Jump to content

Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

page move

propose move to "Enlargement of the European Union" because "Future" in unencyclopaedic and crystal balling. Enlargement deals with past expansion (briefly with link to "main" page) and talks about the future. (as opposed to "Future" itself which is crystal balling that it would expand)(Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is already a full separate article at Enlargement of the European Union dealing with overall enlargement in the past and future. It is useful to have this article which looks in more detail at future enlargement, as long as there are sources which back up the fact there is an ongoing process with certain countries and sources that some may join in the future, there is no problem with the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Aye, the Enlargement of the European Union article deals with the technicalities of enlargement, past enlargement and a general overview. This article deals with the ongoing enlargement process. It is not crystal balling to detail which states have applied, which states are candidate countries, what negotiation chapters have been opened and which states have had their applications turned down.- J.Logan`t: 08:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this article deals with facts just as much as the Enlargement article does. If you find incidences of crystal balling, please report or fix them. As you can observe from several talk sections above, we are committed to not practicing this here. Tomeasy T C 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"Possible enlargement..." maybe better because it doesnt affirm anything in the title as "Future" does. Something may not happen.Lihaas (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have thought more about it and now I also have an issue now with this article and its title. Apart from the first section Current agenda, the content does not really deal with a planned future enlargement, but rather with bilateral cooperation frameworks between the EU and other entities. I think that under the current title most sections are out of place, except for the first one and perhaps the one on Northern Cyprus. If, on the other hand, we want to keep the structure of the article, it would better firm under a title like EU cooperation frameworks, or similar. In this respect, I am actually missing the Union for the Mediterranean. Why do we currently have a section on eastern European countries outside the ENP and EaP but not on this union? Perhaps the best would be to have one article EU enlargement agenda and another one with all the frameworks that do not primarily aim at EU enlargement? Tomeasy T C 22:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the split and the creation of a new "Bilateral and multilateral relations of EU", or a merge with Foreign relations of the European Union, of the issue non part of the current enlargement agenda. --Dans (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the entire article,"future enlargement of the European union" should be taken for face value, IE its all very theoretical but possible in the near, intermediate and far future.Both removed maps reflect the EU geographical standards for membership that can be found in the existing treaty's, to include over seas Territory's and the EEZ.I propose to add them both back in Infocat13 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkey in UN

It is stated in the article that "the country is a part of the Western Europe branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations", but I found no sources confirming that, first, there is division into branches inside the group, second, Turkey is a part of "Western Europe branch". Am I missing something? —Volgar (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find evidence either. It may just mean that it's not Other as Australia--Dans (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Morocco

The Moroccan government argues that a "substantial" amount of its territory is already part of the European Union, specifically Spanish enclaves in Northern Africa that Morocco says are occupied territory. ??? lol

A substantial amount of OUR territory is in Africa, so maybe we could join in The African Union, but Morocco hasn't got nothing in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.146.23 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein "would be by far smallest country"???

The article says: "It might consider joining the EU if Switzerland joins. If it attained membership it would be by far the smallest member state.", which is plain wrong. Malta is only twice as big, and both in the same order of magnitude compared to other states. Liechtenstein would be the smallest (if it joined now), but not "by far". Szabi (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Done.- J.Logan`t: 10:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Im my humble opinion it will not join. Since San Marino and Monaco has not joined, but instead has special agreements, then would Liechtenstein have similar status. --BIL (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but we are not putting personal opinions.- J.Logan`t: 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also a personal opinion to think all the members of the EFTA can join the European Union cause of be full members of the EFTA. The EFTA is a different organization. The alone real data looking to the accession of Liechtenstein to the European Union is that Liechtenstein is a microstate more.--83.61.168.170 (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Position of Norway and Switzerland on the list

Norway and Switzerland are described as countries with open applications (though referenda have stalled them both). Shouldn't they be listed together with the other applicants like Iceland, etc.? In fact, I fail to see the point of dividing the page in sections titled "EFTA countries", "Eastern Partnership states", "Microstates", etc. There is little text written to justify/explain the classification, and the whole page makes for a fairly confusing read. An alphabetical sorting of non-applicant states may be better. Ladril (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, Norway doesn't actually have an open application any longer. Switzerland has one, which is officially frozen. —Nightstallion 22:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
My main point is that the page looks disorganized and confusing. For example, under which definition is Northern Cyprus considered part of Western Europe? In my view, the main axis of classification for this page should be the position of each country in relation to the European Union. This is why we should make four lists: candidates, applicants, non-applicants in the enlargement group and non-applicants not currently in the enlargement agenda. Ladril (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
In a sense it is, the divisions are not arbitrary but reflect the different (yet unofficial and undefinable in a single word) approaches and challenges each group faces. In short, Western Europe can get in but doesn't want to, Eastern Europe wants to but isn't allowed yet, non-European wants to but will never and dependencies are purely an internal member state issue. Don't you think that makes more sense than having the whole lot (the majority of the article) under one massive header which is the implication of what you propose?- J.Logan`t: 17:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree Ladril, and I bid for change this wrong point in this article, but wikipedia stop the changes. It is necessary to change the point of the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.197.19 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eastern Partnership states" Section Map is Wrong

I don't edit wiki often and don't know how to change pictures, so I'm just letting you know that the map for that section is wrong. Slovenia is an EU state and so it should be blue, not green. 86.43.72.9 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, fixed, good catch! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 86.43.72.9 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Moldova be brown as an ENP state? I've changed the file, but feel free to revert me if I've missed something. TDL (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed Northern Cyprus is green. It is (at least de jure) part of the EU, so should be blue. 86.43.72.9 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Current agenda - speculative progress is WP:CRYSTAL

Is there any consensus on action that should be taken regarding Current Agenda section, specifically a large table contained in subsection progress. The dates contained in the table referring to speculated future events are clearly in violation of WP:CRYSTAL - especially criteria 1 and 3. The only exception could be a future date well documented by a WP:RS with proper inline citations. I can readily identify only three such dates, and even those do not have any citations to verify them. Four columns "reference dates" on the right gave me an impression that whoever made the table tried to support the speculated dates drawing parallels to those - but that's not necessarily valid (as can be observed in the four columns themselves, where comparable steps were not completed in comparable periods) and that's violation of WP:CRYSTAL criterion 3.

