![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
an IP has raised the issue of whether East Timor was de jure part of the EU or not. Now I seem to remember, as the article states, that it was excluded however I looked at the accession treaty and it makes no reference either way.- J.Logan` t: 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the phrase which reads "The majority of Britons now favour withdrawal[1]". On the grounds that the poll was not at all large enough to make such a conclusion. this page shows how many were polled, and it states that only 1'000 were polled, this is roughly 0,001% of the total populace, and not at all enough. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't international law explicitly hold that any nation can immediately and unilaterally withdraw from any treaty? Thus, if a nation wanted to skip the withdrawal procedure and leave immediately, wouldn't there be nothing the EU could do about it? 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty . . .
Given the current hysteria in the UK, it would be interesting if some experts could list some of the possible effects of withdrawing from the EU. Perhaps with respect to the following areas:
My understanding is that were the UK to withdraw, then all EU citizens living in the UK could be required to leave, and any non-UK citizens claiming welfare would no longer be eligible. But how would this factor into UK domestic law ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNoBrainer ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
From the first source in the article (its abstract): "unilateral withdrawal would undoubtedly be legally controversial; that, while permissible, a recently enacted exit clause is, prima facie, not in harmony with the rationale of the European unification project and is otherwise problematic, mainly from a legal perspective;" and the text of this page it seems you can withdraw, but would have to wait at most 2 year, right? If this is a non-member now (let's say Iceland), and would join and want to end it later would the same apply to Iceland as older members? comp.arch ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, anyone here who could create German, Polish, Portuguese, Greek and other language versions? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a section entitled "Parties which think about an EU withdrawal". I've removed nearly everything from it as no citations were given. Perhaps more problematically, I'm unclear what the heading means. Can I ask for some clarity to be added to the text if we are to keep this list? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I refer you and User:TheHeroWolf to WP:V, which is Wikipedia policy. I quote: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
And: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
Wikipedia policy is unambiguous here. If material in an article is challenged, the onus is on those who want to keep it to demonstrate verifiability.
I have tried myself to look through the parties concerned. I have added a cite for one party, the UK Conservative Party. Two others, I looked but couldn't find anything to support their inclusion, so I removed them, but User:80.108.153.176 just added them straight back in.
If there are other parts of the article without supporting citations, then I would like to see those either removed or, preferably, citations found in support. My particular concern with this section is that it is less clear what it means and, thus, harder to make a simple decision whether a party should be in or out. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
To expand on the discussion above, Section 3.2 of this article has two lists of parties, one on "Parties which advocate for withdrawal from the EU" and a second on "Parties seeking reform of the EU and considering withdrawal if other options are exhausted". The more I consider this section, the more I feel it is a bad idea in general. It comes across to me as the sort of badly-maintained, context-free list that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I see 4 problems in particular:
1. WP:CFORK: much the same content is covered in the Euroscepticism article, and it is covered better there because that article doesn't just present a bald list, but explains and gives context. As we know, having the same sort of content in two places on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea: it is better to focus our efforts on one good quality article. So, I suggest dropping these lists and replacing them with a link to Euroscepticism.
2. WP:NPOV: this is a list of parties supporting withdrawal from the EU, but of course other parties -- indeed many more parties -- oppose EU withdrawal and these get no mention here. This is not an unbiased presentation. At least, we should have some explanatory text here explaining that context.
3. WP:UNDUE: this list lumps everything together. We've got, for example, the UK Conservative Party, the governing party, and then we've got the National Independent Party (Ireland) and National Movement (Poland), tiny parties that have never won an election. Just sticking everything willy-nilly into one list gives undue weight to minor parties. At least, we should have some sort of threshold for inclusion (e.g. representation in the national legislature).
4. WP:SYNTH: the first list is pretty clear, but the second section lumps together a diverse set of positions. Trying to describe the UK Conservatives' position on the EU is difficult: heaven knows, we have many column inches every week in the British press trying to work out exactly what it is! All these parties in the second list have equally nuanced and different views. Trying to group them together on the basis of what they believe about a hypothetical situation (they are only considering EU withdrawal if other options are exhausted) is misleading. That sort of complexity is better described in prose, as in the Euroscepticism article. At least, I propose dropping this second list.
