Talk:Enlargement of the European Union/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Norwegion referendum in 2005

I haven't heard anything about the possibility of an EU referendum in 2005 and yet the Icelandic media follows Norway's every move in these matters closely — so is this true? --Biekko 18:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was but most recent information suggests 2007 maybe.[[1]]

Thanks for the link, that story confirms my suspicions that the article is a bit wishful when suggesting a imminent EU membership for Norway. The whole article actually seems to me to be slanting toward the POV that every single European country wants to join the EU and all of them probably will at some point, there is no reason to believe so at present time. --Biekko 00:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In order of likelyhood?

Should states like Georgia and Ukraine be placed alongside balkans due to their elevated status followed by EFTA and then other regions?

I don't think so, in all liklyhood the EU will continue to expand predoinantly based on locality, the large part of the benefits are increased freedom to move and trade over borders so those countries that do not currently share borders with EU nations will clearly not be given priorities.

That is not to say they are not as important just that there are only so many countries that can be worked with and helped up to that level at one time and for the moment the likes of Albania, Serbia etc. would provide more benefit to the union. Of the many ex-USSR states, Ukraine seems most likely to join next but i'm sure negotiations won't even begin until Romania and Bulgaria give it some serious borders (both territorially and culturally) to the EU. Georgia is an odd case as clearly the nest best developed territory (with the possible exception of Belarus) and will likely be the first EU foothold into the Euro/Asia area but so much needs to be done there first that it is clearly going to fall behind countries in the balkans initially.145.8.163.25

Bulgaria doesn't border Ukraine. And doesn't the Polish border count as a 'serious' border, both territorially and culturally? In fact, Poland has been one of the most vocal supporters of 'westernising' forces in Ukraine, and could well support a membership bid if Ukraine got to the stage where it became a realistic prospect. Ukraine borders Hungary and Slovakia as well.

CIS

I think it is likely that if Russia ever wished to join (highly unlikely as it is) it would either have to abandon its common economic agenda with the CIS states of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (if Ukraine does not abandon Russia first) or integrate all these countries at the same point in time. Meaning that as they cannot join seperatly they would all be forced to join together or not at all. Should this be mentioned in the main article?

Our personal opinions on likelihood probably shouldn't be included. However the point you made is actually somewhat related to what the article already mentions that Yushchenko said: That he'll scrutinise the CIS agreements to ensure that such membership is possible. Given how that's stated, there's probably no need of repeating such a thing for any other CIS nation. Aris Katsaris 15:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• this article is full of personal opinions. How can Russia join if it is a giant? How can the smaller Europe help a country so big? Redusing the info about Russia to a single paragraph would be a great idea. -Pedro 19:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea of Russia's entry in the European Union is not however a non-existent one by far -- see Berlusconi's comments for example: [2] [3] and here's [4] a comment about how "More and more Russians are calling for Russian membership of the EU, they see it as an island of stability and prosperity.". The two questions you pose are themselves matters of personal opinion, and not things that should cause us to limit the size of the section. Aris Katsaris 01:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cape Verde

[[5]] should this be mentioned? Sounds kinda unlikely but the Portugese don't seem to think so.

• I didnt saw this secton. I've made another by this issue. I know it for some time (since the presidency of the EU comission was attributed to a Portuguese). It has legs to go if Turkey advances (a country that is not in Europe and it is not fully European). More than 80% of the population of Cape Verde is mixed African and Portuguese, the remaining are African. The Cape Verdean escudo is already pegged to the Euro since 1999, by the previous Portuguese currency (also the Escudo). Also Cyprus an island in the shore of Asia joined the EU. Cape Verde is not as poor has you think, the educational level of Cape Verde is the best in the former Portuguese colonies (including Brazil, except for Macau). Most Cape Verdeans graduate in Portugal, I have several Cape Verdean colleagues. It is a confused country, because they have a lot of Europe and a lot of Africa. It has a stable democracy, and an economy linked to Portugal. But it hasnt the structure of a country. Too small and too dry. It is more likely to join than Russia, Belarus, Israel, Tunisia, Marocco, Azerbadjan or Kazakstan. -Pedro 22:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iceland & Norway

Take a look at this artical. [[6]] should this be mentioned maybe?

