European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
Numismatics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Swedish krona has to be presented in this list. Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone in future. The case is that the moment of joining Sweden could define itself. No time limits are given - it may be 1, 5 or 50 years. But that will happen at one moment. And in template the date (even approximative) is not written. So SEK should be presented in this template, as no other currency in the world is obliged to join Eurozone. But SEK is. That is the difference. -- Dima1 ( talk) 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A currency may be obliged to join the euro without the government making any attempts to fullfill the criteria for joining (cf. Sweden). In that case it's not currently on track to be migrated. However, because of EU treaties, it will need to become on track to be migrated at some point in the future.
A currency may be on track to be migrated while at the same time being ineligible to be migrated. For example, the Bulgarian government seemed to make some efforts to fullfill the convergence criteria even before Bulgaria joined the EU. At some point with bad relations with Russia, the dictator of Belarus suggested that Belarus might join the EU and adopt the euro. If he was serious when saying so, then the Belarussian currency temporarily was on track to be migrated. Any currency could join in the Montenegrin/Kosovar way of joining. In that case, the currency would be on track to be migrated despite not being mentioned in any EU treaty whatsoever.
None of the references given states that SEK currently is on track to be migrated. They only state that SEK currently is obliged to join the euro at some point in the future, and that's not quite the same thing. "Some point in the future" can be delayed indefinitely, and so in reality SEK never needs to become on track to be migrated. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Template name is Euro adoption future. So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro. By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated. "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.
ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want. But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice. Do you understand the difference?
So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions? -- Dima1 ( talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
> Template name is Euro adoption future.
This is irrelevant: you don't see the template name in articles displaying this template. You only see the headline ("Remaining currencies on track to be migrated"), which means a different thing.
> So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro.
The on track to be migrated part of "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" means that the currency issuer currently is (trying to) make some efforts on fullfilling the requirements to switch the issued currency to the euro.
> By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated.
The Swedish crown is currently not on track to be migrated, since the Swedish government currently isn't trying to make any efforts to adopt the euro. On the other hand, the Danish currency is currently on track to be migrated (the Danish government announced that there's going to be a referendum on the euro, so the currency will at least remain on track to be migrated until after the referendum has been held).
> "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.
Sweden has a legal obligation to adopt the euro at "some point in the future". So what? Most people have a legal obligation not to rob banks, but some still do. The fact that there is a legal obligation to do something (or not to do something) doesn't mean that everyone follows those obligations. Someone might fine you (or even put you in jail) for not following your obligations, but so what, it is still possible to resist to follow your obligations. So legal obligation to adopt at some point in the future isn't the same thing as for the moment being on track to fulfill the obligation.
> ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want.
So what? Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo managed to join the euro without any official recognition whatsoever from neither ECB nor EU. Any country could join in the same way. So ISK may very well be (or become) on track to be migrated without any recognition whatsoever from ECB or EU. Sure, it would probably be a very heavy burden for the Icelandic economy, but it wouldn't be impossible. As I wrote, being on track to migrate doesn't have anything to do with legal obligations to migrate.
> But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice.
Instead of joining the eurozone, Sweden could chose to pay various fines to the EU. Or Sweden could leave the EU altogether, or try to obtain a formal opt-out. So Sweden does have other options.
> So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions?
See above.