In conclusion, we have a list with far too few citations that doesn't work for multiple reasons, and we have an existing article, Euroscepticism, that covers the same material better, so let's drop all this and just have a link to that. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to include Swabia, a region in the South West of Germany, in the list of regions under the heading "break-up of a member state". Who ever did this is either a joker or does not have a clue.
For those who can't understand the source in German or can't make head or tail of their Google translate version: 86% of the more than 1000 readers who participated in an online survey of a provincial newspaper called Schwäbische Zeitung said that they would hand in their German passport and apply for a Swiss one; the whole thing dates back to July 2014. That's some 860 online jokers out of a population of some 2 million. And it was in reaction of some phony proposal made by some Swiss politician that didn't go anywhere and this in turn was in reaction to some OECD study on standards of living in various regions. And if you had bothered to look up Swabia you'd know that it is not even a political entity of Germany: "like many cultural regions of Europe, Swabia's borders are not clearly defined". But I guess that is the kind of information level that decides the outcome of a referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:522:6A00:91D2:577E:FC99:3FC2 ( talk) 10:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The section suggests that any desires of the population of the Austrian state of Vorarlberg to join Switzerland are or more less code for wanting to leave the European Union, which is certainly not true and it is also not supported by the linked source.
Vorarlberg is culturally rather close to Switzerland, most importantly they speak an Allemanic dialect of German, the likes of which are found in German speaking parts of Switzerland, that is not spoken anywhere else in Austria.
At the end of WWI there was a serious attempt to become part of Switzerland, and according to the source, apparently in a 2008 survey of the Austrian state broadcaster half of the people answered they would rather be part of Switzerland than Austria. Neither are there any serious political movements in Vorarlberg that want to split off from Austria, nor to secede from the European Union in one way or the other.
I want to simply delete the part, but maybe somebody wants to state more clearly what the point of the section with regards to Vorarlberg is, and maybe in a way is not as wrong as it is now. Gerald Jarosch ( talk) 01:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice that this article does not begin with a definition, which might be confusing for those arriving here with little or no knowledge of the subject. The first sentence is currently:
Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Perhaps the article should begin with something like:
Withdrawal from the European Union is the legal and political process whereby a Member state of the European Union ceases to be a member of the union.
We could then cut smoothly back into the existing text by following it with something like:
Withdrawal is a right under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Any thoughts? Polly Tunnel ( talk) 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Done as no objections raised.
Polly Tunnel (
talk)
14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, this needs a German article. de:Austritt aus der Europäischen Union -- Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The article says nothing about whether the withdrawal process is likely to remain much the same, be widened, narrowed or removed. I know that this can introduce speculation, but surely there are some reputable sources where this has been discussed. 86.150.161.18 ( talk) 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
While it is technically correct that the Left Party (Sweden) want Sweden to leave the EU “as a long-term goal” (whatever that means), it just looks odd that we list them under the subsection “Parties in the EU advocating or considering withdrawal”. Because, they are not actually actively campaigning for withdrawal, they never, ever talk about it voluntarily, and if a journalist asks directly they shuffle their feet and try to get back to a more comfortable topic. In other words, all prominent Left Party politicians are clearly deeply uncomfortable with official Party policy on EU withdrawal. In such circumstances it just seems highly misleading for Wikipedia to represent them as standard-beaters for EU withdrawal. Mais oui! ( talk) 01:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is merged into this article;
As for which is kept;
Any objections? - - J.Logan` t: 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, everyone. It has been suggested that " Dutch withdrawal from the European Union", " Frexit", and " Greek withdrawal from the eurozone" be merged into this article. A discussion is due on the suggestion. Your input is invited. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
-- 90.207.122.68 ( talk) 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I deleted this section:
===Secession from a member state===
There are no clear agreements, treaties or precedents covering the scenario of an existing EU member state breaking into two or more states. The question is whether one state is a successor rump state which remains a member of the EU and the other is a new state which must reapply and be accepted by all other member states to remain in the EU, or alternatively whether both states retain their EU membership following secession. [1] [2]
In some cases, a region leaving its state would leave the EU - for example, if any of the various proposals for the enlargement of Switzerland from surrounding countries were to be implemented at a future date.