Perhaps this could be worked into the article somehow. However, the general sentiment in Iceland is that absolutely nothing has changed. The only person that maintains anything at all has changed is the PM and chairman of the Progressive Party. The final version of the declaration agreed upon at the meeting basically said that a committee should be appointed to do further research and prepare for possible preparation for possible entry negotiations. Basically meaningless. The EU is hardly an issue in Icelandic politics so people were quite amazed that such a "heated debate" appeared out of nowhere for this one weekend. Some claim that the whole debate was pre-fabricated by the party leadership to divert attention away from some troublesome internal affairs in the party. --Bjarki 02:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cape Verde and articles about the EU

Yes. Cape Verde is also trying to enter the EU. Some Portuguese politicians with the Embassor of Cape Verde in Portugal made a public statement defending the entering of Cape Verde due to its mixed European and African culture and Atlantic location. They say if Turkey (mixed European and Asia culture) is due to be a member, so Cape Verde also should be. Cape Verde and the Turkish Ride (in Portuguese). By the Way, the European Union Agreements and the future constitution forbits the entering of countries outside Europe. And, like in other article about the EU (future expansion), this article is highly stupid. Russia, Israel, Marocco... If you dont want this article to be bigger in subsjects, please put an entry named "The world" with info "The EU will expand its borders to Mars. The inhabitants of Pluto are starting to think they want to join the EU in 2100. There should be a tag in wikipedia for futurology, just like the POV thing. This article, how it is, is highly unencyclopedic. -Pedro 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maybe you've forgotten that the constitution is not yet ratified and the EU may yet take a very different course. Don't be too sure that other countries won't be allowed to join in the future.

• I said FUTURE constutition. But the constitution is already ratified by some countries, and it can have legs even if some countries dont ratify, except if one of which is a founding member (of the EEC probably), just like the Euro or shengen. That can even motive the number of EU states to be reduced.

And the present day agreements also state it. The 10 countries that joined also had their joining at risk, because of a referendum in Ireland. A future join of Turkey has already motivated a future referendum in France, and by consequence in some others. If some country disagree, the country in subject cannot join. -Pedro 22:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, AFAIK, the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about the entry of countries outside Europe, neither forbidding nor allowing it. Aris Katsaris 22:48, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? well. I'm relying on newspapers. I didnt read the constitution, though I know several issues in it (read parts). Nether the Portuguese, I would dare to read. But has far has I know the UE is not thinking in enlarging more to the east (beyond Bulgaria), but to the balkans(former yugoslavia). But probably the UE officials already know the lack of popularity that these new expansions will have, it is not just about Turkey... -Pedro 02:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the Constitution specifically limits membership only to European states. Also, Morocco had previoulsy applied to become a member of the EU but was rejected because it was/is not in Europe. Parmaestro 04:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe the Constitution simply says that every European nation may apply that supports the values and goals of the EUs. If it says anywhere that non-European nations *can't* apply, then I haven't found it yet. In short it seems to me that the Constitution is creating an obligation by the EU to consider all European nations for membership as long as they fulfill the membership criteria -- but I think it doesn't create any obligation to *not* allow non-European states. I may be splitting hairs, I don't know. Aris Katsaris 04:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added info about Cape verde, I hope that helps to understand why some suggest it should apply. Surelly a lot of people was probably thinking something completly different than the country really is. -Pedro 05:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just hope you noticed

Unless a country is in talks or seeking talks, or trying in some way to talk with the EU about joining, there is no use speculating on this page about when that time will be. --Alexwcovington (talk) 12:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point but Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point It's the best way possible to piss off people and hurt your own argument. Aris Katsaris 13:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't plan on making a habit of it. It was something silly to point out the silliness going on here. If you just can't wait for Azerbaijan to join the EU, you need a new hobby :P. Or become leader of Azerbaijan maybe. --Alexwcovington (talk) 16:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[7] The question of Azerbaijan's membership is discussed outside Wikipedia, and so mention of that question should be made within it as well. Your comments about me not being to wait for Azeri membership are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether such membership is a real issue -- and it is. Aris Katsaris 01:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dependencies - include or not?

