Talk:Eurasian Economic Union/Archives/2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Eurasian Economic Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Protected edit request on 25 December 2014
 | This edit request to Eurasian Economic Union has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eurasian Economic Union Russian: Евразийский экономический союз | |
|---|---|
 Flag
 Emblem
| |
_-_Crimea_disputed.svg) | |
| Administrative centers |
|
| Official languages | 5 languages |
| Demonym(s) | Eurasian |
| Membership | Member states: Belarus Kazakhstan Russia Armenia(from 2 January 2015)[1][2] Acceding members  Kyrgyzstan[3][4][5][6][7] Candidate:  Tajikistan (negotiating entry conditions)[8] |
| Leaders | |
• Chairman of the Eurasian Commission | Viktor Khristenko |
| Establishment | |
• Original proposala | 1994 |
• Establishment agreed | 18 November 2011 |
| 10 October 2000 | |
| 1 January 2010 | |
| 1 January 2012 | |
• Eurasian Union Treaty (signed) | 29 May 2014 |
• Eurasian Union (established) | 1 January 2015 |
| Area | |
• Total | 20,260,431[9] km2 (7,822,596 sq mi) |
| Population | |
• 2014 estimate | 182,519,270[10][11][12][13][14] (including Crimea and Sevastopol) |
• Density | 9.01/km2 (23.3/sq mi) |
| GDP (PPP) | 2013 estimate |
• Total | US$4.064 trillions[15] (5th) |
• Per capita | US$22,267 |
| Currency | Armenian dram Belarusian ruble Kazakhstani tenge Kyrgyzstani som Russian ruble |
| Time zone | UTC+2 to +12 |
| Calling code | +374 (in Armenia) +375 (in Belarus) +996 (in Kyrgyzstan) +7 (in Kazakhstan and Russia) |
| Internet TLD | |
Website Eurasian Economic Commission | |
The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) will be an economic union of states located primarily in northern Eurasia. A treaty aiming for the establishment of the EEU was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and will come into force on 1 January 2015.[16] Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October 2014 and 23 December respectively. Armenia's accession treaty will come into force on 2 January 2015.[17] Although Kyrgyzstan is an acceding member of the EEU,[3][4][5][6][7] its accession treaty and full fledged membership will come into force by May 2015.[18][19][20][21]
References
- ^ Putin Confirms Armenia’s Entry to Eurasian Union
- ^ Putin signs Armenia’s Eurasian Union deal
- ^ a b "Kyrgyzstan, Armenia officially enter Eurasian Economic Union". World Bulletin. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Signed agreement opens up new possibilities for Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, starting from 1st January 2015
- ^ a b "Putin said the accession of Kyrgyzstan to the EAEC" (in Russian). Life News. 23 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Kyrgyzstan is among the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC). Kyrgyzstan will participate in the governing bodies of the EAEC since the start of the Union - from 1 January 2015.
- ^ a b "EAEC: stillborn union?" (in Russian). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Eurasian Economic Union added December 23 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan.
- ^ a b Farchy, Jack (23 December 2014). "Eurasian unity under strain even as bloc expands". The Financial Times. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday a signed a treaty to join the Eurasian Economic Union, expanding the membership of Moscow-led project to five even as its unity is strained by the market turmoil gripping Russia.
- ^ a b "Eurasian Economic Union to Launch on January 1". The Trumpet. 24 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan agreed to a January 1 inauguration.
- ^ Russia wants to see Tajikistan in Eurasian Economic Union
- ^ a b "Countries by Area". http://nationsonline.org/. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
{{cite web}}: External link in|website= - ^ http://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/B14_00/IssWWW.exe/Stg//%3Cextid%3E/%3Cstoragepath%3E::%7Cdk11/8-0.doc
- ^ "The World Factbook".
