162 ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing an incorrect and unsourced statement from the section about Norway. See this article and the corresponding discussion page for more information. Dieus ( talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The previewed year is 2008 for Albania, but such date is unrealistic. Please change it into 2009. See reference [1] --Sulmues 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Where does the Nice Treaty state the EU can only have 27 members? It states what happens when the EU has more than 27 members (not every country gets a commissioner), but apart from that...? — Nightstallion 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with more in-depth insight of the issue refer to this and update the page if necessary? Check out the following article: http://euobserver.com/9/26870 It may show certain progress in Iceland towards EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.69.225 ( talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Iceland is going to apply for EU membership on the 27th of July 2009, if a resolution on the matter passes through the Icelandic congress. But that is the most likely outcome in this matter, as there appears to be a clear majority for a EU membership application in the congress. Here is a news on the current status on EU matters in Iceland, the news is in english. Since the Icelandic part of the article was written, Iceland has changed government. The main party in the Icelandic government is pro-EU party. There partners are anti-EU party. The status on Iceland-EU relation might change fast in coming weeks. Jonfr ( talk) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Icelandic Parliament has sad yes to a EU application, here is the news on that, Iceland's parliament votes in favour of EU bid. Jonfr ( talk) 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Iceland has formally applied for EU membership, the application can be found here. Jonfr ( talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
News about the Icelandic EU application can be found here, Iceland applies to join European Union, ANALYSIS-EU fast track for Iceland could dismay other bidders. Jonfr ( talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Iceland is now marked as potential candidate on EU enlargement website. The website is not ready at this point, but the map has been updated. Jonfr ( talk) 06:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This text is wrong and needs to be updated, "Iceland's current ruling party has recently endorsed holding a referendum on opening accession negotiations with the EU. The endorsement comes as a break with traditional Icelandic EU policy, but it is far from clear whether the population would support opening negotiations.[6] If negotiation were opened they would likely be completed relatively quickly as Iceland has already implemented large portions of the EU acquis through the EEA free trade agreement.". This was rejected by the parliament, and Iceland has already submitted it's application. Please update this text. Jonfr ( talk) 08:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see "how the geographic criteria is important", it's more like an editor's personal opinion instead of evidence.
As the caption states "IF Greenland rejoined" it's blatantly crystal-balling/speculation("IF?"). Until this moment, not one single piece of evidence shows that Greenland and Russia and Switzerland will join the Union. Naming it "European Union" doesn't necessarily mean it will be an All-Europe Union.
Without any evidence or any schedule, everything is speculative.
116.48.63.112 ( talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, including "If" totally violates policies on no-Original Research and no-speculation. If we can add "if" into Wikipedia content then why not "If EU includes the Western Hemisphere", "If EU conquers the world"(hey, so that we can shade all continents in green, huh?!) 219.79.30.145 ( talk) 10:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it may be useful to have a map showing all countries currently geographically eligible to EU membership according to the Copenhagen criteria. And there is already an attempt to create such a map in the Copenhagen criteria article, the only problem being that it is unknown what definition of "Europe" the EU uses. According to one definition, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are part of Western Europe, but according to most other definitions, they aren't part of Europe. As far as I know, there is also an EU regulation stating that any non-EU part of Denmark, France and the Netherland (and also of the UK?) may choose to join the EU if it wants to, which would mean that Greenland isn't geographically blocked from joining the EU. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 15:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
I think the intro of the article and the Iceland section need to be rewritten and reliable sources added.
The intro section says:
"However, although Croatia is considered to be the likely next member of EU, the 2008 financial crisis has prompted Iceland to reconsider its opposition to membership. It is expected to apply for membership in 2009 and will be fast-tracked due to the fact it is already heavily integrated into the EU via the European Economic Area (EEA). Due to this, it could join in 2011, alongside Croatia."
The Iceland section says:
Iceland has never applied for EU membership but is already associated with the union through the EEA (where it has access to the Single market) and the Schengen treaty. As of November 2008, the public opinion in Iceland shows a stable support towards joining the European Union, the only EFTA country with such support.