I think that the currently removed paragraphs about EU member's dependencies (in Europe and elsewhere) was good. There is already one case of a dependecy to change its EU-status - Greeland has left the EEC (but stays in Euratom?). This can happen again - some dependecies can choose (or their governing EU member states can choose) to implement more of the EU treatries, eg. to join. Other, that currently apply fully with the EU norms (French Guiana, etc.) can choose to become "somewhat detached" from the main state (eg. French Guiana to stop to be administred as "Departement" and start to live as "territoire"), eg. to leave. So I think that if this page monitors "EU Enlargement" prospects for Belarus, Morrocco, Monaco, Iceland, etc. - it should monitor these for Greenland and the other dependencies (see the dynamics here). What do you think?

It seems to me that the article you mention (Special member state territories and their relations with the EU) can already include everything concerning these dependencies that's relevant to their status. Including them in *this* article as well is needless duplication. Most people, when thinking about EU enlargement, think about new member states joining, not special territories renegotiating their status. So, I vote against including dependencies here. Aris Katsaris 14:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The title of this page is "Enlargement of the EU" - not "Enlargement with NEW STATES of the EU", so I still think that dependencies should be included in the page. Also the page Special member state territories and their relations with the EU referrs not the prospects of CHANGING the status of the dependencies, but to their CURRENT status. The enlargement page is more appropriate to include some various non-final remarks and comments made by the competent authorities and leaders about possible future changes of the status of some of these territories (New Caledonia referendum in 2015 if I am not mistaking, etc.). Anyway dependencies (and link to their page about EU relations) should be at least noted as entities that can change their status in regard to the EU.Alinor 19:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks that the Enlargement page is currently under hard cutting - almost the whole Kazakhstan paragraph was removed (It was explaining the sentence that is currently in the page), the Dependencies section was removed, some other introductory paragraphs were removed (multiple cases), the sentence about non-state and/or non-recognized entities (like Orden of Malta, Sealand, etc.) was removed (personaly I am not against this particular deletion - such entities in most cases have no legal&administrative meaning, so they are clearly out of scope here, but anyway - one single sentece was not THAT bad as was the whole Sealand paragraph in the early iterations of the page). I don't like this progressive deletion of multiple explanations and subjects...Alinor 19:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the comment on your deletion of one of the explanatory paragraphs you say something like "Vatican can not join, so this paragraph is not 100% correct. I will not rework it to make it correct, I will simply remove it". First - why CAN NOT the Vatican join? Do you wanted to say that it WOULD NOT join? Second - Even if so about the Vatican that is not a reason to delete the whole paragraph - it is better note the exception/rework it in an appropriate way.Alinor 19:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had attempted to rework the paragraph several times, but each time my careful-for-accuracy reworking was being trashed to something both obnoxiously long and *utterly* wrong. So I reduced the paragraph to its bare essential which was all that was required anyway. Claim that all European states can join is wrong. Vatican can't join because of its very nature, as a theocratic state: democracy being a criterion which is much stricter than mere geography. As for the "dependencies", this article is talking about the enlargement of the Union and attempts to do so with facts and data. All of the paragraphs about the dependencies were merelly a discussion of their present situation, their past history, and adding a POVed meaninglessly lame "they may choose to join", when the rest of the article attempts to talk of *actual* desires to join instead of hypothetical ones. I didn't find anything to salvage in those paragraphs. Aris Katsaris 20:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point - Vatican WILL NOT join, but it CAN join EVENTUALLY, just like Belarus - if it becames democratic (the fact that this is incompatible with its unique structure, etc. is another thing - if Belarus gets more democratic it can join, exactly so is also the Vatican. Maybe it is more probable that Belarus' dicatorship is removed than that the Vatican to change its structure, but the probability of the needed changes happening is another thing. So, "all european states can join, if they fullfill certain conditions" is absolutely correct. If Vatican fullfills these conditions it can join. It is another thing that it does not want/need/will/try to do so.). Many other mentioned countries CAN NOT join IMMEDIATLY (even Bulgaria and Romania have things to do, before joining), but are included becouse of the possibility to apply the needed changes and JOIN EVENTUALY (soon in some cases, later in another cases, currently not trying to join - in another cases). Alinor 10:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence whose deletion you're