- ^ http://belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statistika/otrasli-statistiki/naselenie/demografiya_2/operativnaya-informatsiya_1/o-demograficheskoi-situatsii-v-yanvare-sentyabre-2014-g/
- ^ http://www.armstat.am/file/doc/99475033.pdf
- ^ http://www.stat.kg/stat.files/din.files/census/Excel/5010003.XLS
- ^ "GDP, PPP (current international $)". http://data.worldbank.org/. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
{{cite web}}: External link in|website= - ^ Договор о Евразийском экономическом союзе
- ^ ДОГОВОР О ПРИСОЕДИНЕНИИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ АРМЕНИЯ К ДОГОВОРУ О ЕВРАЗИЙСКОМ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОМ СОЮЗЕ ОТ 29 МАЯ 2014 ГОДА
- ^ Kyrgyzstan Reiterates Support to Regional Integration
- ^ Belarus to chair Eurasian Economic Union in 2015
- ^ Finalization of ratification procedures on Armenia’s accession to EEU to be declared in Moscow today
- ^ Eurasian Economic Union is born burdened by Russian crisis
Reason: Many media outlets state that Kyrgyzstan has already joined the EEU, however other outlets state "full implementation of the accession treaty will happen by May 29". In order to ensure compliance and accuracy with all sources, Kyrgyzstan should be presented as a member but reminders that the full protocols and full implementation will happen by May 2015 should be retained. If this isn't applied, Wikipedia would be conflicting with multiple media outlets.
—Krastama (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, that would be the most logical and acceptable solution.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- "member" vs. "full fledged membership" ?!? - Either a state is a member or it isn't.
- As said above: Maybe that treaty contains a clause about its provisional application. Maybe Kyrgyzstan will participate in the EEU's activities on a provisional basis - but that would still not make it a member state - and the infobox should reflect this.
- something like "Kyrgyzstan - Accession treaty with provisional application - Membership pending ratification" (If that's the case at all)Knisfo (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm, well seeing that once a country makes decisions to join a bloc, according to the world trade organisation the state needs to implement trade treaties and rules as if it is in it even before its completely joins. Also the legislation and the market needs to be harmonized beforehand. I understand why this is an issue, but this simply isn't "black or white" "in or out". Decisions can't really be done in the union if Kyrgyzstan disagrees, which is why it participates at every EEU summit. Decisions and legislation now needs to be translated in Kyrgyz. Also people investing in the union's market will be impacted by the country being in it. Seeing that it has a huge say in the decision making and has a veto to changes, I personally think it should be in the infobox.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should also make "although Kyrgyzstan is an acceding member of the EEU" like in the box. It would be like the EU status although Kyrgyzstan has more of a say than members acceding EU.-Katenzz (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Katenzz, I added your change---Krastama (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should also make "although Kyrgyzstan is an acceding member of the EEU" like in the box. It would be like the EU status although Kyrgyzstan has more of a say than members acceding EU.-Katenzz (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ummm, well seeing that once a country makes decisions to join a bloc, according to the world trade organisation the state needs to implement trade treaties and rules as if it is in it even before its completely joins. Also the legislation and the market needs to be harmonized beforehand. I understand why this is an issue, but this simply isn't "black or white" "in or out". Decisions can't really be done in the union if Kyrgyzstan disagrees, which is why it participates at every EEU summit. Decisions and legislation now needs to be translated in Kyrgyz. Also people investing in the union's market will be impacted by the country being in it. Seeing that it has a huge say in the decision making and has a veto to changes, I personally think it should be in the infobox.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- This idea sounds like the most sensible one to me. I live in Azberbaijan which is close to Armenia. Media here says Kyrgyzstan joined the union but its lagging behind in implementation of some things because it's mostly an agriculture oriented country.-Katenzz (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) (You queue-jumped (again))Knisfo (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess this is the way to go. I support this edit—Mentoroso (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done for now: Please read WP:OVERCITE before reactivating this request. The citation spam needs to be trimmed before there can be consensus for this edit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Technical, I removed some citations as asked.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Technical, I removed some citations as asked.---Krastama (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Kyrgyzstan
I won't correct anything, since I mostly edit in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I'd warn you that this article is quite not updated since Kyrgyzstan joined the bloc on 22 May 2015 ([1]). Anyway, as I'm aware of the arrogance and the supremacist thinking of the anglo-saxonic editors, I'm just warning and I won't do anything. It's up to you, like a Cambodian friend of mine says.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please refrain from posting ethnic bigotry and stick to the topic of the article.