However, if the text "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" were to be changed into something different (say, "Remaining currencies obliged to adopt the euro"), then I wouldn't object to re-add SEK to the list of currencies. ( 130.237.227.61 ( talk) 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
I believe that it does not make sense to add GBP to the table for the following reasons:
Can anyone else please comment on this issue? Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The title of the table is remaining currencies to be migrated. Just because the EU has granted the UK an opt-out does not mean that GBP is not a currency still to be migrated. The GBP is an EU currency and not to include it in the table implies it is not an EU currency. The addition of the GBP is exactly the same for the SEK which is included in the table. The SEK has a de-facto opt-out which is identicle to the GBP formal opt-out. Either both should be included or neither should be included. If neither are included then a separate table for those currencies is required.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sweden has a De-facto opt-out, which means the EU ignore its violations of the Maastricht treaty as the Euro concept wasn't politically discussed during the accession of Sweden. The de-facto opt-out works in the same way as the formal opt-out it is just not formalised.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that this table is about currencies *on track to migrate*, and not about currencies *legally bound to migrate*. See the difference? A currency is on track to migrate if the government/central bank/whatever is doing whatever is required to migrate the currency (e.g. attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria, joining the EU, convincing the Swedish/Danish/British people to vote yes in a referendum, prepare for unilateral adoption (expensive!), or any other action). Currently, the government of Sweden seems to be doing neither of those things. Sweden is already in the EU, so no need to sign any accession treaties or things like that. The Swedish government is for the moment not attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria. The euro is rarely discussed in Swedish politics, so one can't really say that the politicians are for the moment attempting to convince the Swedish people to vote yes in a future referendum. This could of course change at any point in the future, but for the moment none of those things is true. So Sweden is not for the moment on track to join the Eurozone. Compare with Denmark where Left is actively trying to get the Danish people to vote yes in a future referendum (which they seem to keep postponing all of the time), making DKK on track to be migrated (although not legally required to migrate). ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
All sources indicate that hungary will adopt euro beyond 2014. -- Qaz 1009 rfv ( talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Speech for the panel on ‘The euro and the enlargement: challenges ahead’, 5th ECB Central Banking Conference by Andras Simor Governor Magyar Nemzeti Bank
If he's not official....then who is, you? you who keeps deleting sourced info? Qaz 1009 rfv ( talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm from Hungary. We have no target date since 2006. If the ERM-II time remains to be 2 years, we can adopt euro in 2012, but it can may be 2020 as well... We shouldn't guess it. In 2009, the government will set a new target date, as I know. 85.66.224.202 ( talk) 10:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me start with my reasons first. This week, in three different environments, I have had to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the recent parity between GBP and EUR (before anyone jumps, GBP started to get value against the EUR in the last few days). During those friendly discussions, just a few people really knew the reasons why UK still continues to have the GBP; for some they simply could not understand the reasons behind, arguing that the UK is economically in way better shape than Slovakia for example, which just recently joined, so they could not understand why the UK has not joined.
While I was explaining about the opt-outs, the UK case, the Denmark case, the Sweden case (they are all different cases) and the most recent the Czech case; for me was absolutely shocking to realize that the vast majority of the people out there, that are not close to the reality and the history of the EU (specially the Eurozone), do not really understand why there is still GBP, DKK and SEK currencies and they have a vague idea of why there are still the other eight currencies that need to be migrated. Some people did not know at all that Denmark and Sweden does not the euro, for them that happened already.
Having said all of this I honestly believe that we have been hiding the whole truth: by taking GBP out of the table, by removing sources that explain why some currencies should join earlier than others, by constantly discussing about including SEK and DKK, or as the recent request to remove them. The reason I think that way is because I am sure that almost everyone that comes to this article do not know all the facts that we (the editors of the article) know, and we should represent them all. This template is really easy to pick the eye of a reading when going through the articles that shows it; hence it should be as accurate and as complete as possible.
Hence I propose the following changes:
I believe if we do this, we are showing all the info, and there will be no arguments among us in what information should be in and what should not. What is more important, the information will be complete: imagine a 15 years old kid writing a paper for the geography class about Europe, everything he or she needs will be in this table, which will be the first thing that will catch anyone eyes in articles like "Future expansion of the Eurozone".
Comments are welcome. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree. But there are some issues:
I think that we should have an alphabetical order in this table. To avoid futher moving or changing the sequence of all countries. -- Dima1 ( talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Alphabetical is the way to go. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that alphabetical order is better. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The last column can not be sorted now. Please, change it. -- Dima1 ( talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just passing and I understand the template but it seems to be contradicting itself by suggesting that the euro currency no longer "remains". Should the title be altered to state "Non-euro currencies remaining in the European Union"? Many editors/readers will not live in the EU and the current title might lead to confusion. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke S T # :) 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The contradiction is the dates,example Bulgaria Official target date: - vs Target date set by the country : 2010-2011, Expected target date don't know the equivalent for it.-- IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again,
I think the current references column may hold way too much information for the specific currency and will be difficult to see which specific references comment about which specific field. For example Bulgaria, it has a reference to the rate, a comment about no target date, a reference to the document that says so, and references to sources that talk about potential adoption date.