During the failed Scottish independence referendum of 2014, the European Commission said that any newly independent country would be considered as a new state which would have to negotiate with the EU to rejoin, though EU experts also suggested transitional arrangements and an expedited process could apply. [3] [4] [5] Political considerations are likely to have a significant influence on the process; in the case of Catalonia, for example, other EU member states may have an interest in blocking an independent Catalonia's EU membership in order to deter independence movements within their own borders. [6]
My reason to do so is that this topic is incidental to the question of withdrawal from the EU. There is nothing to suggest that any of the territories want to secede from their current polity so that they can withdraw from the EU, indeed in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the reverse is true. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Treaties that says that, if a member state divides, then one or even both must withdraw. There has been a lot of sabre rattling towards Catalunya but it is not backed up by actual EU law, So if this text is to remain in the article, it needs a convincing introductory text to say why it is relevant. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this is incidental to the subject of this article. I don't see how whether these regions intend to withdraw or not as part of their independence movement is relevant. An unintended withdrawal is still a withdrawal, and naturally warrants discussion on this page. I agree with Bondegezou, the distinction between withdrawal and expuslion is not really meaningful. They are considering willingly choosing to withdraw from a member state, and as such could lose any rights they have as part of the member state. That's not expulsion. Finally, on the point about language in the treaties, while is there is legal uncertainty on what would happen, that's not a good reason to ignore the subject as it remains notable. We have cited statements from notable figures who give their views on the matter, and the subject is framed in the regard. TDL ( talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Saint Pierre and Miquelon was never part of the EU, and not just because the EU didn't technically exist at the time. 72.12.108.35 ( talk) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
an IP has raised the issue of whether East Timor was de jure part of the EU or not. Now I seem to remember, as the article states, that it was excluded however I looked at the accession treaty and it makes no reference either way.- J.Logan` t: 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose the removal of the phrase which reads "The majority of Britons now favour withdrawal[1]". On the grounds that the poll was not at all large enough to make such a conclusion. this page shows how many were polled, and it states that only 1'000 were polled, this is roughly 0,001% of the total populace, and not at all enough. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't international law explicitly hold that any nation can immediately and unilaterally withdraw from any treaty? Thus, if a nation wanted to skip the withdrawal procedure and leave immediately, wouldn't there be nothing the EU could do about it? 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 06:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty . . .
Given the current hysteria in the UK, it would be interesting if some experts could list some of the possible effects of withdrawing from the EU. Perhaps with respect to the following areas:
My understanding is that were the UK to withdraw, then all EU citizens living in the UK could be required to leave, and any non-UK citizens claiming welfare would no longer be eligible. But how would this factor into UK domestic law ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNoBrainer ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
From the first source in the article (its abstract): "unilateral withdrawal would undoubtedly be legally controversial; that, while permissible, a recently enacted exit clause is, prima facie, not in harmony with the rationale of the European unification project and is otherwise problematic, mainly from a legal perspective;" and the text of this page it seems you can withdraw, but would have to wait at most 2 year, right? If this is a non-member now (let's say Iceland), and would join and want to end it later would the same apply to Iceland as older members? comp.arch ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, anyone here who could create German, Polish, Portuguese, Greek and other language versions? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 13:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a section entitled "Parties which think about an EU withdrawal". I've removed nearly everything from it as no citations were given. Perhaps more problematically, I'm unclear what the heading means. Can I ask for some clarity to be added to the text if we are to keep this list? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I refer you and User:TheHeroWolf to WP:V, which is Wikipedia policy. I quote: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
And: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
Wikipedia policy is unambiguous here. If material in an article is challenged, the onus is on those who want to keep it to demonstrate verifiability.