Like in Norway, fear of losing control over the fishery resources in its territorial waters is the single largest issue keeping Iceland reluctant to join the EU. However, the strong effect of the economic crisis of 2008 on Iceland has accelerated the debate considerably. The formerly ruling conservative Independence Party of former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, hitherto opposed to membership, has rescheduled a party congress from October to January 2009 with the express intent to decide quickly on a membership application, as well as on replacing the hard-hit Icelandic króna with the Euro. Iceland's prime minister has announced the set-up of a commission to investigate joining the European Union. An initial plan has already been drafted by the country's foreign ministry that would see a membership application made in early 2009, aiming for entry some time in 2011.
I think the main problem with this is that no Iceland sources are used. Only speculations from EUobserver and The Guardian which don't seem to reflect what the media in Iceland is saying.
-- Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson ( talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference for Iceland actually lodging the application? As far as I have read they have only voted in favour of doing so. In fact, they apparently intend to submit it to the general and foreign affairs council meeting in Brussels on the 27th.- J.Logan` t: 08:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against Macedonians but since EU still refers to this state as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" the articles about EU should use the this name. 195.114.112.247 ( talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the reasoning behind this division, but I think that at least for Northern Cyprus we should add some clarification in the text, as it is eastern geographicaly. Alinor ( talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know the EU does not plan to include any state that is not a candidate country or official potential candidate - eg. these covered by the DG Enlargement. And additionally I have reservations about the "not designed with microstates in mind". Malta, one "small" state, is already a member. Iceland and Liechtenstein are already EEA members (thus already deeply integrated in the economic structures of the EU) and Iceland has even applied for the EU (and the initial response is very positive from the EU side). I don't want to speculate, but just imagine that Liechtestein also applies - do you expect that the EU will respond "you are too small to join" instead of "OK, if you fulfill the established criteria, we will do the required arrangements"? Monaco and San Marino have similar populations to Liechtenstein, Andorra has twice. I don't see any established population/area/GDP criteria for EU membership, but maybe we should add details about potential problems to be solved if such microstates apply. Alinor ( talk) 06:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The table on the progress of negotiations in this article does not match those found in the articles for the accessions of Turkey and Croatia (no such table exists for Montenegro). After checking the first five chapters of the acquis in each table I have discovered several inconsistencies. The table for Turkey, while matching in rankings, does not match the color code used here. It would seem to be more useful to have a consistent color scheme for these tables to increase ease of reading. Croatia's discrepancies are more significant. On this page the first three chapters are listed as having "considerable difficulties", but on Croatia's accession page those same chapters are listed as "no major difficulties expected". These are quite different ratings. Could someone with more familiarity with the subject examine these tables and correct/update them as needed? Khajidha ( talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are some links from official EU sources which can prove that Croatia could join EU in 2012 or later, very likely in a package with the other West Balkan countries; This is also due to the fact that SAME language is spoken in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro, so that it's a logical thing for them to join together or in very close time intervals. Some people's wishes presented in your article are one, but the reality is a totally different thing. Read and enjoy:)):
http://www.javno.com/en-croatia/advisor--balkan-countries-into-the-eu-together_218190
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/newsbriefs/2009/06/03/nb-01
regards;
207.216.132.157 (
talk)