I am suggesting to remove the column and instead put the references next to the data that explains, as it sued to be a few days back. Comments please.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: I have slightly change just Bulgaria to illustrate my proposal, if no concensus then I will revert it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk)
Currency | Code | Central rate | Official target date |
Expected target date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Danish krone | DKK | 7.46038 | Opt-out [1] | |
Pound sterling | GBP | — | — [1] | — |
Double redirects here: Template talk:Euro adoption future
Can this be changed into a single redirect only? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
There's a media file "Example.ogg" at the end of this template which ends up in all articles using the template. Should this really be there? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
Thank you all for coming together to what I believe is a way more informative template. I was wondering if all information we needed is currently captured; if this is the final template we need to work in fixing other articles that refer to it directly or indirectly, in order to have consistency across Wikipedia. If anyone has any other opinion please speak now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth putting ERM II adoption date in here too, as this is important to understand the likely adoption date. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The syntax on this page is far too complex for the relatively simple job we are wanting it to do. All this does it make it harder for people to edit. Can someone take a knife to it please? 155.192.161.120 ( talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Glentamara, Knisfo, and Danlaycock:: For a long time we had the special status "defacto opt-out" listed for Sweden. With the following note explaining what it meant:
The EC accepted Sweden can halt preparations until approval by referendum which is equal to defacto opt-out. No other derogation states have this special status. Your stated opinions in the edit summaries, that other states also can schedule "euro referendums", does not hold true. All of the new EU member states already held accession referendums of which "euro adoption" was an integrated part of the package. The EC does not allow these new member states to schedule euro referendums. We have several EC statements confirming this during the past (i.e. they responded with such statements when Czech's former precident Vaclav Klaus recently suggested the Czech Republic to arrange a euro-referendum). If these new member states scheduled a "euro referendum", the European Commission would consider it to be a breach of their accession treaty. Sweden is the only exception from this firm stance (as they were granted the option to hold euro-referendums - because of having joined the European Union ahead of the birth of the euro). This is why Sweden's status is so special, and while they do not have a dejure opt-out this mean they have a defacto opt-out. Based on this above info, I suggest we keep writing "defacto opt-out" for Sweden in the table. Danish Expert ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Template now display the Swedish target date phrase - as per the consensus agreed "TDL's compromise proposoal". Danish Expert ( talk) 08:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Olle Schmidt (ALDE, SE) inquired whether Sweden could still stay out of the Eurozone. Mr Rehn replied that it is up to the Swedish people to decide on the issue.
European Union Template‑class | |||||||
|
Numismatics Template‑class | |||||||
|
Swedish krona has to be presented in this list. Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone in future. The case is that the moment of joining Sweden could define itself. No time limits are given - it may be 1, 5 or 50 years. But that will happen at one moment. And in template the date (even approximative) is not written. So SEK should be presented in this template, as no other currency in the world is obliged to join Eurozone. But SEK is. That is the difference. -- Dima1 ( talk) 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A currency may be obliged to join the euro without the government making any attempts to fullfill the criteria for joining (cf. Sweden). In that case it's not currently on track to be migrated. However, because of EU treaties, it will need to become on track to be migrated at some point in the future.
A currency may be on track to be migrated while at the same time being ineligible to be migrated. For example, the Bulgarian government seemed to make some efforts to fullfill the convergence criteria even before Bulgaria joined the EU. At some point with bad relations with Russia, the dictator of Belarus suggested that Belarus might join the EU and adopt the euro. If he was serious when saying so, then the Belarussian currency temporarily was on track to be migrated. Any currency could join in the Montenegrin/Kosovar way of joining. In that case, the currency would be on track to be migrated despite not being mentioned in any EU treaty whatsoever.
None of the references given states that SEK currently is on track to be migrated. They only state that SEK currently is obliged to join the euro at some point in the future, and that's not quite the same thing. "Some point in the future" can be delayed indefinitely, and so in reality SEK never needs to become on track to be migrated. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Template name is Euro adoption future. So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro. By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated. "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.
ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want. But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice. Do you understand the difference?
So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions? -- Dima1 ( talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
> Template name is Euro adoption future.
This is irrelevant: you don't see the template name in articles displaying this template. You only see the headline ("Remaining currencies on track to be migrated"), which means a different thing.
> So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro.
The on track to be migrated part of "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" means that the currency issuer currently is (trying to) make some efforts on fullfilling the requirements to switch the issued currency to the euro.
> By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated.
The Swedish crown is currently not on track to be migrated, since the Swedish government currently isn't trying to make any efforts to adopt the euro. On the other hand, the Danish currency is currently on track to be migrated (the Danish government announced that there's going to be a referendum on the euro, so the currency will at least remain on track to be migrated until after the referendum has been held).