objecting to said this: "The following sections discuss the situation of countries that may eventually join the EU. This includes all states with European territory, as well as others which have either expressed a desire to join, or which European leaders have mulled as potential candidates for membership". Using the arguments you are using, even Zimbabwe "may" join if it fulfills certain criteria. Even the planet Pluto "may" join if it fulfills certain criteria. But the theocracy is inherent in Vatican's nature much more than Lukashenko's tyranny is inherent in Belarus. You are stretching the words "may" or "can" to its limits if you claim that Vatican "may" or "can" join. It simply can't and may not-- not without ceasing to be Vatican as we know it, in its entirety. You are now using sophistry. The sentence whose deletion you are objecting to didn't even include the word "criteria", it simply said that all states with European territory may eventually join the EU -- stretching the meaning of the words so much as to make them meaningless. Aris Katsaris 15:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is hard (and POVed) to judge here what desires to join are *actual* and what *hypothetical*. Maybe Albania's desire to join is only hypothetical and "they prefer the old communist system and talk about joining the EU to get funds from there"... Someone can say so and remove the Albania paragraph becouse he thinks that their deisre is not *actual*. So dependencies should be mentioned (not copy-paste this, but only a single sentence about the subject), just like Norway, Switzerland, etc. If there is currently no prospects of changing the status - this should be mentioned with a comment/description (like in the cases of Belarus, Russia, Andorra, etc., Kazakhstan before the big cut-off). If there are talks about changing status (both join and leave) - of course this should be also mentioned.Alinor 10:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is why I think that at first we should put back the cut paragraphs about dependencies, the introductury notes and maybe a somewhat edited version of the Kazakhstan paragraph (put back one of the variants of it that you remeber to have done or the last before the cutting). Then if someone has the ability to improve them he will have the chance to do so.Alinor 10:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again with all the sophistry! Albania's membership is something that's actually discussed. Norway's likewise. Switzerland's too. Vatican's membership is not discussed, not even as a hypothetical. Kazakhstan's is not discussed. Zimbabwe's membership is not discussed either. Aris Katsaris 15:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I only say that if we include Andorra and Belarus and other countries, for witch there is no talks for even remote membership, as possible candidates then the fact that Vatican WILL not join does not mean that "there is an european state CAN NOT join, and so the sentence -all european states are possible candidates- should be removed". This explanation of the removal is not correct. That is what I say. Alinor 17:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This, like the other deletion cases that I have described above are similar - arbitrary to different degree deletions.Alinor 17:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, the topic of this post was at first about DEPENDENCIES and I think that I have supported their inclusion (at least a minimalistic mentioning) already. Any opposition to this? Alinor 17:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The last time dependencies were included, no significant factual information was contained -- it was guesswork to the 10th power (for example, saying that *if* Kaliningrad secedes from Russia, *then* it may desire to join, *then* it may join, but until then it can only attain membership if Russia joins -- such a sentence is the definition of shamefully babbling meaninglessness.) And for the dependencies, all that was essentially repeated was : "If they choose to join, then they might join, but currently they aren't choosing it for their own reasons." These again are meaningless sentences without any useful data.

If you can do much better than that, and detail *actual* debate over their joining the EU, I have no inherent problem with including dependencies. Otherwise all the dependencies together don't seem to merit a single paragraph in this article.Aris Katsaris 22:47, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that such sentences like that about Kaliningrad should NOT be included. Anyway it is not a dependency, so it should not be in this section. It is not the place here to elaborate what can happen if Kaliningrad separates from Russia. But I think that it will be good to have a section Dependencies plus a sentence like: "Not all dependencies of EU member states are participating in all EU institutions and treatries - see -link- for details. It is possible for a dependency to change its status regarding the EU and/or some particular treatry/institution from participation to leaving or from beign outside to joining." plus a sub-section Greenland (enough availible data to make sense; also serving as example of a dependency that has changed its status). If someone is not against I will take back these lines from the archive. I will add a sub-stub marker also. Later if someone that is reading here has information about another dependencies - he can easy add it. Currently he may think that dependencies are out-of-scope here.

