Talk:Eurozone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Eurogroup

The Eurogroup article redirects to the Eurozone article. However, the Eurozone article does not explain what the Eurogroup is (An informal meetingplace, with Jean-Claude Juncker as president, for the Eurozone ministers of finance, a European Commissioner, and the European Central Bank. It refers its conclusions to the Ecofin Council of Ministers for formal decision making.)

Eurozone enlargement

This article could use a section detailing which countries from the latest EU enlargement want to join the EMU.

Short answer: "All."

Longer answer: A country can only become a member of the EU, if this country also agrees to become a member of the Eurozone (but actual membership in the Eurozone takes place later, after the criteria have been met). Only Denmark and the United Kingdom can chose if they want to adopt the Euro. Sweden has to join, but cannot at the moment because it has not yet fulfilled the criteria. Some month ago there was a referendum in Sweden (so called "Euro"-referendum), that caused the government not to work actively on the fulfillment of the criteria.

Duplication with Euro

See Talk:Euro#Duplication with Eurozone. The stuff from there should be moved here (not vice versa), there's enough material for a separate article. --Shallot 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

again

Most of the Eurozone article comments about non-eurozone areas. So odd!!! -Pedro 19:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be quite short an article otherwise, if we weren't to talk about the option of future expansion of the Eurozone -- which inherently means talking about the countries that aren't yet in the Eurozone and when and how they may be expected to enter. Else it would be a quite short article: a little of twelve countries's names. Aris Katsaris 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Aris, If we are talking about a subject we should concentrate in it. And not only its borders. For instance, we can comment on the criteria that each country has fullfilled, how difficult it was, the case of Greece, that entered later, and why it entered. The fears at first and the delays, the reception to the new corrency, the future of this integrated economical area, to explain to some wikipedians and people that don't know about it that tend to treat Eurozone has several economies when all are the same. A person that wants to read this article wants to know the origin, the difficulties, the advantages, the goals, what is happening there, what it is, the future, and the expansion. -Pedro 09:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So add that then. Duh. --Joy [shallot]

Add it right in. Take note not to needlessly duplicate information that's in the articles of Euro or Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union. In truth I don't see most of your suggestions fitting better in the Eurozone article than in those other ones. Aris Katsaris 13:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pedro, replying to your 1st comment. One of the goals of the euro is that it can be used as an international trading currency. The more the euro is used outside the Eurozone, the more requested will be the euro by customers of currency markets. When the demand for a currency increases against other currencies, the value of the currency increases. When the value of a currency increases, the living standards of the inhabitants of the zone where the currency is used, rises. The current international currency, the dollar, represents not just the volume of the American economy, but the volume of the world economy (illegal cash based economy included). This has given to the American Federal Reserve power to print more dollars, exceeding the real volume of the American economy, without ('till recently) depreciating the dollar. The euro is now threatening the reign of the dollar in the world trade. Therefore, the dollar depreciates. The US spends a lot more than it produces. The US spends what the world produces, because the world trades in dollars issued by the US. Joao

Proportion of world economy?

What proportion of the world's economy does the Eurozone represent? It would be interesting to know how this compares to the dollar area and other countries.

The Eurozone is the largest economy in the world. For more information, see the "Euro" and "Capital per PPP" articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.81.57 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenland?

Could someone clarify the issue about Greenland. What would the referendum be about? Since Greenland is using the Danish Krone as its currency now, it would have to switch to something if Denmark chooses to switch. It surely cannot have an official currency that the country of origin doesn't support anymore? It doesn't seem that the economy is stable enough to maintain their own currency, so I was just wondering which different choices Greenland would face, in that case. 惑乱 分からん 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it can either join the Euro or maintain its currency in a sitution similar to the situation of the CFP franc in some French overseas territories. Maartenvdbent 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The size or nature of the Greenlandic economy does not prevent the minting and issuing and circulation of a separate currency. Cf. Manx pound and Faroese króna. //Big Adamsky 16:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Those two "currencies" are excellent examples of currencies that are, in fact, not independent from the GBP or the DKK in any way. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Right on! They would simply be pegged to the euro instead, if Danish kroner and British pounds should cease to exist. See Currencies related to the euro. =J //Big Adamsky 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. While that could happen to all the various "... pound" currencies pegged to the UKP (the same way the CFP franc and the two CFA francs are now pegged to the euro), the Faroese króna and the Guernsey/Jersey/Isle of Man pounds do not even have a separate legal status. They are just DKK/GBP printed with different pictures on them, as far as ISO 4217 is concerned. What would/will happen if/when the UK/Denmark joined/joins the euro (double construction because Denmark will likely hold a referendum on the issue again some time soon) remains to be seen. —Nightstallion (?) 14:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so? So do you suppose that an entire new set of coins and banknotes would then replace the Faroese krónur? Or would they adopt a foreign currency? //Big Adamsky 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, one of three things will have to happen:

1. They adopt the euro.
2. They establish their currency as an independent currency, with or without a peg to the euro. Would be no problem for the Faroe Islands and Greenland, but Guernsey/Jersey/Isle of Man are not even acknowledged as separate territories in ISO 3166...
3. They adopt a foreign currency (Greenland: US dollar? Canadian dollar? Faroe Islands: ??? G/J/IoM: ???).

I don't think there are any other options. What do you think? Have you read anything about this anywhere? Might be notable and add something to the article... Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 14:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I would predict that since having separate currencies and stamps has traditionally been seen as an important symbolic expression of local identity in these societies, they will probably try to retain them. Possibly Greenland an the Faroes will start printing over euro notes with their own motifs? ;P Or they will strike a deal similar to the one struck between the two pays d'outre mer and indeed not unlike the euro coins compromise. //Big Adamsky 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I s'pose that'd be the most likely scenario (point 2 on my list =]). —Nightstallion (?) 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The section about Greenland makes very little sense. I'd like to see some documentation for a rising independence movement there. This issue has been more popular in the Faroes but is decreasing. As far as I know, the current trend in Greenlandic politics in increasing support for the Democrats (Demokraterne.) That is a pro-union party. Regarding the currency, Denmark has gone through numerous debates on joining the euro, but Greenland has never been mentioned in that context. --Valentinian 11:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies. I gues we could conclude that the section, as it stands now, is imprecise from both a socio-political and an economical viewpoint and creates more questions than it answers. If someone has better knowledge about the economic politics of Greenland, please rewrite. 惑乱 分からん 15:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the article Economy of Greenland claims:

About half the government revenues come from grants from the Danish Government, an important supplement of GDP.

It would seem that the country actually is too economically dependent on Denmark to seriously propose more independency from it. 惑乱 分からん 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, as of today, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man have got ISO 3166 codes. Yay! ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Greece as a late entrant

I added to the membership section the fact that Greece was a late entrant due to not meeting convergance criteria. Thought this was an important minor detail, especially since there was no history section on this page. Ribbit 10:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Ribbit

• Yes, it is important. -Pedro 11:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Financial/Monetary meaning of "Eurozone"

Can some clarify the following issue: One of the menaings of a currency (for example: USD) is that it "follows" the performance of the economy of the state, whose National Bank "makes" the currency in question (USA economic performance establishes the "value of USD"). The economic performance of the 12 euro states establishes the "value of EUR". This is clear. But what about the states that have agreements for EUR use and coins mint? Monaco, San Marino, Vatican. Does their "economic performance" (regardless how small, unimportant and closely linked to the 12 euro states) add-up to the "whole EUR value"? Then, finaly, what about states, that use the EUR on their own, without any formal agreement - like Andorra and Montenegro (and Kosovo)?

How does it work for countries that use the US dollar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.81.57 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons why the euro is getting stronger without increasing the exports. More demand = more value. Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.141.38 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Estonia

Estonia has just decided to postpone its euro adoption by a year (due to its current high inflation), setting January 2008 as the new target. I recommend modifying the Estonia data on the article to conform to this.

Done. Avij 18:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Petroeuro, Saddam, Iran

I notice that the article mentions Saddam intending to trade Iraqi oil for euro. Shouldn't the article mention the Iranian oil bourse aswell? Joffeloff 13:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oil trade is still in US dollar (and as a European, I'm verry happy about that since our oil would be even more expensive if it would be traded in Euro). If the dollar keeps on dropping in value, chances are high that this will change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.81.57 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

you got some sources for the saddams euro-switch?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Table about readiness for adoption

Bulgaria and Romania can be added (they already are making steps in legislation/regulations (transitional periods, quantity of notes/coins needed, etc.), national side of coins discussions, etc.).

Also Sweden - because it doesn't have an opt-out (most fields would be empty or "not yet set" or "delayed on purpose" or whatever) - but this will make the table full with all current "obliged Euro adopters"... 199.64.72.252 08:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. ;) Seriously, though, sounds like a good idea -- do you happen to have any information on the national side discussions, for instance? —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added Bulgaria and Romania. Adding Sweden wouldn't make much sense as th Swedes are not adopting the euro until the public opinion changes (next referendum in 2013 or so?). Also the tble doesn't like another country to be added :). Does anyone have some more info about Bulgaria? Maartenvdbent 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. We could simply add Sweden (and possibly Denmark and the UK?) once Slovenia joins, but let's just wait for the future with that. =]

Oh, and FYI, the next referendum is expected "after 2009" officially. —Nightstallion (?) 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I thought the official statement from the major parties was that the 2003 referendum would be respected for at least 10 years, before joining the euro is reconsidered. I also seem to understand that all parties have made clear during the political debate preceding the September general election that the question won't be brought up before the next general election (which will be in September 2010). (218.228.195.44 07:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Well, an e-mail from the Swedish finance ministry I've just received yesterday states:

“ The Governments decision of the euro adoption is dependent on the political situation. Swedes are not very keen to adopt the euro. Therefore, the government’s position is that the result in the referendum in 2003 must be respected. There are no concrete plans on a new referendum. ”

Which pretty much says nothing with many words. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me it would seem impossible to introduce the euro in Sweden without first having a referendum where a majority of the votes are in favour of the euro, because there would be lots of protests and the ruling parties would be likely to lose the next national election. And with the continued sceptisism against the euro (some polls even suggest that more people are against the euro now than back in 2003), no party would see any point in arranging another referendum, as it would certainly be lost. Even the most pro-euro politicians such as prime minister Göran Persson have made statements against the euro during the September election campaign, because of the current opinion. Usually, pro-euro politicians don't mention the euro at all for the moment, though. (218.228.195.44 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

And the map in the article is wrong. The 3 Baltic states are mixed up. Lithuania aims to adopt the Euro in 2007, Latvia has postponed its introduction beyond 2008...

No, that's not true, Lithuania aimed to join the Eurozone in 2007 but got a negative recommendation of the European Commission. It has now set the entry date to 2009. Estonia and Latvia still aim to adopt the euro in 2008 (although the Latvian bid is somewhat criticized), see: [1]. Maartenvdbent 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Maarten, I meant 2009 for Lithuania, not 2007. But AFAIK both contries (LAT and LTU) are now set do adopt the euro on Jan 1, 2009.

I cannot find any source for that, only this article that questions 2008 entry for Latvia. The government hasn't set back the aimed entry date so far (as far as I know). Maartenvdbent 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some pages state 2008 for Lithuania, while other pages state 2009. What is correct, and can all wrong pages be corrected? (218.228.195.44 07:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

It seems they don't know themselves yet. —Nightstallion (?) 14:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah! It's 2009. Check http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/07/18/afx2886752.html. —Nightstallion (?) 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then articles such as convergence criteria need to be corrected. BTW, something seems wrong with the numbers in that article -- it says that both EE and LT fulfill all criteria. I thought that the inflation for LT was 2.7% while that for EE was above 4%. (218.228.195.44 15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

There are two paragraphs about Bulgaria, one in "Upcoming EU nations" and another in "Non-EU currencies pegged to the euro", both saying literally the same thing. I'm deleting the second one.

ERM

The ERM/ERM II links are not shown. The link to the article on ERM is only linked via some small caption under an image, something most people won't see. Additionally there's a reference to "[1]" which is never listed (?). In short: it's quite mysterious why the article suddenly starts on ERM II with no reference to saying what it is 83.117.0.30 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Big-Bang?

Where it says "Big-bang" on the table of prospective Eurozone entrants, does that refer to Big Bang (financial markets), or what does it mean? --Stlemur 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that on introduction of the euro, only the euro is legal currency and the former currency is invalid instantly. —Nightstallion (?) 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Official invalidation of tolar

Since it would be infeasable to attempt otherwise, does anyone know what the planned date for when the tolar is to stop trading under SIT and become as the first 12 currencies were between 1999 and 2002? - ^Рэд_хот 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On 31 December 2006. —Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? I thought I read somewhere (not on Wikipedia) that it was sometime in the summer. I was just seeing if anyone knew an exact date. Maybe you're right, especially since I can't find the place (maybe it was one of those ECB PDFs). (BTW I meant while cash is still valid but is officially just a non-decimal division of the euro, or is that what you meant too?) - ^Рэд_хот 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The exact exchange rate between euro and tolar is to be set on July 1, 2006. Tolar is invalidated on December 31, 2006. See Slovenian tolar for more info on this... Maartenvdbent 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I overread the "1999 to 2002" part of your post and thought you meant the dual-use period, which will not exist at all for the tolar... It's as Maarten said, the rate will be set on 1 July, and from then on, the tolar is a curious subdivision of the euro. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it's now past 1 July, but the ECB [2] is still listing SIT. Are you sure about this, or is it just the ECB leaving the rate there for reference, because there's no note on the page, as they normally have for strange situations. They even had a note on the page for TRY when it came in. - ^Рэд_хот 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was slightly wrong. The European Commission proposed on 28 June a conversion rate of 239.640 to 1 euro [3]. The issue will be discussed in the next Council of Finance Ministers, on 11 July. Maartenvdbent 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the info by the way. - ^Рэд_хот 19:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Map

The eurozone map shows LI as being part of the eurozone, but last time I heard they used CHF. Could this be corrected? (218.228.195.44 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Em... actually, both maps show Liechtenstein as *NOT* using the euro, if you take a closer look. —Nightstallion (?) 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, I must have misread the map... (218.228.195.44 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

No problem. —Nightstallion (?) 11:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The map shows Estonia as the next Eurozone member after Slovakia. What about Lithuania? It plans to join the Eurozone before Estonia now (2010-2011 for Lithuania, 2011-2012 for Estonia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The new map is great and pretty accurate. Nevertheless, I don't see why Denmark should have a different status than the UK in the map, given the fact that the future referendum on the euro is a promise that may or may not be kept on a date that is unknown. I think that Denmark's future referendum should be mentioned in the article, but it shouldn't be reflected in the map yet.

I am inclined to agree. But such change, which may appear to be small, must gain consensus because the image is shared across Wikipedias of different languages. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps, again

Maps show Kosovo as separate state, which it is not (yet). Could the map be fixed? In the case of Kosovo independence, it can be easily reverted to the current version... --Dijxtra 10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The map doesn't show Kosovo as an independent state. It only indicates that in Kosovo the euro has been adopted. If you look closely you can see that the line bordering Kosovo is much smaller than the border of independent states. Maartenvdbent 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, good then, my appologies. I rephrased the image caption a bit, the encyclopedia is about all nitpicking ;-) --Dijxtra 12:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Greenland wording strange meaning ?

"If Denmark ever joins, Greenland, which is not part of the EU, but of Denmark, would have to hold a separate referendum to decide whether it wants to switch to the euro. The outcome of this possibility is uncertain, as current trends seem to favour independence from Denmark." - this seems very fishy to me. What currency could Greenland use if DKK is replaced with EUR? Greenland independence from Denmark has nothing to do with this - if they are still NOT independent at the time of the possible DKK->EUR replacement, then Greenland will use the EUR. If there is another option - let's put it in the text - the current wording seems simply wrong to me. 199.64.72.252 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

They could establish an independent currency. They've recently negotiated an agreement allowing them to have their own money similar to the Faroese króna, but that's not an independent currency yet. —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that neither FO nor GL mint their own coins, they only have their own notes. The notes are AFAIK printed in the EU part of DK, but that doesn't mean anything, though, since XPF also is printed (and minted) in the EU part of FR. (58.188.97.134 10:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Kosovo in the Eurozone?

If you look at the Kosovo article, it says that Kosovo is currently using the Euro as it's official currency. So is it in the Eurozone? (at-least in an unofficial way), anyway this should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps in the section talking about non-EU Countries using the Euro --Hibernian 05:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article? It is mentioned actually. Maartenvdbent 11:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Kosovo being in the Eurozone was left in, but the Kosovo flag was removed from the section of countries using the euro without formal agreements as Kosovo is not an indepdent, sovereign nation. Kosovo is still officially recognized as a territory of Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.151.200 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a sovereign state but it is a territory, and as the section is headed "non-member states or territories" it belongs within the list at the top. The fact that it is not an independent state is not relevant, the relevant fact is that Kosovo's situation in respect of the euro is distinct from that of Serbia.Thom2002 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slovenia should be removed from the ERM II Chart

--J intela 09:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Image

The key for this image shows Cyprus, Estonia, and Latvia as countries that joined the Eurozone on 1 January 2007, but their date was pushed back to 1 January 2008.

~~geowhiz1010 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)~~

That maybe so, but it's not absolutely neccessary - there's nothing innaccurate about it in its current state. Having less detail doesn't equate to needing cleanup. I've therefore removed the tag. I would dispute that that needs to be included in the image anyway. Don't forget that the image is on Commons not en.wikipedia - if we change it, it gets changed for all Wikipedias that use it. To make a change like that, you need to discuss it on commons (it's semi-major). - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to a recent article Cyprus intends on joining 2 January 2008: http://www.investorsoffshore.com/asp/story/storyinv.asp?storyname=26198 --magikthrill 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Lots of footnotes in this article are wrong, pointing at wrong references. (58.188.97.134 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

Such as which links and how are they wrong? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong footnote text in the article, for example in the euro adoption table. For example, it says about Estonia: "First draft approved on September 1, 2005[21]" -- but clicking on "[21]" takes you to Eurozone#_note-17. I guess someone should check all the footnote numbers and links and make sure that they point at the correct place. (58.188.97.134 19:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Denmark

Target date for euro adoption: 1 January 1999 ????? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the fields for target euro adoption and ERM II entry. (58.188.97.134 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Vatican euro

"Currently, the Vatican currency is the Vatican Euro, that has the same value as the Euro (used in Italy and thought the Eurozone)."

Is this correct? Isn't the Vatican currency just the usual euro currency? You don't talk about French, Italian, Finnish etc. euros (except possibly for coins, because of the national sides), so why does the article talk about Vatican euros? What's the source to this? (58.188.97.134 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

It is not acurate. The Vatican curreny is the euro, but owing to a special agreement it has the right to issue a limited amount of euro coin with a national obverse separate from Italy. Thewikipedian 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Please discuss at Talk:Euro#Contradiction. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Euro introduction in Poland

The Wiki Article states:

In May 2006 Poland finally set its target date for euro introduction for 1 January 2011.

Could you give some citation sources? I'm a Polish citizen, quite active in politics, and I have never heard, that the current government set a target date of Euro adoption.

In fact, the Kaczynski-brothers (Jaroslaw as Prime Minister and Lech as President) have contested the Euro currency idea, and have avoided to set a final date of joining the eurozone.

Finance Minister - Zyta Gilowska, on the Brussels gathering recently has declared, that there will be an Euro-referendum in 2009 year, but not questioning "Do you agree to adopt Euro in Poland", but "WHEN adopt Euro in Poland".

In my opinion, nothing happens until next parliamentary elections. Current government is strictly separatist and nationalist, and they can hardly accept economic and political integration within the EU.

Summarizing - the date "1 January 2011" should be deleted in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.53.12.42 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

On 23 April 2007 Zyta Gilowska stated in a TV interview (TVN) that the earliest possibility for introducing euro in Poland is year 2012. Therefore I agree that the date "1 January 2011" is incorrect (not actual anymore) --Almaden 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ZBIGNIEW MAZURAK: Chairman Skrzypek said the target date is 1 January 2012. I will now amend the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.146.34 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for this statement: "Opinion polls indicate that most Poles would like the euro to be the Polish currency"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.86.112 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not vs. Doesn't

Why are there changes being made to the article such as "does not" --> "doesn't" What is the wikipedia standard? 66.31.71.77 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

doesn't isn't international English "wide majority" Markthemac 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

Cuba is now accepting Euros. (No, I don't have a citation at present.) Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? Seems like quite a significant development. SmokeyTheCat 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In which way is the euro accepted? If it's only accepted at banks and currency exchange offices, then it shouldn't be mentioned. (Stefan2 11:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

it has replaced the dollar for the most part Markthemac 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DPRK

The DPRK uses the euro as the official currency for foreign visitors. So I assume that the DPRK has two official currencies:

DPRK citizens: KPW

Foreign visitors: EUR

This would be similar to Cuba:

Cuban citizens: CUP

Foreign visitors: CUC

Should the DPRK be listed as one of the users of the euro? After all, Cuba is listed as the user of CUC. (Stefan2 11:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

BEPG, SGP

I made a quick and simple edit to the section on fiscal coordination since the original was unsourced and quite biased. I didn't have time to locate some sources on the topic, but if someone else has the time, it would be well worth it to add some citation for that point. It is relevant to the Euro since it affects the economics of the Euroarea, but should probably remain a blurb with links to the section on the SGP, and hopefully someone can spend the time to fill in the section on the BEPG. Cheers. 158.143.147.149 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the maps

The map under "Countries with the euro as currency" contains the caption "EU state aiming to join Eurozone on 2010-01-01", but the colour seems to be used nowhere. Which country is this? (Stefan2 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Estonia maybe? Although Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all had to postpone their initial target date. I recommend to remove the colour from the map as none of the ERM II countries has a real fixed target date, besides Slovakia. Van der Hoorn 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Estonia specifically postponed the target date for adoption fro Jan 1, 2008 to Jan 1, 2010 in Autumn 2006. Other countries have simply dropped the target date without specifying a new one. It is of no relevance if they are able to make it in Estonia to join the Eurozone in 2010 (there is actually a great chance that they will be ready by then); it is the explicit aim of the government to join in 2010. I'll change it in the map. Maarten 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Inside ERM II Notes

The notes for "Inside ERM II" state: "The Maltese lira floats in a ±15% range against the euro (1 EUR = 0.429300 MTL)." However, it no longer "floats" to the Euro, rather it is fixed to it, as I understand. Should this be changed? 216.195.199.146 13:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, correct. Fixed. Van der Hoorn 07:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction Estonia 2010/2011

• This article Estonia has currently no target date for the changeover, and does not expect it to be possible before 2011. (source: Eesti Pank, 2007-06-08)
• Euro: 2010-01-01 for Estonia (source: Helsingin Sanomat, 2007-05-25)
• Enlargement of the eurozone: Estonia intends to replace the kroon with the euro on 2010-01-01
• Estonian euro coins: officially changed its target date to 2008-01-01, and later, to 2010-01-01.
• Estonian kroon: 2010-01-01 tentative

I have become a bot... (I've spent so much time doing maintenance and have no time for research) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved by correcting this article. —Nightstallion 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The map under "Countries with the euro as currency" suggests 2010-01-01, while the Estonia-specific text under "Non-Eurozone EU countries" suggests 2011 or later. I assume that the latter is the latest available information and that the image should be changed, but since I'm not certain about this (nor able to edit the image), I'll just add a template saying that the Eurozone article contradicts itself. (Stefan2 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Poland

Poland is about to get a prime minister, and his ideas on euro adoption differs from those of the previous government. Maybe this article and several other articles should be updated. See [4] and elsewhere for information about this. (Stefan2 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Cyprus - Eurozone - Map

The Cypriot Republic covers the whole island of Cyprus! Please change the first map which illustrate the countries which are going to join to EMU, therefore the whole Cypriot territory been covered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.52.239.73 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The euro is only going to be used in the parts of Cyprus controlled by the Republic of Cyprus (as opposed to the parts claimed by the Republic of Cyprus). In my opinion, it makes sense to mark only the areas where the euro de facto is in use. (Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

That is debatable, because the EU has declared that all the island should appear as part of the EU in official maps. On the other hand, it would be useful to show only the Greek part in a Eurozone map as we see the future transition from the Turkish lira to the euro, which will probably happen in the distant future, if at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the map represent the areas which according to EU law are using the euro, or does it represent the areas which according to national laws are using the euro? EU law will state that the euro is the currency of the Republic of Cyprus. However, EU law also states that the parts claimed by, but not under the control of, the Republic of Cyprus are exempt from EU law. EU law thus doesn't state that the euro is the currency of the parts of the island of Cyprus not under control of the Republic of Cyprus. On the other hand, it doesn't state the opposite either. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Ah, I see that the text under the map states that the map shows EU states and not EU areas. So all areas claimed by the ROC should be shown in the same colour. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Big merge

Please, join the discussion on the articles merging on the Euro talk page. Don't write anything here to avoid writing the same in different places. Thanks. --Dima1 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Enlargement

I suggest all but a summary of enlargement details be moved out to Enlargement of the eurozone, this is way to heavy with that data. Any objections?- J Logan ^t: 11:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did that already. Second point though, the Eurozone deals with EU member states who have the euro, not the other states which have adopted it. How do people feel about moving data on usage by third countries to another article, possibly euro or a new one?- J Logan ^t: 13:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't those countries de facto part of the Eurozone, even if not de jure? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

The header of this article states "European Union member states", and as afar as I've heard it usually means just those, who have a seat at the ECB. Anyone got an official definition from somewhere?

Alternative might be remaining the members subsection Eurozone and the article something about the use of the euro (hence covering the trading currency bit).- J Logan ^t: 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 update

Can people hold back from updating this article before Cyprus and Malta actually join. No prises for getting in there first. The table I've just put in have their details hidden in editor notes. Just remove the bracketed areas around them at new year.- J Logan ^t: 10:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Cypriot currency also is used by the two UK military bases on Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia. However, they don't seem to be mentioned in your hidden data in this article. They are listed as CYP users at Cypriot pound and will adopt the euro at the same time as the Republic of Cyprus-controlled parts of the island. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Oops, they were there, but in the wrong table I guess. Shouldn't they be listed in the table with non-EU areas having a formal agreement (with the ROC), instead of being listed in the table with non-EU areas not having any formal agreement? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I believe they should not be listed separately -- after all, they're not really a formal area at all, they're more like Guantanamo Bay -- a military camp on another sovereign nation's territory through a bilateral agreement. In list of European Union member states by accession, we've put A&D with Cyprus (under "excluding ..."). —Nightstallion 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that they also are listed with UK (under excluding). Are the bases de jure part of Cyprus, or of the UK? In the former case I suppose they can be omitted on this page, in the latter case I suppose that they need to be mentioned here. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

In reply to them having/not having a formal agreement, no agreement has been made. May be an agreement with the Cypriots but not with the EU, it is unilateral adoption. If they had an agreement, they could mint coins, per M, SM and VAT. In reply to their status, they are de jure and de facto party of the UK, under military governance. They are UK Sovereign Base Areas, which the UK retained after Cyprus gained independence, and the return of which are now demanded. So they can't be listed under Cyprus.- J Logan ^t: 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 map colour

May I suggest swapping the colour of "with an agreement" (currently light blue) and "without an agreement" (currently purple). Andorra is mistakenly marked as "with an agreement". If that were corrected, then there are 6 points on the map, 3 with agreement, and 3 without. But the 3 with agreement are mostly surrounded by the official members. A stronger contrast would help. What about purple and some other colour? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Fair enough, I'll fix that. As for some other colour, I'll see what I can do. Will defiantly have to run round the other projects updating their legends after this.- J Logan ^t: 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How's that? Before I correct all the others.- J Logan ^t: 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another exclude

Em, this may seem like a silly question but, de jure at least, what currency is used in the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus?- J Logan ^t: 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

None? (Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

In that case, should it be listed as excluded? Or does the fact that it doesn't have any alternative make that pointless?- J Logan ^t: 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If the official currency of the buffer zone isn't the euro, I suppose that it should be listed as excluded, regardless of whether it has any other currency or not. (Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Doesn't matter if it is official though, it is de facto really isn't it. Is the euro the de facto currency in the buffer zone? Ugh, overcomplicating I know.- J Logan ^t: 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is one village in the buffer zone, and that village is controlled by the Greek Cypriots, so I assume that the village uses the euro. But there is probably UN crew at other places in the zone. No idea what they use. (Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

I assume the United Nations only administrers the Buffer Zone, it has no sovereignty over the area (the UK does over Akrotiri and Dhekelia). So de jure the area is part of the Republic of Cyprus. Most countries (all but Turkey) do not recognize the sovereignty of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus over Northern Cyprus, so de jure that part of the island is under the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus as well... Maarten (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the UN force pulled out didn't they? The article on them uses past tense. If they are there, I doubt they officially use any other currency and I doubt they'd use Turkey's. Lets just assume euro so we don't have to mention it.- J Logan ^t: 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)