> "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.
Sweden has a legal obligation to adopt the euro at "some point in the future". So what? Most people have a legal obligation not to rob banks, but some still do. The fact that there is a legal obligation to do something (or not to do something) doesn't mean that everyone follows those obligations. Someone might fine you (or even put you in jail) for not following your obligations, but so what, it is still possible to resist to follow your obligations. So legal obligation to adopt at some point in the future isn't the same thing as for the moment being on track to fulfill the obligation.
> ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want.
So what? Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo managed to join the euro without any official recognition whatsoever from neither ECB nor EU. Any country could join in the same way. So ISK may very well be (or become) on track to be migrated without any recognition whatsoever from ECB or EU. Sure, it would probably be a very heavy burden for the Icelandic economy, but it wouldn't be impossible. As I wrote, being on track to migrate doesn't have anything to do with legal obligations to migrate.
> But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice.
Instead of joining the eurozone, Sweden could chose to pay various fines to the EU. Or Sweden could leave the EU altogether, or try to obtain a formal opt-out. So Sweden does have other options.
> So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions?
See above.
However, if the text "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" were to be changed into something different (say, "Remaining currencies obliged to adopt the euro"), then I wouldn't object to re-add SEK to the list of currencies. ( 130.237.227.61 ( talk) 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
I believe that it does not make sense to add GBP to the table for the following reasons:
Can anyone else please comment on this issue? Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The title of the table is remaining currencies to be migrated. Just because the EU has granted the UK an opt-out does not mean that GBP is not a currency still to be migrated. The GBP is an EU currency and not to include it in the table implies it is not an EU currency. The addition of the GBP is exactly the same for the SEK which is included in the table. The SEK has a de-facto opt-out which is identicle to the GBP formal opt-out. Either both should be included or neither should be included. If neither are included then a separate table for those currencies is required.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sweden has a De-facto opt-out, which means the EU ignore its violations of the Maastricht treaty as the Euro concept wasn't politically discussed during the accession of Sweden. The de-facto opt-out works in the same way as the formal opt-out it is just not formalised.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that this table is about currencies *on track to migrate*, and not about currencies *legally bound to migrate*. See the difference? A currency is on track to migrate if the government/central bank/whatever is doing whatever is required to migrate the currency (e.g. attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria, joining the EU, convincing the Swedish/Danish/British people to vote yes in a referendum, prepare for unilateral adoption (expensive!), or any other action). Currently, the government of Sweden seems to be doing neither of those things. Sweden is already in the EU, so no need to sign any accession treaties or things like that. The Swedish government is for the moment not attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria. The euro is rarely discussed in Swedish politics, so one can't really say that the politicians are for the moment attempting to convince the Swedish people to vote yes in a future referendum. This could of course change at any point in the future, but for the moment none of those things is true. So Sweden is not for the moment on track to join the Eurozone. Compare with Denmark where Left is actively trying to get the Danish people to vote yes in a future referendum (which they seem to keep postponing all of the time), making DKK on track to be migrated (although not legally required to migrate). ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
All sources indicate that hungary will adopt euro beyond 2014. -- Qaz 1009 rfv ( talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Speech for the panel on ‘The euro and the enlargement: challenges ahead’, 5th ECB Central Banking Conference by Andras Simor Governor Magyar Nemzeti Bank
If he's not official....then who is, you? you who keeps deleting sourced info? Qaz 1009 rfv ( talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm from Hungary. We have no target date since 2006. If the ERM-II time remains to be 2 years, we can adopt euro in 2012, but it can may be 2020 as well... We shouldn't guess it. In 2009, the government will set a new target date, as I know. 85.66.224.202 ( talk) 10:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me start with my reasons first. This week, in three different environments, I have had to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the recent parity between GBP and EUR (before anyone jumps, GBP started to get value against the EUR in the last few days). During those friendly discussions, just a few people really knew the reasons why UK still continues to have the GBP; for some they simply could not understand the reasons behind, arguing that the UK is economically in way better shape than Slovakia for example, which just recently joined, so they could not understand why the UK has not joined.
While I was explaining about the opt-outs, the UK case, the Denmark case, the Sweden case (they are all different cases) and the most recent the Czech case; for me was absolutely shocking to realize that the vast majority of the people out there, that are not close to the reality and the history of the EU (specially the Eurozone), do not really understand why there is still GBP, DKK and SEK currencies and they have a vague idea of why there are still the other eight currencies that need to be migrated. Some people did not know at all that Denmark and Sweden does not the euro, for them that happened already.