I agree that the dependencies should be included. But three areas not listed in the article are the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey and its dependencies (Alderney, Sark, and Herm). They are not actually part of the UK, but attached to the British Crown. (The Channel Islands think of England as a colony!)

Yugoslavia

Was it "reasonably close to applying" or was it simply at a good level? I believe it to be the latter but if it is the former...that is to say that it was considering joining...could someone produce an article or web page confirming this as I have never come across this information. Thanx.

Well I removed it now cos no-one knew so it must have been wrong.

Making this an article that make us proud, not ashamed

I removed some info that is very odd (Not to say ridiculous). But, there is still to much crazy info in the article. Please focus on past enlarments, not only dates, but info about past enlargments, the enlargment of 2007, the problems of Romania, Turkey and Croatia. And add some more info in only one secton about hypotetical joins of good change of being candidates, such has: Iceland, Norway, Macedonia, switzerland, etc. -Pedro 19:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For details on past enlargements see the link at the beggining of the page. Alinor 16:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you really dont get it. The EU is likely to expand throughout Europe. Giving some hypotheticals and not others based on whether they are more likely or not is crazy. Ukraine wants to join, Iceland does not. Iceland would be more prepared but Ukraine more willing to prepare so who will join first? Anyones guess, which is why all European countries as well as other possable expansions are mentioned. It is made clear for each country how likely it is that they will join and whether or not they want to. I am proud of this article and I can't see why you are ashamed...it is based on facts, quotes and articles rather than the fantasy it started off with where Sealand was given more than a paragraph on the likelyhood of it joining. That was something to be ashamed of. This is not. It combines info that is not the easiest to find on one page and anyone looking to find out about enlargement would find this very useful.

15 May 2005

Does anyone even read this anymore!

Yes

Cleaning up the discussion

Who thinks it would be a good idea to get rid of issues that are solved so as to clean this up a bit?

Where is information on past enlargement?

For an article on EU enlargement there really dosn't seem to be much information about EU enlargement per se. Only a small list is designated towards past EU enlargement and as such this article appears to be more about potential future enlargement. I belive that the article should be either re-named 'Future Enlargement of the European Union' (or somthing like that) or more detailed information added regarding past enlargement. Though I have no problem with information on the EU's potential growth in the future, it is silly for this page to ignore historical fact in favour for the unknown. ...

that's what I've being saing the all time, this article is sooooooooooooooooooo stupid. -Pedro 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Past enlargements are covered in History of the European Union62.204.151.1 1 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Animation

And another thing. On the new animation...why is Denmark included in the founding states rather than in the year 1973?

to PedroPVZ

The current groupping (of the states with no clear prospect of joining) - european (here paritialy european are included) and non-european is better than your groupping - "fully" european and paritialy+non european in the second group. Becouse - in one of the main articles of the EU is written than "any european state, that satisfies the other membership criteria can join the EU". Here the distiction is like in the first groupping, not like in yours. That is why Morrocco or Israel will not join the EU. The case with paritialy european states is the opposite - Turkey is already a candidate, Cyprus and South Caucaus states are members of the CoE (Cyrpus is also EU member). But that is not the point. Also, your groupping puts Russia into "fully" european group, but it has asian territory. You say "but Russia is european based". It is not justified to include Russia (and Turkey if it was not a candidate already) in the european group if you exclude Kazakhstan, Georgia and Azerbaijan - in relation to the EU enlargement Russia has less chance (and currently official/unofficial desire) to join the EU than some of these states... With the EU enlargement in mind it is clear that the groupping should be european (fully and paritialy) and non-european. That is becouse paritialy european states have already become members or candidates - so it is clear that the EU "understands" the article that I write about above as INCLUSIVE to the paritialy-european. If the EU has said to Turkey (or Cyprus) - "sorry, but becouse you are only paritialy european we can not accept you as a member" - then your groupping would be better, but that is not the case now.