I have tried myself to look through the parties concerned. I have added a cite for one party, the UK Conservative Party. Two others, I looked but couldn't find anything to support their inclusion, so I removed them, but User:80.108.153.176 just added them straight back in.
If there are other parts of the article without supporting citations, then I would like to see those either removed or, preferably, citations found in support. My particular concern with this section is that it is less clear what it means and, thus, harder to make a simple decision whether a party should be in or out. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
To expand on the discussion above, Section 3.2 of this article has two lists of parties, one on "Parties which advocate for withdrawal from the EU" and a second on "Parties seeking reform of the EU and considering withdrawal if other options are exhausted". The more I consider this section, the more I feel it is a bad idea in general. It comes across to me as the sort of badly-maintained, context-free list that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I see 4 problems in particular:
1. WP:CFORK: much the same content is covered in the Euroscepticism article, and it is covered better there because that article doesn't just present a bald list, but explains and gives context. As we know, having the same sort of content in two places on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea: it is better to focus our efforts on one good quality article. So, I suggest dropping these lists and replacing them with a link to Euroscepticism.
2. WP:NPOV: this is a list of parties supporting withdrawal from the EU, but of course other parties -- indeed many more parties -- oppose EU withdrawal and these get no mention here. This is not an unbiased presentation. At least, we should have some explanatory text here explaining that context.
3. WP:UNDUE: this list lumps everything together. We've got, for example, the UK Conservative Party, the governing party, and then we've got the National Independent Party (Ireland) and National Movement (Poland), tiny parties that have never won an election. Just sticking everything willy-nilly into one list gives undue weight to minor parties. At least, we should have some sort of threshold for inclusion (e.g. representation in the national legislature).
4. WP:SYNTH: the first list is pretty clear, but the second section lumps together a diverse set of positions. Trying to describe the UK Conservatives' position on the EU is difficult: heaven knows, we have many column inches every week in the British press trying to work out exactly what it is! All these parties in the second list have equally nuanced and different views. Trying to group them together on the basis of what they believe about a hypothetical situation (they are only considering EU withdrawal if other options are exhausted) is misleading. That sort of complexity is better described in prose, as in the Euroscepticism article. At least, I propose dropping this second list.
In conclusion, we have a list with far too few citations that doesn't work for multiple reasons, and we have an existing article, Euroscepticism, that covers the same material better, so let's drop all this and just have a link to that. What do others think? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to include Swabia, a region in the South West of Germany, in the list of regions under the heading "break-up of a member state". Who ever did this is either a joker or does not have a clue.
For those who can't understand the source in German or can't make head or tail of their Google translate version: 86% of the more than 1000 readers who participated in an online survey of a provincial newspaper called Schwäbische Zeitung said that they would hand in their German passport and apply for a Swiss one; the whole thing dates back to July 2014. That's some 860 online jokers out of a population of some 2 million. And it was in reaction of some phony proposal made by some Swiss politician that didn't go anywhere and this in turn was in reaction to some OECD study on standards of living in various regions. And if you had bothered to look up Swabia you'd know that it is not even a political entity of Germany: "like many cultural regions of Europe, Swabia's borders are not clearly defined". But I guess that is the kind of information level that decides the outcome of a referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:522:6A00:91D2:577E:FC99:3FC2 ( talk) 10:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The section suggests that any desires of the population of the Austrian state of Vorarlberg to join Switzerland are or more less code for wanting to leave the European Union, which is certainly not true and it is also not supported by the linked source.
Vorarlberg is culturally rather close to Switzerland, most importantly they speak an Allemanic dialect of German, the likes of which are found in German speaking parts of Switzerland, that is not spoken anywhere else in Austria.
At the end of WWI there was a serious attempt to become part of Switzerland, and according to the source, apparently in a 2008 survey of the Austrian state broadcaster half of the people answered they would rather be part of Switzerland than Austria. Neither are there any serious political movements in Vorarlberg that want to split off from Austria, nor to secede from the European Union in one way or the other.