Having said all of this I honestly believe that we have been hiding the whole truth: by taking GBP out of the table, by removing sources that explain why some currencies should join earlier than others, by constantly discussing about including SEK and DKK, or as the recent request to remove them. The reason I think that way is because I am sure that almost everyone that comes to this article do not know all the facts that we (the editors of the article) know, and we should represent them all. This template is really easy to pick the eye of a reading when going through the articles that shows it; hence it should be as accurate and as complete as possible.
Hence I propose the following changes:
I believe if we do this, we are showing all the info, and there will be no arguments among us in what information should be in and what should not. What is more important, the information will be complete: imagine a 15 years old kid writing a paper for the geography class about Europe, everything he or she needs will be in this table, which will be the first thing that will catch anyone eyes in articles like "Future expansion of the Eurozone".
Comments are welcome. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree. But there are some issues:
I think that we should have an alphabetical order in this table. To avoid futher moving or changing the sequence of all countries. -- Dima1 ( talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Alphabetical is the way to go. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that alphabetical order is better. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The last column can not be sorted now. Please, change it. -- Dima1 ( talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just passing and I understand the template but it seems to be contradicting itself by suggesting that the euro currency no longer "remains". Should the title be altered to state "Non-euro currencies remaining in the European Union"? Many editors/readers will not live in the EU and the current title might lead to confusion. --➨♀♂ Candlewicke S T # :) 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The contradiction is the dates,example Bulgaria Official target date: - vs Target date set by the country : 2010-2011, Expected target date don't know the equivalent for it.-- IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again,
I think the current references column may hold way too much information for the specific currency and will be difficult to see which specific references comment about which specific field. For example Bulgaria, it has a reference to the rate, a comment about no target date, a reference to the document that says so, and references to sources that talk about potential adoption date.
I am suggesting to remove the column and instead put the references next to the data that explains, as it sued to be a few days back. Comments please.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: I have slightly change just Bulgaria to illustrate my proposal, if no concensus then I will revert it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk)
Currency | Code | Central rate | Official target date |
Expected target date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Danish krone | DKK | 7.46038 | Opt-out [1] | |
Pound sterling | GBP | — | — [1] | — |
Double redirects here: Template talk:Euro adoption future
Can this be changed into a single redirect only? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 12:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
There's a media file "Example.ogg" at the end of this template which ends up in all articles using the template. Should this really be there? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
Thank you all for coming together to what I believe is a way more informative template. I was wondering if all information we needed is currently captured; if this is the final template we need to work in fixing other articles that refer to it directly or indirectly, in order to have consistency across Wikipedia. If anyone has any other opinion please speak now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth putting ERM II adoption date in here too, as this is important to understand the likely adoption date. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The syntax on this page is far too complex for the relatively simple job we are wanting it to do. All this does it make it harder for people to edit. Can someone take a knife to it please? 155.192.161.120 ( talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Glentamara, Knisfo, and Danlaycock:: For a long time we had the special status "defacto opt-out" listed for Sweden. With the following note explaining what it meant:
The EC accepted Sweden can halt preparations until approval by referendum which is equal to defacto opt-out. No other derogation states have this special status. Your stated opinions in the edit summaries, that other states also can schedule "euro referendums", does not hold true. All of the new EU member states already held accession referendums of which "euro adoption" was an integrated part of the package. The EC does not allow these new member states to schedule euro referendums. We have several EC statements confirming this during the past (i.e. they responded with such statements when Czech's former precident Vaclav Klaus recently suggested the Czech Republic to arrange a euro-referendum). If these new member states scheduled a "euro referendum", the European Commission would consider it to be a breach of their accession treaty. Sweden is the only exception from this firm stance (as they were granted the option to hold euro-referendums - because of having joined the European Union ahead of the birth of the euro). This is why Sweden's status is so special, and while they do not have a dejure opt-out this mean they have a defacto opt-out. Based on this above info, I suggest we keep writing "defacto opt-out" for Sweden in the table. Danish Expert ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Template now display the Swedish target date phrase - as per the consensus agreed "TDL's compromise proposoal". Danish Expert ( talk) 08:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Olle Schmidt (ALDE, SE) inquired whether Sweden could still stay out of the Eurozone. Mr Rehn replied that it is up to the Swedish people to decide on the issue.