17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Regards too. It's not quite true that Croatia is light years ahead of the other candidates; maybe it is ahead just in some segments of the system, nothing else. Also, the newest EU enlargement reports that were presented on the net, say that it's considered to enter EU in 2012 ONLY if the 'heavy arms diaries' (which contain all the crimes that the croatian forces have done attacking civilians in Serbian Krajina) are presented to Haag Tribunal and Croatia admits its responsibility for them. Knowing today's nationalistically influenced cro-government, this might not happen untill the date which many EU circles appoint as an entry of the rest of the West Balkan to EU-the year 2014, which will mean that all the West Balkans (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia...) might enter EU together in 2014. As one serbian/croatian/bosnian/montenegrin proverb says: -'Zivi bili pa vidjeli' (-'May we be alive and see' or 'Let's wait and see'); Regards; 207.216.132.157 ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Croatia has already started and almost concluded the negotiations - the other states have not yet done this - even if they are technicaly ready, more advanced, etc. - going trough the process will take time (not mentioning the years it takes for just lodging application, getting it trough the EU decision process to get just a candidate status, then more time to start negotiations, etc.), so I think that it's not realistic to expect any country to join in 2012 together with Croatia. It is doubtfull even for Iceland, that is more advanced/prepared/etc. than all of the other candidates (regardless if some future referendum approves or rejects membership). Alinor ( talk) 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In a November 2008 referendum, Greenlandic people voted to further loosen tights with Denmark, seeking for more self-government. -- Anna Lincoln ( talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The first map states that Belarus has shown no interest in membership, yet the second map states it as part of the eastern partnership and the accompanying text states "all members of the Eastern partnership have expressed interest in membership"
So which one is it? I do remember the Belarus president mentioning moving closer to Europe recently due to Russia reneging on something or other. Regardless, either the first maps is wrong or the text for the second is, and I can't edit the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.147.96 ( talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why should this article use American English? I originally reverted an edit which was made by User:Sourside21, who changed the article from British/Irish English to American English. He did this with no reasoning or explanation. I changed it back because:
However User:ChrisO comes along and reverts this. I have yet again changed it back to how it was before. Ijanderson ( talk) 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OMG You people are weird. Wikipedia used neither American nor British English. Since different people, from different countries, edit the article, they use different versions of the language. It's all in one. -- SleepySheepy ( talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
On the maps, can we please get rid of categories such as "expressed interest" and "membership debate", these are so vague as to be unhelpful and pointless. What amounts to interest, and how many years later does that one half hearted mention expire? What constitutes a debate? Can't we just have Member, Candidate, Applied, Official-Potential/SAA (just to cover Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo but nothing beyond that).
I mean, does anyone really think Azerbaijan will join in the next 50 years and it is even possible to have a debate in that country? Ditto for the others east of the current border. Why do we need to say Switzerland is having a debate? Some times we get more information across by keeping it simple. Only those who have concrete moves should be on the map, and perhaps the second map could be moved down to spread the data a bit?- J.Logan` t: 06:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
yes you're right - for example there's no membership debate in Switzerland and neither in Norway I guess. The same thing counts for San Marino and Monaco!! Olliyeah ( talk) 11:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Logan for producing a new map so quickly. I like it, and I think it includes all relevant official distinctions. I do think that the difference between candidates who are and are not officially negotiating is a relevant one, as it can be years before negotiations officially open. I think that the inclusion of countries that want to join, but have not officially applied, and haven't been given "potential candidate" status is a bit difficult. Who speaks for the country? If the prime minister gives an interview stating he wants the country to join, does that mean the country has "expressed interest"? Do we need an official vote? What if the opinion is divided. Etc... As to Norway and Switzerland, I'm open minded. Both do have some official status with the enlargement process, and could restart negotiations at any time, so I don't think they are irrelevant to potential future enlargement. Peregrine981 ( talk) 12:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this map in use on the Enlargement of the European Union page.
I hadn't seen it. I like the simplicity, but still think that overall Logan's most recent proposal is best, as it gives a very precise idea of how advanced each country really is, although the colour scheme is slightly more elegant in the other map. I am in favour of dropping Switzerland and Norway from the main map.