I want to simply delete the part, but maybe somebody wants to state more clearly what the point of the section with regards to Vorarlberg is, and maybe in a way is not as wrong as it is now. Gerald Jarosch ( talk) 01:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice that this article does not begin with a definition, which might be confusing for those arriving here with little or no knowledge of the subject. The first sentence is currently:
Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Perhaps the article should begin with something like:
Withdrawal from the European Union is the legal and political process whereby a Member state of the European Union ceases to be a member of the union.
We could then cut smoothly back into the existing text by following it with something like:
Withdrawal is a right under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
Any thoughts? Polly Tunnel ( talk) 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Done as no objections raised.
Polly Tunnel (
talk)
14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, this needs a German article. de:Austritt aus der Europäischen Union -- Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The article says nothing about whether the withdrawal process is likely to remain much the same, be widened, narrowed or removed. I know that this can introduce speculation, but surely there are some reputable sources where this has been discussed. 86.150.161.18 ( talk) 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
While it is technically correct that the Left Party (Sweden) want Sweden to leave the EU “as a long-term goal” (whatever that means), it just looks odd that we list them under the subsection “Parties in the EU advocating or considering withdrawal”. Because, they are not actually actively campaigning for withdrawal, they never, ever talk about it voluntarily, and if a journalist asks directly they shuffle their feet and try to get back to a more comfortable topic. In other words, all prominent Left Party politicians are clearly deeply uncomfortable with official Party policy on EU withdrawal. In such circumstances it just seems highly misleading for Wikipedia to represent them as standard-beaters for EU withdrawal. Mais oui! ( talk) 01:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is merged into this article;
As for which is kept;
Any objections? - - J.Logan` t: 10:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, everyone. It has been suggested that " Dutch withdrawal from the European Union", " Frexit", and " Greek withdrawal from the eurozone" be merged into this article. A discussion is due on the suggestion. Your input is invited. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
-- 90.207.122.68 ( talk) 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lexit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I deleted this section:
===Secession from a member state===
There are no clear agreements, treaties or precedents covering the scenario of an existing EU member state breaking into two or more states. The question is whether one state is a successor rump state which remains a member of the EU and the other is a new state which must reapply and be accepted by all other member states to remain in the EU, or alternatively whether both states retain their EU membership following secession. [1] [2]
In some cases, a region leaving its state would leave the EU - for example, if any of the various proposals for the enlargement of Switzerland from surrounding countries were to be implemented at a future date.
During the failed Scottish independence referendum of 2014, the European Commission said that any newly independent country would be considered as a new state which would have to negotiate with the EU to rejoin, though EU experts also suggested transitional arrangements and an expedited process could apply. [3] [4] [5] Political considerations are likely to have a significant influence on the process; in the case of Catalonia, for example, other EU member states may have an interest in blocking an independent Catalonia's EU membership in order to deter independence movements within their own borders. [6]
My reason to do so is that this topic is incidental to the question of withdrawal from the EU. There is nothing to suggest that any of the territories want to secede from their current polity so that they can withdraw from the EU, indeed in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the reverse is true. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Treaties that says that, if a member state divides, then one or even both must withdraw. There has been a lot of sabre rattling towards Catalunya but it is not backed up by actual EU law, So if this text is to remain in the article, it needs a convincing introductory text to say why it is relevant. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this is incidental to the subject of this article. I don't see how whether these regions intend to withdraw or not as part of their independence movement is relevant. An unintended withdrawal is still a withdrawal, and naturally warrants discussion on this page. I agree with Bondegezou, the distinction between withdrawal and expuslion is not really meaningful. They are considering willingly choosing to withdraw from a member state, and as such could lose any rights they have as part of the member state. That's not expulsion. Finally, on the point about language in the treaties, while is there is legal uncertainty on what would happen, that's not a good reason to ignore the subject as it remains notable. We have cited statements from notable figures who give their views on the matter, and the subject is framed in the regard. TDL ( talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Saint Pierre and Miquelon was never part of the EU, and not just because the EU didn't technically exist at the time. 72.12.108.35 ( talk) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)