Should the dates unsupported by inline citations be removed or should the entire table be removed altogether?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Entire table should not be removed, because it is constantly updated and provides a good overview of the current situation. Regarding speculative progress, I find most of the dates unrealistic but didn't want to replace them with my own estimates because they are described as earliest possible ones (e.g. negotiations last 4 years, ratification 2 years). I will add inline citations for some of the future dates, but most of them could be replaced with something like "tbd". Tomi566 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. If there's a reliable verification (not speculation by various commentators) of a date, then that's information. Otherwise we'll end up with sheer speculation that serves no purpose. I like your idea how to handle this, replacing speculation with "tbd" or leaving such a cell blank until info is available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have edited the template and added some references. Some are on the verge between reliable and speculative, like the one with Icelandic end of negotiations. I believe this calls for a discussion how solid should those references be. Tomi566 (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think to talk about the "current agenda" is wrong. The article must talk about the agenda and include the countries with open application as part of the countries that give some steps toward de membership (now or some years ago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.197.19 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway and Switzerland are applicants with frozen application

I think Norway and Switzerland must appear as applicants with frozen application in all the article. To be applicant with frozen application is to be closer to the European Union than the countries that submit not application still (Bosnia Herzegovina). - 08:06, 6 July 2011 2.136.247.58

Firstly, Norway's application isn't frozen, it was rejected by referendum. Secondly, a frozen application doesn't bring you closer than no application. You don't gain half of EU membership by negotiating. What brings Switzerland closer to the EU is EFTA and the bilateral treaties.- J.Logan`t: 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Norway rejects in referendum the accession to the EU, they reject the accession agreement, not the application. The government of Norway keeps the application. Switzerland rejects the application in referendum but their government keep also the application frozen. The accession of one country to the European Union is a process with some real steps. Surely other countries are closer to the accession than Turkey, but the article puts Turkey as one of the countries with more advanced process for the accession. I call to do the same with Norway and Switzerland. The article can not forget the real steps that give every country. The point of the article about these countries is wrong. No sense to talk about the EFTA here.--80.30.197.19 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland and Norway

Both countries have frozen their applications, following negative referendum outcomes, but not withdrawn them. So, the process of accession is still open and could be resumed one day as it was done by Malta, following an eventually renewed political will. I propose to add a brief section on the issue.--Dans (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - This is a great idea. --Smart30 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dans, well done. My support. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I also support the idea, I call too for the same. The point of the article is wrong about Norway and Switzerland and is not based in the real situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.197.19 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to see the articles and the maps in other languages:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampliaci%C3%B3n_de_la_Uni%C3%B3n_Europea

It is an example--88.9.92.150 (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Against - we already discuss these two and anything more would be crystal balling.- J.Logan`t: 09:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

from the article:

"The Swiss federal government policy has recently undergone substantial U-turns in policy, however, concerning specific agreements with the EU on freedom of movement for people, workers and areas concerning tax evasion have been addressed within the Swiss banking system. This was a result of the first Switzerland-EU summit in May 2004 where nine bilateral agreements were signed."

Not only is the "recently" rather out of date (2004), the wording is also hardly unbiased, accusing the Swiss authorities of "substantial U-turns in policy" without any sort of rationale or explanation. Surprise, surprise, the Swiss government is acting in the best interests of Switzerland. Just like about 100% of governments worldwide are acting in the interest of their countries, as they should. The fact of the matter is that there were preliminary negotiations for a possible accession of Switzerland to the EU, but it turned out that neither would this be advantageous for Switzerland nor did the Swiss population show the slightest interest. So the matter was dropped. As long as Switzerland can only lose by joining, it will not happen. Hypothetically, if Switzerland were hit really hard by the economic crisis and ended up worse than the average EU country, things might look different, but right now it looks like the EU is much worse off than Switzerland, so Swiss accession would only mean burning Swiss GNP to pay for rebuilding Greek and Portuguese economy. It is hardly a fanciful "political U-turn" if the Swiss say no thank you to that. It isn't surprising, otoh, that the EU would like to burn Swiss capital to rebuild their collapsed economy, but what I find peculiar is that they are acting all pissy and disappointed finding that the Swiss don't like to play along. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the EU countries would love to have the opportunity to exert control of the swiss banks. Their acting pissy is probably just politics politics. On topic, if an expansion on when and why they froze their applications, and if they have perhaps offered conditions or terms on which they would reenter, I would support that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Moldova must be in the "agenda" while the point of the article change not

I think Moldova must be included in the agenda while the point of the article change not. If not we can have some surprise fast.

Citation: http://politicom.moldova.org/news/the-republic-of-moldova-applies-for-eu-membership-in-2011-213785-eng.html

November 12, 2010

"The Republic of Moldova ‘applies for EU membership in 2011

The Republic of Moldova plans to submit an application for EU membership in 2011.

Both Foreign Minister Iurie Leancă and Prime Minister Vlad Filat confirmed this piece of news.

Moldavian Foreign Minister Iurie Leancă declared that this would only happen if the anticipated parliamentary elections due on November 28th were won by the parties forming the Alliance for European Integration and not the communists.

Prime Minister Filat stressed the fact that this application has to be preceded by an adjustment of all activity in the Republic of Moldova to EU norms: ‘This is our goal for the next year: to meet certain standards and achieve some progress in the process of adjusting all affairs of the Republic of Moldova to European values, so as to succeed in submitting this membership application.’

And we will definitely accomplish it: both in terms of meeting the requirements and in terms of submitting the application’, Vlad Filat said.


Visa Regime Liberalization

European integration is a key priority of foreign policy for the Republic of Moldova; so it is considered by the four parties which form the current government coalition in Chişinău, and considerable progress has been made in this direction this year.

However, the Communist Party advocate affiliation to Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

During a talk show broadcast by a private TV station, Foreign Minister Iurie Leancă, who has been suspended from the Cabinet pending the election campaign, also stated that the citizens of the Republic of Moldova will be able to travel to the EU without a visa starting from 2012.

The Prime Minister asserted that the Republic of Moldova had already complied with at least 60-70% of the prerequisites for the visa regime liberalization, before having received the road map for a visa-free travel regime from the European Union.

On October 25th, the General Affairs and External Relations Council invited the European Commission to design an Action Plan for visa regime liberalization for Moldavian citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.197.19 (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Okay, firstly please don't spam the talk page. Second, please sign your posts (look above this box and there will be a message telling you to do so and how). Third, the "agenda" is the official EU agenda. Look on the enlargement website and you will see that "current enlargement agenda" includes the candidates and the rest of the Balkans. Norway and Switzerland are not on the agenda because they don't want to be members. They are integrated in other ways.- J.Logan`t: 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The alone spam is your comment. Here you must talk about Moldova. Moldova want? All my comments are signed by my IP that is higher level data than your nickname.--83.61.168.170 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are more links that talk about Moldova and the EU:

http://soderkoping.org.ua/page28975.html

http://www.allmoldova.com/en/moldova-news/1249050696.html

http://www.allmoldova.com/en/moldova-news/1249050806.html

"Moldova, EU hold seventh round of talks on association agreement

6 july 2011, 16:05

The seventh round of negotiations on the Association Agreement between Moldova and the European Union was held in Brussels on 5 July. Moldova's delegation was led by Deputy Foreign and European Integration Minister Natalia Gherman, and the EU one by the executive director for Europe and Central Asia of the European Service of External Action Miroslav Lajcak, the Foreign and European Integration Ministry's media and public relations service has said.

The sides ascertained new progress as regards the negotiation of the Preamble, General Objectives and Principles of the Agreement, including the Institutional, General and Final provisions. They reached a provisional agreement on the parliamentary dimension and the one in the field of cooperation with the civil society.

Also, the talks on Justice, Freedom and Security have advanced, and the sides are close to reaching a temporary agreement. The negotiations continued on 3 chapters out of 24 ones in the division of Economic, Sectorial and Financial Cooperation.

The delegations exchanged information on the process of preparing to start the negotiations on the creation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. The Moldovan side welcomed the approval of the European Commission's mandate by the EU Council. For its part, the EU delegation took notice of the second progress report presented by the Moldovan authorities on 30 June 2011.

At the end of this round of talks, the sides agreed to hold the next round of negotiations in Chisinau in autumn 2011. Meanwhile, Moldova and the EU will continue discussions within working groups by video-conferences."

--83.37.116.176 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article must have a different point based in the real steps toward the accession.

I think the article must have six groups:

Recognised Candidates: Croatia, Iceland, Turkey, Macedonia and Montenegro

Application Submitted: Albania and Serbia with active application, Norway and Switzerland with frozen application.

Association Agreement: Bosnia Herzegovina

Microstates: Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Vatican.

Relation with the EU under the Enlargement Commissioner: Kosovo, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan

Other countries: Rusia,...

The point about the agenda is wrong because:

-The agenda criteria are based in opinions of the polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski and swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt who "set out their vision for the EU's future relations with neighbouring countries in a letter on 6 October to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and neighbourhood commissioner Stefan Fuele" but not in the real steps toward the accession. As example, The article mean Kosovo is in the agenda, but EU members like Spain or Romania recognize not Kosovo as independent country. The spanish government tell not Kosovo is in their agenda for the accession. Romania the same, but the government of Romania tell many times they want the accession of Moldova as part of Romania or as independent country, they want both.

-Iceland was not in this agenda in 2007, but now is the second country closer to the accession. And four years is mid-term. If something changes in Norway or Switzerland we would see the same, but the article is giving to these countries the same colour in the maps that give to Libya or Jordania. This is wrong.

- No sense to talk here about the EFTA that is other different organization. The membership in the EFTA is not a official step in the accession to the European Union.--83.61.168.170 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, it is very simple. The official enlargement agenda is the western Balkans plus Iceland and Turkey. Switzerland, Norway, Moldova, Ukraine and all the rest are not considered as potential candidates by the Commission in the short to medium term and Switzerland and Norway are not pursuing membership regardless of their historical applications. Please cease.- J.Logan`t: 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The alone link after 2005 that you use for tell that is the oppinion of 2 foreign minister of 2 of the 27 states. In 2005 Montenegro and Kosovo were not independent countries. This "current agenda" is based in this change "The EU's relations with the Western Balkans states were moved from the "External Relations" to the "Enlargement" policy segment in 2005." but you take not into account the same change for other countries in 2010 (see Eastern Partnership) and a lot of other mistakes in this article.--83.61.168.170 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why to change the current setting, which is based on EU official categories, and replace it by our own perception and judgment. BTW, who many countries do you want to list behind Rusia [sic] - 170? Tomeasy T C 18:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not own perception. There are categories fixed by the real steps toward the membership like to be recognized as candidate, like to submit one application, like to sign a association agreement, or like to have relations with the EU under the Enlargement commissioner. For me it is worse to ignore the chance of Norway or Switzerland of become menbers, when always there is a real chance of begin a fast process. Wikipedia is not part in the process of enlargement and should not ignore all the chances. Wikipedia should not take only a old strategy of one of the sides. Moldova can submit the application before Kosovo get recognized as independent state by all the EU members. This is real, and this article is ignoring it.--83.34.226.96 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I do not really see the problem you have with the article. We use these categories, i.e., candidate, application submitted, and recognized potential candidate. They are clear-cut verifiable categories. Norway and Switzerland do not meet any of these criteria - do you agree? As for Moldavia etc, you may be interested in European Neighbourhood Policy, which deals more appropriately with their EU-relation. As far as I know Moldavia has not submitted an application and is also not recognized as a potential applicant. Tomeasy T C 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Norway and Switzerland meet to have a open application that is frozen, but is open. Why keep both countries the application open but forzen? For keeping them so close to the European Union. Ignore that is not right, despite the European Union have strategic interest in show not interest and put not presure for the accession of both countries. But put Norway and Switzerland in worse level than Kosovo, and Mauritania like is doing de map of the article of your link, and in the same colour than Chad and Jordania, is not realistic, is a big mistake. In the case of Moldova, I think the country is recognized as potential applicant since the moment the EU take the relation with Moldova under the Enlargement Commissioner, but the European Union want not to recognize that because can give diplomatic troubles with Russia, but the first step in here. And the leaders of the country tell the last year they would submit an application in 2011 like you can see here in the discussion. Moldova is obviously closer to the enlargement than Kosovo looking to the real steps. My wish is see also Kosovo inside, but this is my wish. I think wikipedia is not the European Union, and should think in the real steps toward the accession that every country give until now, not in the strategy of one of the sides in the process. Many times the declarations are one thing and the acts other thing. And since 2005 there are really few documments of the European Union about the Enlargement.--83.37.116.176 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I am finding it a little difficult to understand your argument. If the EU or its officers make statements about plans for the future we can report that, since this article is about plans for the future, but we should not base the presentation on speculation. --Boson (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
What speculation? The categories that I propose are not speculation, there are real steps. Recognized candidates, countries that submit an application for membership that is open (active or frozen), contries that sign association agreements, and countries that have relation with the European Union under the enlargement commissioner... microstates... I propos to take only the real steps toward the accession. I propos not to take Moldova as applicant because they can submit the application this year.--83.37.116.176 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the article is not being neutral on this. To take the "European Union agenda" mean to take the point of one part in the issue. To take the real steps toward the accession mean to take a neutral point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.177.90 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think what is proposed by the above contribution is that another map key item (colour) be assigned to Switzerland and Norway on the grounds that their EU accession applications were submitted, but at a point further political process was suspended by respective national governments. I did not check sources quoted, but if the information in the article itself is correct (i.e. the applications were not withdrawn in either case) the two countries are technically applicants - albeit ones who don't really care about their application anymore yet are wise enough not to withdraw formally from the process should they need (like Iceland) or wish (like Malta) to join the EU. Personally I think it would be acceptable to mark Norway and Switzerland accordingly if the information pans out - as "suspended application" or something along those lines.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Seccesionist Scenarios

The section on secession appears self-contradictory. We all know it could be a grey area but this bit seems to be full of wishful thinking supporting much of the status quo.

The portion about Scotland stresses the doubt about its continuing EU membership. The portion about Belgium stresses the continuing viability of Brussels in a split Belgium. Is it at all conceivable that the EU wouldn't have a fast-track system of retaining or returning membership for seceding states - otherwise Brussels itself would be stranded in a West-Berlin-type situation if Flanders seceded, with its suburbs and transport links ending up in a non-EU state. It would be about as viable as a real foot stuck on the end of someone's wooden leg.

The first part implies that secession means leaving the EU and the second implies ease of continued membership. It's tempting to assume political biases in their sources- perhaps the Scotland one is trying to make secession less attractive and the Flanders one is trying to make an inevitable secession less dramatic, but as it stands this section is a hopeless muddle. Let's try to keep it as neutral as possible. Zagubov (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbia Candidacy

The European Commission has recommended Serbia as a candidate, but this has to be ratified by the Council of Ministers in December(?). Serbia should be listed as a potential candidate until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

EU candidates#Progress

This section is confusing. I can tell what "Science & Research" refers to but what does "Public Procurement" refer to. And by this I do not mean the dictionary definition but what issues this covers. Additionally the "f" "fs" is confusing. if "f" is used for frozen, something else should be used in place of "fs" - perhaps a "1st"? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo?

This is a clear violation of the neutrality of the article.

Kosovo is depicted as if a fully independent country and southern neighbor of Serbia, and not in a neutral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.240.97 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to discuss Kosovo's relation to the EU and a majority of EU states, together with a general attitude of the EU institutions, recognise Kosovo as independent. Even those who don't, recognise UN authority over it as was the case before it declared independence. The images state they are from the EU's perspective on enlargement (Kosovo recognised by the EU as a potential candidate) and indeed they need to show Kosovo's differing situation from Serbia proper. The text further makes absolutely clear, numerous times, Kosovo's disputed status and does not prejudice either position beyond the simple reality of EU relations with Serbia and Kosovo.- J.Logan`t: 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
while this is true, it is also irrelevant. The EU does not recognize Kosovo, and you cannot "recognise as potential future candidate" a country which you do not even recognise as existing to begin with. The page Accession of Kosovo to the European Union was just created by pov pushers, there is no such article, because there is no "potential candidacy" at this point. At best you can argue that "some politicians" have expressed that Kosovo should be a potential candidate. What does that make, a "potential potential candidate"? The article takes great care to make clear that it discusses "Kosovo as defined by UNSCR 1244", and not the Republic of Kosovo. UNSCR 1244 considers Kosovo a province of Serbia under interim UN administration. It is completely ridiculous to suggest, as this article does, that the EU considers "a province of Serbia under interim UN administration" a potential candidate. It is perfectly possible that the EU, and all its members, will recognize the Republic of Kosovo at some point in the future. After that, there can be a debate on whether Kosovo should be considered a potential candidate. Since this has not happened yet, this article cannot pretend that it did, or indeed that it will. I have no problem with that happening. If it happens, we will report it happened. What I do have a problem with is fraudulent editing which suggests something as being the case which is not the case. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The European Commission has defined Kosovo to be a "Potential Candidate". So it appears to be fully justified, that we also descripe Kosovo as a "Potential Candidate" in the wikipedia article. Kosovo can however never earn status as a Candidate before/if all EU members have recognized the sovereignity of the country. This will most likely require that a negotiated deal with Serbia solving the territorial dispute, first has to be settled. I have just updated the entire Kosovo chapter with recent status as of 2012, and re-written the chapter so that it now reflects to what degree the sovereignity issue plays a role. Danish Expert (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
But you can not forget that every step needs the approval of every state. As example Spain will not approve nothing about Kosovo. The definition of the European Union is only wishfull thinking. Only that. As example Switzerland or Norway are closer to the European Union membership that Kosovo, looking at the steps of every country toward the membership (application,...). This article respects not the reality of the facts.83.46.201.64 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Serbia Candidacy II

Carl Bildt, on Feb 28 2012: "Green light for Serbia candidacy status today to be confirmed by European Council on Thursday. Congratulations!"

http://twitter.com/#!/carlbildt Gaston28 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Heather Grabbe

The quote from Heather Grabbe seems bigoted and not NPOV. I shall take it out unless someone can come up with a good reason not to.24.108.58.134 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Help request

The link to ref 1 is broken. I don't know how to fix it. Could someone repair it please... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Rapsar (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Secessionist scenarios section

The section on secessionist scenarios IMHO shouldn't be detailing the exact nature of examples (e.g. Scotland) but would be better describing the debates that secessionist scenarios have raised.

This whole section seems to be a bit mixed as it stands anyway as the precedents section deals mainly with areas outside of mainland Europe. These would be unlikely to be granted candidate status if they were to apply for membership (except Greenland). All of the precedents are of areas that ceased to be considered a part of the EU (or equivalent).

There are no precedents to describe the position Scotland is in as there has been no nation that is part of another member state who has gained independence who wanted to continue to be a part of the EU.

Spudgfsh (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to separate the general issues from the specific examples, and the reality of the politics is such that the specifics tend to be what matters. So, I think some detail on the exact nature of examples is appropriate, although I support excluding a blow-by-blow description of how the argument is playing out in the Scottish referendum campaign.
The precedents in that section are, indeed, not very helpful as precedents, but that's kinda the point. These are all we've got in terms of precedents. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have just spent some time trying to separate the arguments and it all seems to be speculation, even the quotes from JMB. What we can say is that the whole scenario is not detailed in the EU treaties and is open to debate and is


  • it is expected that a seceding country would have to apply for membership (giving some quotes for and against)
  • it is not be clear whether a seceding country would be allowed to retain any opt-outs they currently enjoyed
  • when the application for membership can take place is still open to debate (using some more quotes)
  • it is expected that the remainder of a seceding country would recognised as a continuing member.
the precedents that are used are specifically misleading as they are all for scenarios that are the opposite of this and section article I feel that it would be better to not have them at all and state there are no applicable precedents. The enlargement of the Netherlands recently would be a more applicable precedent but even that is not applicable in a secessionist scenario. Spudgfsh (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would say that the precedent examples (a) don't take up very much space, and (b) are examples of what happened when territories seceeded, even if they are all rather odd examples.
The arguments about future seceding countries are speculative, but Wikipedia should report the debate and, personally, these seem to me relevant debates to be reporting. Indeed, much of the section is drawing on high quality academic studies of the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The precedents aside, it is not the content that bothers me but how it is presented. The debate on Scotland is just as applicable to Catalonia or any other part of a current member state. The only exception to that would be the discussion of Brussels becoming a capital district.
As an aside, if Belgium split (ignoring Brussels) would both parts have to re-apply or would just one (I could see that going down well).Spudgfsh (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Future enlargement of the European Union/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 10:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is quickfailed due to the presence of cleanup banners that are still valid. These include {{Off-topic}}, {{synthesis}}, {{refimprove}}, {{unreferenced section}}. Per the Good Article criteria:

"An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid."

Thank-you for nominating it, but this article still has some time to go until it will be a Good Article.

FAIL — Due to the presence of valid cleanup banners. – Plarem (User talk) 10:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotland out, remainder of UK stays in EU?

If the Act of Union was an agreement between two equal sovereign nations, then surely its end would mean England, Wales and N Ireland, as the other party to a dead and expired treaty, would also have to apply again?

Scotland would not be gaining independence as a new state, merely reasserting its self determination. It is not seceeding because it was never part of England.

Europhobes in the UK I would have thought would welcome the chance to exit the EU without even a referendum... Freedom1968 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The only definitive answer on such questions (unless and until the ECJ or the ICJ issue a ruling in a specific case) is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. M Carling 18:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The VCLT is an international multilateral convention, it doesn't govern EU law and a number of EU members states have not even acceded to it. The International Court of Justice would seem to me to the only appropriate body to judge on the issue, but then again its judgment's are advisory. I am not sure if the Act of Union is registered as an international treaty, as the VCLT encourages states that have acceded to it. Freedom1968 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Primary EU law (TEU and TFEU) is treaty law. The VCLT is, with very few exceptions, a codification of pre-existing customary international law, which is binding on all states. So nearly all of the VCLT is binding on states which have not ratified it. M Carling 18:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Such discussion, while interesting, is drifting into WP:OR. We can only put in what is citable to reliable sources. We already have several on this topic. Let's stick to what they say. Bondegezou (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok no problem, I wasn't going to attempt to amend the article to put the above thoughts in just wanted to make contributors think before quoting sources. Seems to me that despite the various sources quoted no one really knows at this stage what will happen and I suspect it won't be until 2014 that we will have more detailed opinions. Of course if the Scottish referendum is lost, this discussion will be academic, but if it is won the debate is bound to go into overdrive. Freedom1968 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Future

If there is Flanders mentioned there should be Catalans mentioned as well: Catalans are demonstrating at the moment for independence and in Scotland a referendum is scheduled but Flanderns independence seems to be just a populistic theme of the politicians. --134.176.205.1 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should also mention Wallonia, as without the Flemish region it would be economically disadvantaged perhaps forcing it to integrate with France? Freedom1968 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of this article is not to catalogue every possible secessionist scenario in EU. We should only mention those where there are reliable sources discussing the implications of secession in the context of the new state joining the EU. If we have such citations for Wallonia and/or Catalonia, then use them, but any other discussion would be better in the relevant other articles.Bondegezou (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking Wallonia wouldn't be a secession it'd be an accession - to another member state that is if it joined France, If it did not then like those proposing that Scotland reapplying it too would reapply, hence it would be a subject covered by the Enlargement process. Freedom1968 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation Political Propoganda

I have removed a sentence from the Armenia section saying:

Still, Armenia, being ranked 39th, is ahead of almost half of EU member nations such as Poland, France, Portugal and Italy in the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom.

The index this references is a piece of political propaganda published by a right wing American political organization, the Heritage Foundation, and by the conservative American newspaper the Wall Street Journal. It is highly biased, has no relevance to enlargement of the EU, and may have been inserted to advance unrelated political goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.83.14 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Improvements to the overview map?

There's a lot of discrepancies with which inland bodies of water are shown on the map right at the start of the article. For example, Lake Balaton in Hungary isn't marked at all, despite being over four times the surface area of Lough Erne in Northern Ireland which is marked; in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in north-eastern Germany there are three bodies of water marked, seemingly Müritz, Plauer See and Kummerower See, but the last two of those are only just over half the size of the nearby Lake Schwerin which isn't marked. Also, and perhaps most importantly, when viewed at it's most common resolution as on this page or on the page European Union, the series of reservoirs along the Dnieper River in Ukraine make it look as though the Ukraine is actually two separate countries (the national boundary lines and the reservoirs looking almost indistinguishable at a low resolution). That problem also occurs with other maps using the same base image such as Template:European_Union_Labelled_Map_(blue). I'd argue that having these bodies of water marked on the map doesn't enhance it at all - it is a political map being used purely to show the locations of the countries involved. I think it would make it clearer and more useful if all the bodies of water were removed. Others' thoughts? Iancaddy (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is not European. It's Central Asia.

Pretty disigenuous article, claiming Kazakhstan to be a "European ex-Soviet state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.153 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the title of that section to avoid the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the rationale for calling it "European" is that it is considered an European country by the Council of Europe and other European-wide institutions, and this in turn has led many to think it may be eligible to join the EU in the future. OK, only a small part of its territory is within geographic Europe's confines, but the same is true of Turkey. Ladril (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the Council of Europe has stated that Kazakhstan could apply for full membership, because 4% of its territory, west of the Ural river, is located in Europe,[1] the requirements being improvements in the fields of democracy and human rights, not geographical. Kazakhstan is already a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
While Kazakhstan has some territory in Europe and the Council of Europe has said it could apply, I think calling it a "European [...] state" is confusing to the reader and wrong. (It is a transcontinental state, it is a European and Asian state: it is not a European state.) I suggest 130.76.96.153's concern stands and I oppose the recent reversion to the original wording. Bondegezou (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I would say that it is both a European state and an Asian state. The current section name might not be ideal, but "Ex-Soviet republics with some European territory that do not participate in the Eastern Partnership" is way too long. What about "Other states with European territory"? TDL (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia initialled an association agreement with the EU in November 2013; should they not be added to the table near the top? http://en.trend.az/regions/scaucasus/georgia/2216514.html --ERAGON (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Association agreements are not directly related to enlargement. CMD (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Iceland

Is it still viewed as a candidate considering it has currently dissolved its accession negotiations team? --82.11.180.235 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

They are still listed here, included in the EU's Enlargement Strategy, and the EU is still publishing Reports on their alignment progress. Until we see something that says otherwise, I think we should keep listing them as candidates. TDL (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree not about Iceland being considered as a candidate, because the European Union granted it. But at this point the situation of Iceland is the same than the situation of Switzertland, and very close to the situation of Norway. This article should require a revision. The "agenda" is a poor criteria. The facts of the situation of every country should be considered. There are candidates negotiating. There are candidantes with frozen negotiations. There are candidates that have not begin negotiations. There are candidates with failed procedures of negotiations. There are countries that applied for membership being not recognized still as candidates. And there are other cases of countries with less advanced situations in relation with a future enlargement of the European Union. It is not the first time this issue with this page is explained. The comments can be deleted but the issue remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.200.161 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Who are the "candidates with failed procedures of negotiations"? In the case of Switzerland and Norway, they are not recognized as candidates by the EU. There is an active debate in Iceland's parliament on whether to withdraw their application or not. If that passes, it will probably resolve the issue. But I don't see why we should invent our own arbitrary definition for what the "agenda" is when the EU does it for us, ie The enlargement agenda. TDL (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The candidate country with a failed procedure is Norway. And the candidates with frozen negotiations are Switzerland and Iceland. But please, let me to know when the European Union retired the status of candidate or potential candidate to Norway. http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/History/ Also let me to know when the negotiations with Switzerland have been officially broken (not frozen). This article is absurd trying to keep Swetzerland and Norway more far of the European Union than they really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.131.33 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No, Norway is not a "candidate country with a failed procedure" and Switzerland is not a "candidates with frozen negotiations". As you can see for yourself here, neither are recognized as candidates by the EU. As per WP:BURDEN, you are more than welcome to provide sources to show that either are still recognized as candidates. However, in the absence of any such sources it would be absurd for us to claim that either of them are candidates when all evidence points to the contrary.
As for your question about Switzerland, they never started membership negotiations so obviously there are no negotiations to be broken.
No one is "trying to keep Swetzerland and Norway more far of the European Union than they really are", we are simply following the EU's position on the matter rather than trying to invent our own arbitrary criteria. TDL (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"let me to know when the negotiations with Switzerland have been officially broken (not frozen)" - per your request, see the following letter from the Swiss formally ending the previously suspended negotiations: [1]. TDL (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU's democracy requirements apropos Vatican membership.

Greetings!

According to the article, Vatican City is ineligible to join the European Union due to its status as a theocracy. This statement strikes me as one-dimensional at best.

I'm not an expert in Vatican law, by any means, but as I myself apprehend it, the Pope's authority to unilaterally enact laws—when speaking ex cathedra—only extends to the religious doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic faith. Over all non-religious matters, the civil laws of both Italy and the City of Rome remain in force over the Vatican.

Since Italian, civil laws are enacted by a democratically elected parliament, methinks that Vatican City already complies with the EU's populist requirement (at least more so than, say, Liechtenstein or Monaco). Couldn't one make an equally convincing case that Great Britain is a theocracy, since their head of state—Queen Elizabeth II—has absolute power to dictate the laws of the Church of England? Or is this comparison too much of a stretch?

If anybody here is familiar with the intricacies of Italian civil law as they relate to the Vatican (or, conversely, how Vatican, religious laws apply to Italian society) please feel free to respond, as it could result in much more relevant content for this article.

Thank You.Pine (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What we need, of course, are reliable sources discussing this topic. Vatican_city#Governance has several citations that make clear that Vatican City is not remotely a democracy, although "theocracy" may be the wrong term (the Vatican City article prefers "ecclesiastical" or "sacerdotal-monarchical"). However, we could do with citations explicitly saying that this is a barrier to EU membership. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Vatican City has not automatically applied Italian law since 2008. They still often do transpose new Italian Law, but they have their own legislature (composed of cardinals), and the Pope retains the right to unilaterally create law. Since the Pope is unlikely to lose that power, and the legislature is unlikely ever to be elected in a democratic fashion by a permanent population, Vatican City is unlikely ever to have proper democratic credentials. 169.229.101.39 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Moldova, ukraine and georgia

All 3 countries signed association agreements on 27 June 2014. cant someone upload a picture where Ukraine, moldova and georgia are yellow (as potential candidates) or any other color. they signed agrements to enter the EU. User:Poroboros 4.7.2014, 9:37 — Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An Association Agreement is not related to joining the EU and doesn't make them candidates for EU membership. Chile and South Africa both already have AAs. TDL (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On September 25, 2014 president Petro Poroshenko sets 2020 as EU membership target. User:rjcw 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.49.212 (talk)

Cape Verde and Israel

Where it is said Cape Verde want to join to the European Union? Different situation is with Israel where politicians supported the idea. No membership application. Eurohunter (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The first one did not work, the second one may have (a subscription is needed to read any article) and the third one worked perfectly. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither worked. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Map in header

I find the current map a little misguiding. The last entry reads, "Signed an EU Association Agreement, are recognised by the EU as having a European perspective and may apply for membership: Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine[2]." Remembering reading the document, I deleted the "are recognised by the EU as having a European perspective and may apply for membership" part, as I remembered the document did not limit the set of countries that have such a perspective to the current agends and these three. I was reverted by Danlaycock who commented that there are other countries that have such agreemenets with the EU and that "it is the combo that is unique." This is difficult to understand right now. I'll add a note like "(though neither is unique to these three)."

I really wonder if it's worth it to highlight these countries then as they have no unique characteristics and have to form combos to get highlighted. Perhaps it would be better to write instead "countries that stated they wanted to eventually become EU members," as I genuinely think this was the actual reason why anybody decided to highlight them. But then the new Moldovan president declared he would not aim for EU. Is there a good reason to keep these three highlighted?--R8R (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Morocco wants (or at lest wanted) to become a member, but was rejected. The point of the "recognised by the EU as having a European perspective" part is that the EU acknowledges their eligibility, not the other way around. I've reworded to try to be clearer. Does that address your concerns? TDL (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough, yes. The new wording does seem to be better and more or less settles the problem.--R8R (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Future enlargement of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

Parliament says Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova could be considered for EU membership (2017) --Юе Артеміс (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To Define a Potential Agenda

I cut a few back when I did the reorganisation, but looking through the list it shows how much crystal balling we have by how few or how old the proponents are. For example Cape Verde is based on a single mention from '05, Kazakhstan's mention from '09 has the caveat that he doesn't want membership "like Estonia or Latvia, but an equal member" so he's not even serious. Russia, well I don't even need to say it. And the Vatican is such a polar opposite from a member they're not even in the Microstates Agreement under discussion.

Yes there have been discussions, but I think most of these can be left to the relations articles. In nearly all the 'other' cases what we're looking at is the EU integrating via trade agreements always far short of membership. There is no realistic discussions happening around the majority of these states so we're just crystal balling. I was going to take a few more down but I think we need some objective criteria as to how serious something gets that it moves from being a relationship issue to an enlargement issue.

I propose that the country must have one of the following to have an entry on this page;

  • Official government policy from within the last 5 years to pursue membership (not just a statement by someone that it would be nice).
  • Party policy of one of the two largest parties in the national parliament from within the past 5 years.
  • A previous application to join the EU.

From the data we currently have, this outline would include only these states: The Western Balkans, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Possibly San Marino if someone can confirm Future Republic party is pro-membership like its predecessor Popular Alliance (which we don't have a source for anyway). (EDIT: Ah, the SM relations page has some sources, a little out of date but good chance they'd be included)

Regarding whether the UK (discussed above) would be included, I'd say yes eventually but not until Brexit. But that's a different discussion and you could well read "previous application" to be membership or not.

Any objections to this system?- J.Logan: 15:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

it seems fair to me.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, seems fair, except I don't see the point of waiting for Brexit before discussing the UK's possible re-joining -- we have the references now. Either they should be used or they shouldn't, but by the time of an actual Brexit, they'll probably be out of date. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said, different discussion so if we could keep the UK stuff to the one above.- J.Logan: 19:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland, Iceland and Norway

While the first map of the article reflects the reality, the article keeps ignoring the reality in its organization. Countries that have submitted application but have them frozen (Switzerland and Iceland) or withdrawn them (Norway) are closer to the accession that countries that have not submitted it yet (Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo). The "EFTA" chapter is absurd, it has nothing to do with the EU and its enlargement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.64.242 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Liechtenstein should be included between the rest of microstates. --83.61.107.3 12 April 2016

Rejoining after withdrawal

There's been some toing and froing on a "Rejoining after withdrawal" section discussing the possibility of the UK re-joining the EU once it's left the EU. I can see the concerns of those who have removed it (JLogan most recently), but it seems to me useful content. It is a talking point and a citation has been given. I'd support restoring it. Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My issue is that as a member of the EU at present it's not an actual enlargement. There are still realistic scenarios where the UK doesn't leave at all so to include it would be misleading. Once the UK has actually left the EU it's reasonable to include a section but until then I don't think it's helpful.
That being said, if there is a consensus to include a section it should be kept very brief.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Once the UK leaves, were the country to re-join, it would at that point be an enlargement. Much of this article is necessarily about possible future events, so I'm not worried about the uncertainty around whether Brexit actually happens. Bondegezou (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Right now it is entirely hypothetical. Indeed, officially Brexit isn't even a certainty until we hit it. I originally rewrote it with more citations before the first removal and while there is plenty we can discuss it is really jumping the gun to include it now. Particularly as this article contains a huge amount of crystal balling already.
Strictly speaking I don't think we should include anything beyond Ukraine-Georgia-Moldova and those sections mainly serve to be "some random said it should happen, but they either can't do anything about it or are not serious. Now we'll give a list of why it won't happen" (which is why I removed Canada etc.). What we don't need is even more entries like that.
If the Labour Party was campaigning to rejoin, rather than (at most, but doubtful) EEA then it would be different as there is a chance of it happening. But by virtue of the referendum, negotiations and formal withdrawal this issue is pretty much closed for 20 years. When it does become a prospect, the nature of it and the citations we'll be putting in will be totally different from what we're seeing here. For starters, the nature of the future relationship will influence it hugely.- J.Logan: 08:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Replying to your thing below Bondegezou, it's that Brexit hasn't happened, we have no idea what the scenario will be post-Brexit and critically, there is no campaign towards it. Neither Labour or the Conservatives are in favour and it is highly unlikely the UK will rejoin in the decade after Brexit. What is more likely than that is that Brexit won't happen, Scotland joins or Ireland is reunified. But rejoining is something that is far in the distance. The current people in favour of rejoining will be nowhere near power at that point. The fact is the references we have now are just wishful thinking. The moment something solid comes up we can look at it again, but Labour or a new Conservative leader will not be campaigning for rejoining before withdrawal has actually finished. Anyone of that opinion will be campaigning to cancel Brexit, and their opinion post-Brexit cannot be known until we know what Brexit will look like (you're going to get different opinions from different people given the sources)- J.Logan: 19:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
what most sources, politicians and commentators are not talking about rejoining at the moment they are talking about cancelling Brexit. There's enough crystal balling done by commentators over what will be in place after brexit but if you try to make the case for including the UK in this article it is crystal balling on top of crystal balling. There is very little actual fact you could include. 1> That the UK is currently leaving 2> only the SNP, Greens and LibDems have a pro remain position at the moment. there is very little of benefit which can be added on top of that. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Further more, those parties might be against completing Brexit, but they might not be in favour of re-applying once Brexit is complete. The SNP for instance is talking about EEA membership post-independence which would likely be their preferred post-Brexit position also. On the EU side, they have no power to enact and most won't be in office (Juncker leaves in 2019, Verhofstad is just an MEP and not from the big two families, Merkel won't do a fourth term, and so on). In short, all the citations we currently have are worthless.- J.Logan: 21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You have me convinced. I withdraw my position. Bondegezou (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

deletion of template for progress in enlargement

Following this TfD request (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_12#Template:Progress_in_future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union the template has been recommended to be deleted. To a certain extent I agree that it's not a template if it's only used in one place.

I have included all of the data from the template to here (where it's used) so the data is still available in case someone just deleted the template.

I think it would be better in a separate article (given the size of the table) and replaced in here with a reference summarising the table itself.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Some countries are missing from the table

For instance, Belarus, Azerbaijan, the both are likely to join the EU in the future. Also other countries that have territory in Europe are Russia and Kazakhstan. Also, some microstates are missing.--Reciprocist (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Member state expansion

Under "Member state expansion", we can read about Cyprus, Romania and Ireland (in relation to Northern Ireland). Could someone provide accurate information about Spain (in relation to Gibraltar)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:67 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ II General information, point 11 on Council of Europe document 11007 dated 7 July 2006 at http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc06/EDOC11007.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union/Archive_2&oldid=1145836275"