You have a nice theory but leave your things to your head! May I ask: what is the problem of Turkey, these days? Why there is so much fuss about it? It is because it is not a European-based nation, although it was engaged to become one in its history, but not that successfully as it may look sometimes. What you saw in the "no" votes in France and the Netherlands? Turkey is the country that will change everything. Nobody wants more enlargements. Russia has no change like Kazakhstan and many other partially European states. But Russia is European based, it will not join because it is too big, but if it was smaller, it would be, much faster than Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is not European based. And who says that Cape Verde has no change to enter? For instance? you? --Pedro 4 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

I just say that we should keep the current grouping of european (paritialy or not) and non-european states. And the reason for this is the following: this is the official european position (ilustrated by the following facts: 1. Article49 of the Maastricht Treaty 2. Rejection of Morroco's application based on that article49 - "Morrocoo is not an european state, so in can not become a member state" (non-european like Israel, Australia, etc.) 3. Accepting as members of many european states (like Balkans) 3. Acception of Turkey as legitimate candidate (so, the official position is that 'paritialy european' is the same as 'only-european' - but different than 'non-european') 4. South Caucaus states are already members of the Council of Europe). The groupping is based not on the 'chance to join', but mainly on the geographical location.

Now, even if I have made comments on the problems of Turkey membership, Australia membership, or whatever - that does not matter, ignore these comments. But for the sake of discussing these issues (they are UNCONNECTED from the GROUPPING ISSUE!) I would like to express my opinion ('theory to leave in my head' as you say) - Russia maybe is culturaly closer to the most european states than Turkey, but anyway it would not join faster if talks with both countries start simultanously - even much smaller states (like Romania, Hungary, etc.) needed ~10 years to join (from submit of application to joining) - Russia is much behind Turkey in terms of law-synchronization with the european directives, the bigger size and also scale of changes needed would also complicate things, so 10 years would be good achievment. And also - Russia (with the current leadership) would not join in 100years only becouse it is REALY undemocratic, doesn't REALY support official stated european values (accepting laws restricting various freedoms, merging of political and private economic groups, supporting seccesionist dicatorship-regions in another countries like Molodova, etc.). So Georgia may have corruption, but it at least DEMONSTRATES a wish to change - so, if the EU clearly states (like to the Balkan states): "let's start negotiations" - Georgia would TRY in contrast to Russia. That is what I said with "if we follow your groupping Russia should be in the paritilay/non-european - it anyway has less probability to join than Georgia".

About Cape Verde - were did I said that it has no chance to join the EU???? Nowhere. On the contrary - the case of Cape Verde is very similar to Cyprus - geographicaly absolutely non-european, but with "extensive historical, cultural and political ties to Europe" and also an island in a nearby sea (becouse it is an island it would be politicaly easier to accept is as "european", even if geographicaly this island archipelago belongs to Africa). My opinion is that Cape Verde should be accepted, but this process should start from Cape Verde itself - here is a short list of actions: 1. it should begin implementing reforms needed to cover the membership criteria 2. it should submit application to join the Council of Europe (using Cyprus as geographical precedent) 3. Adopt the Euro as official currency (like in Montenegro - even without formal relations between Cape Verde and the European Central Bank) 4. Applications to OSCE, ESA (if there is Cape Verde academic on industry entitiy that wants to work with the Space Agency) and other european institutions would be usefull too. 5. Speed-up the process of joining the WTO. 6. After obtaining Council of Europe membership - submit official application to the EU. 7. Cape Verde is currently a member of the African Union - I don't know details about this, but maybe it would be requiered to withdraw from there if it becomes EU member (becouse of trade agreements, CFSP or other) - this should be taken into account too.62.204.151.1 6 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

chapters in the "Framework for Negotiations" for Croatia and Turkey?

Does anyone has a link to the frameworks for negotiations for Croatia and Turkey? In the media it is publicized that Croatia talks will be divided into 36 chapters and that Turkey talks will be divided into 35 (but maybe it is 35+chapter Others=36 total) and that Turkey will not get into the EU before 2014 and some other things about transition periods, etc. But where to find the full text of these frameworks or at least the names of the chapters? 62.204.151.1 7 July 2005 18:02 (UTC) Thank you for shopping please come again.

Two pages instead of one

Maybe it would be a good idea to have ONE page on the past enlargements giving DETAIL on issues surrounding each expansion and on Greenland leaving and then ANOTHER page describing expansion policy including the neighbourhood policy, stability and association pact and the prospects of countries that can join (ie Eurpoean ones) and ones that wish to join. What do people think?

I enjoyed reading this article. It is interesting that some countries are so anxious to join the EU while others have not shown much interest. I would reccomend the Micro-state section follow the EFTA section as a more natural progression. For one thing Leichtenstein is also a Micro-state. Secondly that would group all the Western European countries on this page together and mostly this page seems to be arranged by regions. I would also like to understand more of why these countries are not easily compatible as EU members. E.D.

Moldova

I should have typed this in when I edited earlier, but I'll just do it now. I removed the last paragraph from the Moldova section, as it was redundant. Essentially the author had put in two points regarding Moldova's potential fusing with Romania, and then went on to compare it to East Germany's joining West Germany at the fall of the Berlin Wall. Tev 00:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Turkey, Cyprus and Armenia

In defence of Turkey...

Cyprus

Firstly Turkey does not recognise the Greek Cypriot government as the Greek Cypriots claim to be the government for the whole of the island. As that government does not include any representatives of the Turkish north, and the fact that Turkey officially recognises the Turkish Cypriot government then it can’t recognise both.

That having been said the Turkish government along with the Greek Government backed the Annan Plan, which would have lead to reunification, and a automatic recognition for the island both Turk and Greek.

The Turkish Government has consistently said that it wants the Cyprus issue dealt with once and for all, and is looking for renewed UN involvement at a new round of discussions. The Greek Cypriot government is keeping to pressure on by vetoing economic aid packages to the North of the island.

Armenia

The Armenian economic sanctions are a direct response to the Armenia invasion of Azerbaijan, and the Nagorno-Karabakh resulting in ethnic cleansing (on both sides) and thousands of refugees.

weasels

Moved this text and others from article, they needs deweasling or removing:

Some have criticized the planned expansion of the EU into the former Yugoslavia, many using the justification that if they can't live to gether in one state they should not be allowed to join an union of European nations that as time goes by resembles a state more and more, that in most former Yugoslav countries nationalism is still a potent political force, the situation is the region is unstable and that although the countries are trying to meet European standards reforms constantly fail miserably. As well some in the countries have opposed joining the European Union by suggesting that the union would try to recreate Yugoslavia or declare Serbian and Croatian to be one language (as in the SFRY).

Many who support European integration says that if it stops the entire region (with exception of Greece and Slovenia) would fall back into war and lead to a situation like that of the 1990's, due to the current instability in the region. These claims are mostly in regards to the former Yugoslavia and Albania.

Many have called for Macedonia's admission to the EU to be delayed, claiming that occurences in Macedonia show that there is no seperation of church and state, the government discriminates against religous minorities (some even claim discrimination on ethniticity) and that laws on religion do not meed European standards. This is mainly due to the dispute between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church particularly in regards to the situation regarding the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric. As well some Macedonian officials have said that no Orthodox church other then the Macedonian one can be present in the country since the Macedonain Orthodox Church is the national church.

-Wikibob 01:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:CrudeEU27.png

I updated this with the news about Macedonia I saw on the main page. Please check that I was correct. Thanks. gren グレン 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted you. Orange is for candidates, green is for acceding countries. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I thought I read acceding on the current events page... didn't check the source. Maybe it was a mistake that someone reverted or maybe I read it incorrectly. Thanks. gren グレン 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Change of FYROM to "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

To keep the record straight - UN does not refer to Macedonia as FYROM but only as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Both long and short names in use in UN are the same - "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Check these links:

UN site search for "former yugoslav republic of macedonia" - 17500 results and UN site search for FYROM - 606 results

I consider that usage of FYROM is just an error - Macedonia and Greece agreed on use of "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" not FYROM. Also, ISO defines this ISO 3166-1 record:

"Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of (MK, MKD, 807)"

We can see this at UN member states

By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.

Considering the fact that more than 100 countries and 3 permenent members (out of 5) comprising more than 90% of Earth population recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name I suggest that we directly omit using "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" at all, but only the constitutional name. As Wikipedia does for every other country in the world.

Also in the Presidency conclusions there's no mention of the Greek problem with the name of Republic of Macedonia. Therefore, I believe it is quite logical to be omitted. I don't believe it is an issue - look in the full text of the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union . This seven pages document contanins ONLY ONE sentence mentioning the Greek problem with the name. In Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there's no mention that solving the Greek problem with the name is a condition for EU membership.

To make things very interesting - in ANALYTICAL REPORT for the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for EU membership you can find this (ONE and ONLY) paragraph regarding Greek problem with the constitutional name of Republic of Macedonia (whichi is the Wikipedia's official name to be used, not FYROM):

Relations with Greece have improved in the last few years. Greece is the most important investor in the country (57% of the total foreign investments) and trade has been constantly increasing. However the dispute over the name of the country has remained an open issue since 1993. In 1993 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was recognised in the UN under this provisional name. In UNSC Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93, the UN Security Council urged the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece to continue their efforts under the auspices of the UN Secretary General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the issue. In 1995 an Interim Agreement created a framework for bilateral relations which stated, amongst other elements, that talks would continue between the two parties under the auspices of the UN to find a compromise. Article 11 (1) of this Agreement stated that “Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, …[Greece] agrees not to object to the application by or the membership of the …[former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] in international, multilateral and regional organisations and institutions of which… [Greece] is a member; however, …[Greece] reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the extent the …[former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] is to be referred to in such organisation or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the UN Security Council Resolution 817 (19932).”

In this very paragraph it is reiterated that Greece shall not and will not block Macedonian accession. It is in direct collision with the text in the article Enlargement of the European Union.

Any edits that do not correspond with these official documents of the EU does not serve the reader well but might only be used to support Greek POV.

Kirev 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As the reference you are using: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/87642.pdf (page 8) names the country as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia it is more accurate to use that name. Also using the term of just Macedonia may please the Christian population of the country but is still not recognised by E.U (the subject of this article) and also leads to the dissambiguation article about the Macedonian region. The war over the name hasn't finished yet, so lets use the formal terminology that our sources and reference use.Svetlyo 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Kirev, I don't think that the revised paragraph about the name is POV. In the revised paragraph it is clearly stated that "The name dispute resolution is NOT precondition for membership" - this paragraph only shows under what name Macedonia will join if the dispute is not resolved. 212.36.8.100 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the reference that Macedonia will join EU as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"? It's Svetlyo's POV that it will happen, BUT that does not mean that Wikipedia has to oblige him and put that made up paragraph without any references and, furthermore, change its naming conventions because of Macedonia EU accession... Therefore - when we quote original EU documents (and using press release is as good as a proof as Blair saying Macedonia on the latest press conference) we shouldn't change a bit, BUT, when we put some text in some article, than it should be according to Republic of Macedonia naming convention. Furthermore, as there's no basis in EU official documents, there's no need to give such a value to the Greek problem with Macedonian name and mention it in such length - EU documents are quite clear that it is not a problem for accession and that Greece has to help Macedonia with the accession. Kirev 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Svetlyo, "formal terminology" is one think, but "wikipedia naming conventions" is another. If Kirev is correct then according to the wikipedia conventions we should use the RoM, not FYROM. Anyway both names link to the same page. Also, if we stick to the name-dispute paragraph this issue will be covered from both sides. 212.36.8.100 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)