- Your claim above is not correct. As the source you link to very clearly says "All that remains now for Kyrgyzstan’s complete accession to the EEU is ratification of the treaty by the parliaments of the other members–Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia." As of last week, Kazakhstan had not completed the process.[2] Once it joins of course it should be added, but we shouldn't prematurely claim it is a member when this is incorrect. TDL (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just to follow up, Kyrgyzstan joined on 6 August. TDL (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Danlaycock Sorry, I was taken by mistake by the information provided by this apparently not very accurate news site: [3] World Bulletin). I guess this news site either can't be trusted as a reliable source, or, if generally speaking, it may eventually be considered as a reliable source (though clearly not, in this case), it made a gross mistake that led me to edit erroneous informations. And I guess most wikipedias, at least the ones that I consulted, made the same mistake. I've already corrected the edition in the Spanish Wikipedia, which is the one where I edit most frequently. I'm really sorry that I made such a confusion based on false informations, based on a source that I had not previously considered as an unreliable source. Greetings and apologies! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Danlaycock By the way, the other source I mentioned previously also gave the same false information. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just to follow up, Kyrgyzstan joined on 6 August. TDL (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Trade agreements section
There is something odd about the CISFTA. The link in the last column links to a old treaty, while according to the table, while the links in the source speak about 2011/2012. Furthermore, the table suggests the treaty came into force between the EEU and one of the 3 other CISFTA states at a certain date, while it is also possible, that the CISFTA didn't enter into force for all EEU states at the same date. Do we have a title with signatures and ratifications so we can make a separate table for the Free trade area, and separate it from the Free Trade Agreements? L.tak (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Done I fixed the column link with the right treaty text from the World Trade Organisaiton website. Details about the history of the CISFTA should be made on the CISFTA wikipedia page. The goal of this article should be only to show current FTAs in force and FTAs being negotiatiated.—Mentoroso (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I think I have the dates correct now:
| State | Signature | Entry into Force | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 18 October 2011 | 17 October 2012 | Eurasian Economic Union member |
| Belarus | 18 October 2011 | 20 September 2012 | Eurasian Economic Union member |
| Kazakhstan | 18 October 2011 | 8 December 2012 | Eurasian Economic Union member |
| Kyrgyzstan | 18 October 2011 | 13 December 2013 | Eurasian Economic Union member |
| Moldova | 18 October 2011 | 9 December 2012 | |
| Russia | 18 October 2011 | 20 September 2012 | Eurasian Economic Union member |
| Tajikistan | 18 October 2011 | ||
| Ukraine | 18 October 2011 | 20 September 2012 | |
| Uzbekistan | 12 January 2014 |
From this table, my problem becomes clear. The table on our page only shows Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova and their entry into force, which suggests that is the entry into force of the relations with the EEU (member states), but in fact it is the entry into force date with a selected number of EEU members that have already ratified (and not e.g. Kyrgyz republic). Wouldn't it be wiser to either add dates for all, or add dates for none, in stead of only for these 3? L.tak (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I added a note to clarify what you said, and linked it to the CISFTA page. Adding the CISFTA table on the EEU page would be off topic, and most readers interested in specifics would go to the CISFTA page anyway. Also, most EEU member states enforce the treaty between September and December 2012. The only exception being Kyrgyzstan. So a couple months doesn't make it as bad as it seems.—Mentoroso (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Iran update
Signed an agreement [4]Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting, seems to be some kind of step towards an FTA... L.tak (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Possible ascension to the EAEU as early as February 2018? Makes me wonder if a note should be added regarding Iran as a prospective future member [5] 71.17.25.13 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)