Thinking over the issue of the second map, I think that there is some utility to a second, less strict map, which shows the current relations of "potential potential candidates". The CPH Criteria say that any European country can join, so I think there is some use in a map showing the present relationship of all European countries to the EU. I think it is more or less fine as it stands. The only possible quible is that it might be useful to indicate that iceland is a member of EFTA but also a potential candidate state. However, since that is listed on the other map it isn't a big deal. Peregrine981 ( talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, been thinking, if it is elaborated something like this, it could work;
- J.Logan` t: 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For simplicity's sake I suggest sticking to this:
EFTA/Eastern does make it a bit busy. Perhaps we leave that to a separate map. I like the chart to keep track of the details. Peregrine981 ( talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add to these that in the ENP Action Plans of the Eastern partnership states (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan; Belarus has no ENP AP) there is the remark: "The EU takes note of the european aspirations of country-xxxx". I think this is enough to denote "expressed interest"? Alinor ( talk) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see "Is Montenegro an EU Candidate now?" the answer is no, so please remove. The Commission recommended its recognition as a candidate, but it is not officially a candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the Kosovo status, because the EU in its relations with the region doesn't recognize the Republic of Kosovo (see this official site), so it's absolutely wrong show Kosovo with the Republic of Kosovo flag. The EU still recognizes the UNSCR 1244, so the UN flag must be shown instead of the ROK-one. Oikema
Recently these maps were removed from their respective sections with the reasoning "They are incredibly unhelpful as they fail to present the political reality. They are merely a geographically based fantasy.". Every other section has a map showing the EU plus the countries discussed in the respective section. Some of them are also geographical fantasy at this stage(like Belarus in the EU, etc.). The only difference is that the other maps show the EU and the third countries with different color, not uniformly as these two that were removed. I think that the removed maps do not use different colors, because they show "maximums" (eg. all of Europe in the EU, etc.), but anyway - I post here to check your opinion. Should we remove these two maps, should we put them back as they are, should we put them back with color division between current EU and "theoretical enlargement states"? Alinor ( talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are the maps (some new and some that I found already uploaded):
Can we go one by one. Which is the one that you would find most appropriate to be added to the article? I will then take a concrete look at that one. Tomeasy T C 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
From my side, none of your maps is accepted. To be hones, please do not take it bad, I am fed up with this discussion. Tomeasy T C 08:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that recently were added Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh (albeit with a very short sections). If we want to keep these two entities, then we should similarly list South Ossetia and Transnistria - or alternatively: none of these. In any case the current situation is strange - discussing only some of the four that have very similar status and history.
Of course, Kosovo and TRNC, at both of witch have been made substantially more EU-actions (having their own sections in the DG Enlargement of the EC), are also part of the article since long time. Alinor ( talk) 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask why is there no flag beside Kosovo? I have changed this a number of times only to come back and find it changed back again. Rctycoplay ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
the world map shows Switz. as part of the EU in blue! Wrong! Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.212.76.157 ( talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Can Somebody edit the table and place a date (24th november) where Serbia's next empty space is.Its the commision presents questionnare to applicant space.I have the source here that it will be in November and it was said to be the 24th: http://www6.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=10&dd=27&nav_id=70529
I did it, and since your source doesn't mention 24th of November, i've found a different one which does. here Tomi566 ( talk) 22:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Its The 24th so the date in the BRACKETS needs to be taken off and put into a normal date in BLACK. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.223.107.83 (
talk)
16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw this article on Serbia's B92 [10] however I'm not sure if this is official yet? IJA ( talk) 10:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not yet until the Council makes such decision. Tomi566 ( talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. Commision made a recommendation that Montenegro should get the candidate status and now the council will start the procedure which normally takes 3-4 months.
Is three times larger than the other countries and is written as a pamphlet. A "key regional power" with a big "geopolitical sphere of influence" from the Balkans to Central Asia. Come on, the Ottoman Empire is over, get a grip. The article does not mention that the roman province of Asia is located in Turkey, nor it stresses the complete cultural difference, ranging from the use of a non-indoeuropean language to the widespread majority of muslims, etc. 201.252.18.173 ( talk) 15:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So... What more can I say to keep the "Kosovo (UNSCR1244)" flag in the right way? Must I repeat another time that the blue-and-yellow flag only represents the Republic of Kosovo, and not the Kosovo under the UN mandate that the EU recognizes? Ok... so I will repeat it, another time. I wait for your opinion, one more time. Oikema ( talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC).
The article states: "Some claim that allowing Israel into the EU would create a precedent for other geographically non-European countries to apply for membership, but in fact[original research?] this precedent already exists as Cyprus, which is already a member state, is geographically in Asia. Proponents of Israel's accession to the EU claim that Israel's situation is similar to that of Cyprus - a country outside of Europe geographically, but a part of Europe culturally and socially." - the OR tag was added recently, but I don't understand what it challenges - that Cyprus is in the EU, that Israel isn't in the EU, that Cyprus is in Asia, that Israel is in Asia, or something else? Alinor ( talk) 08:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Recently the following paragraph was added in the Turkey section: "A main concern is Geography, but this is bound to be controversial, as the geographical limits of Europe are unclear. Europe is geographically a subcontinent in a larger Eurasian continent, and the geologically arbitrary limits have changed over time."
This text has the following issues: