Talk:Enlargement of the European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Most discussion of the section of the article dealing with Turkey has been moved to Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union.

Archive 1 (2003-04) Archive 2 (2005)

Contents

[edit] Internal EU Debate about Enlargement

There was a section on the page, that was removed, because it was considered not appropriate in its current form. But I think that it would be beneficial if we rewrite and then include it. Here it is: ==> After the negative outcomes of two of the four referendums on the European Constitution some member states (France being the most notorious) have expressed fears about future EU enlargements and the EU absorbtion capacity. These states envisioned an "internal debate about the furthest extent of the EU and where enlargement should stop". The debate should be accomplished through both formal and informal consultation between the member states. It is due to finish in the first half of 2006. So, the conditions before the debate are leaning in direction of restricting enlargement and not of enlarging the EU and it is very unlikely that entierly new groups of states (like non-European) will gain possibility for admission.

When the leaders make announcements about the debate it sounds appropriate, but the problem is that some of the real reasons (most importantly Turkey) behind the worries of France (and others) are already out of the scope of this debate.

  1. There is no opposition in the EU against possible EU membership of the EFTA states (Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland).
  2. There is no opposition (despite the institutional reworking probably needed) in the EU against possible EU membership of the European microstates (Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City).
  3. Some non-member states currently have agreements with the EU that have clear provisions about their possible future EU admission as full members. These states are the current acceding countries (Bulgaria, Romania), the current candidates (Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia) and the states parties to the Stabilisation and Association process (Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina). There is nothing to debate about their membership - they will join after covering the European Union Membership criteria (the debate is not about "when to admit", but "if to admit at all". Timing is out of the debate's scope).
  4. In Treaty of Maastricht (Article 49) is written that any European state can eventually join. Definition of "European" is left to political assessment by the European Council. Here is the point where the debate can be productive.

The precedents in its practice so far have been the following:
A geographicaly non-european states generaly were not be recognised as european and thus can not join (for example: Morocco's application rejection). This practice is very unlikely to be changed (see introduction of this section).
B geographicaly non-european states were recognised as european (and so eventually join the EU) only if there are special political exceptions like Council of Europe membership or similar considerations (for example: Cyprus admission). Maybe this practice is open to debate.
C geographicaly partially european states were recognised as european, because of the part of their territory that's in Europe (for example: Turkey candidate status approval). This practice may be open to debate.
D geographicaly european states were recognised as european and approved for candidates as soon as they cover the political criteria of Copenhagen (for example: all eastern european states). Maybe this practice is open to debate.

If the debate is going to achieve a real formal political declaration about future enlargement prospects it has to produce a list of states, that are considered to cover the requierments of Art.49 (beign european) and so, that are possible future candidates for joining the EU. The list may not be full, because obvious non-problematic states (group 1 and 2) may be omitted for political reasons.

Debate outcome list Even if a so-called totally minimalist version (stopping enlargement immediately) is adopted:

probability enlargement to reach here: mostly certain
But it would be nearly impossible to deny membership possibility to the following states:

  • Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus (these are the remaining states of the precedent D category and so is most likely to be discussed together regardless of individual current sitations)

probability enlargement to reach (and to stop) here: very likely (strong support among multiple current members; strong precedent practice of admission for very similar states)
The real news will be about the following group of states:

  • Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan (these states are from two different categories - precedent C and precedent B, but they are almost aways discussed together)

probability enlargement to reach here: somewhat likely
The following states, among other things, have not expressed any wish to join the EU:

  • Russia, Kazakhstan (these are the remaining states of the precedent C category)

probability for enlargement to reach here: unlikely
The remaining especially remote possibilities for enlargement, but anyway open for discussion are:

  • Cape Verde (precedent B or precedent A category; to be discussed only if Portugal insists hard enough)

probability for enlargement to reach here: unlikely

  • Mediterranean states (precedent A category; discussion will occur but the outcome will be almost certainly negative)

probability for enlargement to reach here: very unlikely

Considering the conditions that inspired the debate (strong supportive for group 1 and 2; strongly opposing precedent A group), the states for which the EU already has clear commitments for membership (group 3) and the states that show no interest in joining the EU - the heart of the debate and its most heated part logicaly should be forced around: Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Cape Verde. On the other hand signals from the officials show that the debate would instead focus on Turkey (nothing to debate here), Ukraine, Moldova and the Mediterranean states (outcome already mostly certain). The real product of the "big debate about EU enlargement" most probably will be reduced to dealings with Ukraine and Moldova only. This is because the time for such "big debate" has already passed (when the principal agreements about group 3 states were made) and the states with "undecided position of the EU about their membership" are already too few and too small (even Ukraine is small compared to EU33 consisting of EU25 and the group3 states). It would be more appropriate to open such "big debate" if there were wishes from Russia and Kazakhstan to join, but currently this is entirely out of the question. <== 212.36.8.100 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War criminals

I found it weird that Mladic and Karadzic are not mentionned and Gotovina is. So I added both (but everyone is free to put it in a better place or something). Does anyone have a list of war criminals in the balkan whose capture is a condition for entering the EU?

[edit] Comments in article space

Note also the voluminous body of work devoted to explaining and predicting the integration of the EU. Such theories include supranationalism, intergovernmentalism, federalism,etc. There is also a nascent theory currently being developed, described as cohesive expansionism. This model predicates continued integration on perpetual expansionism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.55.200.126 (talk • contribs).

(Moved from article space to talk space.)

[edit] Turkey

I find some of the comments regarding Turkey as rather strange...

and maintaining of an extreme form of forced-secularism, often targeting its own Muslim majority.

I'm aware of some of Turkey's requirements such as banning the wearing of the headscarf in parliament and in schools. But is this really particularly unique? AFAIK France and several other EU countries have banned it in schools although admitedly not parliament...

radical Islamic teaching suppressing women's rights and free democratic principles

I'm not going get into an argument regarding the free democractic principles ones but AFAIK, Turkey has little radical Islamic teaching supressing women's rights. If anything, this is a bigger problem in other EU states such as the UK... Nil Einne 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia section too large

Maybe we should make a separate page "Accession of Croatia to the EU" (like these for Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iceland), put the most content there and leave only a summary here.

[edit] Kyrgyzstan & Uluu Birimdik

Seems to me (after an academic database and google research) that this is a small movement/party or an opposition party, not a notable party in the government. Also, it seems that there is only one news story, told differently on different websites, not a repeated important expression for EU membership. Seems hardly worth of mentioning the possibility of Kyrgyzstan as a future member on this page. I will therefore remove Kyrgyzstan from the list, at least until things about this country become clearer. Sijo Ripa 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

It implies in the article that should Montenegro decide (as they probably will) to enter negotiations for accession, that they wouldn't have any major problems, but would the issue of them using euro without any agreements permitting them to do so not be a relatively big obstacle? - RedHot 12:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That would probably start to be cleared up in the SAA negotiations, but I don't think it's that much of a problem. Heck, they're barely 700,000 people, what impact will they have on the euro's economy... It's not too different from having a currency pegged 1:1 to the euro, is it? —Nightstallion (?) 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No but I can't imagine that the ECB is too happy (not that they'll do anything though ;) ) that they have to bear the cost of printing and minting Montengro's currency. - RedHot 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, then we should let them join as soon as possible so that they contribute financially to the minting costs. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The only problem that could arise from other countries using the euro as their own currency, is that the demand for the euro would rise and thus that the the euro appreciates too much, thereby hurting the exports of the eurozone. With only 700 000 very poor people and a currency for 300 million very rich people, the effect will be very marginal. Moreover, an agreement is only necessary to obtain the right to mint your own euros (I think). Sijo Ripa 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
But it remains weird in a way; all new member states have to adopt the euro and most countries face many difficulties in meeting the criteria (e.g. the Lithuanian euro bid). Most difficult to meet is the inflation criteria, but also meeting the budget deficit criteria is difficult. So I guess Montenegro has to adapt to the criteria before LEGALLY adopting the euro... Maartenvdbent 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Banknotes (and coins) are essentialy a credit given to the issuer (in most cases a government institution, or inter-government like ECB) by the people that use the banknotes. By this point of view is that Montenegro gives CREDIT the Eurozone, because all montenegrin transactions and products are given in return of papers with "Euro" on them. The Montenegro Central Bank/Montenegro Republic does not make any profit on these banknotes (because it is not part of the Eurozone). But as the people above said - Montenegro is too small to have considerable impact in eighter way.
Montenegro does not have to cover the Euro-convergence criteria NOW, because it is not part of the Eurozone/ECB. It just uses the currency (like Andorra - without any special agreement). Euro-convergence criteria (budget deficit, inflation, etc.) are also NOT pre-conditions for EU membership. Montenegro (like every other /eventual/ new member state) can first join the EU and later, after covering Euro-criteria join the Eurozone. In the meantime it can continue to use the Euro like now. Using Euro and beeing part of the Eurozone are different things (from the point of view of central banks and governments). The only special thing in Montenegro case is that I can't imagine how would it enter ERM-II (2 year ERM-II membership is a pre-condition for Eurozone membership. ERM-II can be entered only by EU member states. ERM-II is practicaly a +/-15% band fluctuation of the state currency around the Euro) - this would mean "Euro fluctuating 15% around Euro). So, maybe the Montenegro exception would be that of the Euro conevergence criteria it would have to cover one less (ERM-II two years membership) - because it is not applicable.
So, IF at the time of joining the EU Montenegro does not covers the other financical convergence criteria - it would remain outside of the Eurozone until it covers the criteria (despite using Euro as currency during that time); ELSE if Montenegro covers the other fin.criteria at the time of joining the EU - it would also join the Eurozone at the same time (not possible for other candidates that have their own currencies). In summary - Euro use is not a problem for Montenegro. It eighter a benefit (bringing it closer to the EU) or a neighter benefit nor problem. Alinor 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infinite enlargment?

just of curiosity.What do you peopol think about an endless enlargment orgie?--Ruber chiken 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently it is very FINITE - after the current candidates (with EU application or SAA application) only 5-6 east european states are left (combined population 70-80 million - less than the new member states of the 5th enlargement; as % of EU25/27 it is even smaller proportion) if we exlude obvious non-candidates like Russia, Switzerland, Monaco, etc. Also, look at Copenhagen criteria#Geographical. Don't be fooled by entries of Netherland Antilles and other dependencies listed in the article - they are too small to make considerable impact and they may enter only, because that they are parts of current EU member states... Alinor 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"if we exlude obvious non-candidates like Russia" O yea, why exlude russia?or say israel.and the central asia contrys(foren ussr).When i sed endless elargment i wasent talking about peanuts.I now the compehagen criteria,if you look 30 years ago,some thing like half of today members didn't foufil them,even turcuie has severe problems.The geographical critiria is miningless(it's a dead world),it has never been used(maroco was a dictatorchip),see turcy,if that's a european contry,i'm a marsian,what count's is if the eu whant's that contry,and not a pice of paper.The fact is that when a neibor of eu fulfils the political criteria,the eu accepts them olmost automaticly,only constrait is if she can afford it.--Ruber chiken 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much political interest within the EU itself for another great expansion anytime soon, they will probably focus on solving the issues they have with the disparity between the older and newer current members before accepting new members. They might pick the occasional Balkan country and allow them entry when they are deemed "ready" and obviously the doors are wide open to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland if any of those decided that they want to join (not likely any time soon). Larger and poorer candidates like Turkey and Ukraine are still at least 15-20 years away. Whether an expansion into Africa and Asia is likely or not only time can tell. --Bjarki 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but is this all true, or is it symptomatic of who is applying to join? The door was closed to Morocco and Tunisia, it seems and maybe even Israel, but these guys come with certain baggage the E.U. might not like. Hypothetically, what about other countries that can't make geographic pretense of being European, but may have less baggage or better cultural ties or whatever? I know a certain large country that's prime minister has described it as a northern european welfare state that might well be less objectionable? WilyD 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although at present, as stated, the expansion of the EU as being finite and will remain that way for the forseeable future that with the ENP as well as various other EU-International treaties that exist between EU and many near-European states I find it difficult to see a future where the EU (or any future transnational entity) is confined by such strict geological boundries as exist under the Copenhagen Criteria. Afterall, with each new country that joins a precendent is set for other geographically similar countries to consider application with Isreal being such one example (with reference to the admission of Cyprus, as in beng outside Europe). However, I don't envisage such an entity for a long time and is more likely closer as of now to fantasy than reality. It will be interesting to see the EU develop over the coming decades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.3.55 (talk • contribs).

Personally I can see gradual enlargement continuing for decades more. Although there is significant reluctance among current member states citizens for more enlargements the politicians at the top see enlargement as a very useful carrot promoting democratisation, reducing conflict in the neighbourhood and giving the European Commission a powerful intervening role in all the candidate countries - not something they want to lose! Remember there is a European Commissioner (roughly a Secretary of State) for Enlargement. As this article shows there is plenty of scope for enlargement in the next 20 years! Eventually I think it will come to an end when Europe meets another Bloc/country it wants to deal with as an equal - e.g. Africa. AndrewRT - Talk 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is partly what I touched on in my last post. And I agree with your comments, there is certainly scope for enlargement for the next few decades. After that, it's difficult to predict but the EU-AU relations may well be the foundation of another transnational union at some point. And like you said, at the end of the day it's the politicians and right now, despite public opinion many see no need to halt expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.31.3.55 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ukraine

perhaps there should be written more bout the Ukraine. I think it's good when u can see what's going on with Ukrraine and EU and then un see Turkey and EU. In the German one there is now an own Article bout this. Perhaps anone can translate this? The german one is: This article is based on a translation of an article from the German Wikipedia. de:Ukrainischer EU-Beitritt. --134.147.116.98 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue of the Ukraine as part of the EU is something that should be discussed. It is still a long way from becoming a reality, for a number of reasons. For one, Ukraine's motivation to join will increase once Romania is formally admitted, as the Ukraine/EU border will expand. Until then, the EU will still seem less important to the average, everyday Ukranian. Also, this will allow the EU to look at the Ukraine more seriously as a candidate. For two, there is the problem of Moldova. Russia maintains an Army division in the Trandnistria region. If the Ukraine were to join the EU, this militarily occupied region would be completely surrounded by EU member states. Given that the Romanians are sympathetic to the Moldovans and not the Transdnistrian Russian population, and the EU as a whole must defend the interests of it's member states (which will include Romania's interests), Russia is going to be in a bit of an uncomfortable position. It is unlikely that they will withdraw their troops, despite EU pressures. Russia has traditionally taken a heavy handed approach to military affairs, and has only withdrawn from a conflict or an occupation when not doing so would have damaged the integrity of the country as a whole. It would be out of character for them to withdraw, and since the EU does not (as of yet) have any military forces, the nature of Russia's response to this situation is one that we can only hope will not be a violent one. The third reason why Ukraine's admission to the EU is complicated is the matter of the CIS. The CIS and the EU have competing interests, as far as trading blocs go. Ukraine would have to decide which side it wants to be a part of, and I rather doubt either side would be willing to entertain the notion of Ukraine being a part of both. The fourth consideration is the matter of Belarus. Lukashenko, if he is still in power at the time Ukraine becomes a serious candidate for admission, will not take lightly the idea of a) a former SSR and current CIS member changing sides or b) the EU almost completely surrounding his country. Whoever it is that takes his place may feel similarly. Given the ever increasingly close ties between Belarus and Russia, Ukraine's fate as a potential EU candidate is again tied to the response her former/current allies will make. Fifthly, Ukraine will have to clean up the organized crime problem which is rampant throughout the country. Sixth reason: the multi-tiered pricing system would have to go. Seventh? Political corruption. The idea of admitting a country to the Union where a Presidential candidate was poisoned with dioxin by the incumbent opposition during the most recent election is going to disturb Brussels quite a bit.

It is regrettable that these possibilities weigh so heavily in the fate of Ukraine. It would be insane to ignore these problems, no matter how disturbing they are. Wandering Star 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel again

"How Israel's Law of Return would interact with the free migration of citizens within Europe is also an unresolved issue, though EU countries like Germany, Finland and Greece have similar immigration laws."

Germany, Finland and Greece have nothing like this, do they? An equivalent to the Israeli LoR would be allowing all Anglo-Saxons to "return" to Angeln and Saxony and all Gaels to "return" to Gallaecia. —Ashley Y 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the have sort of "ethnically based immigration criteria", such as the german diaspora and Germany. WilyD 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe, Israel could be a serious candidate for EU membership. They are one of the wealthiest states in the Middle East and the only country with a stable democratic system. They have freedom of religion, press, and human rights for everyone. I am not sure how their tough stand against terrorism would compare to the EU's liberal rules, but Israel is defenatly a important candidate. They are also located outside of Europe which is a major requirement, but if a country such as Turkey will be allowed to join, Israel should be as well. (LonghornJohnny 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
The main obsticles towrards Israel joinig are the size of the teritories still occupied mainly in the west bank and parts of the goaln height reigion. Also their use of covert assination of terrorists would be incompatible with the human rigths convention and Isreals stance againt the International Criminal Court is another major obsticle. Turkey may be 95% in asia but that 5% that is in europe makes it eligble for EU membership. Cyprus Has been classified as Culturally a european country so was eligible to join on cultural grtounds. Isreal is highly unlickley to ever join the EU as it is not classified as a european culture and is not in any part within europe.--Lucy-marie 13:20, 2 September 2006(UTC)


Israel enter their sports clubs in European Competitions though (albeit for political reasons). Could that help? RandallFlagg Scotland 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That Is highly unlickley as Australia do a similar thing by entering there clubs into asian competition it dosent mean they are going to join any asian union.--Lucy-marie 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel might not be in Europe, but it sure has a european culture hence most of its population came from Europe. They do ahve serious problems with terrorism and they are fighting them effectively. As far as I'm concerned you do not need to be a signed and ratified member of the International Criminal Court Treaty. LonghornJohnny
Cyprus was the exception to the rule of being a non-european country admitted to the EU. It Is highly lickley that the EU would you the Morocco rule to reject Isreal.--Lucy-marie 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] animated

Enlarge

Ive put the enlargement maps together, thought they might work well as an animation? --Astrokey44 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about Canada?

I have heard some theories about Canadian membership in the EU. Please create an article or add information about this issue. I believe, Canada is not in Europe; therefore, it is not entitled to become a EU member state. However, I would gladly read an article that discusses all opportunities for Canada, and different positions that certain countries are taking regarding this issue (if there has been any). Thank you, (LonghornJohnny 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Great idea! Sadly Canada is not geographically part of Europe, which is a condition for membership (not that that stopped Cyprus, Greenland, French Guinea or, for that matter, Tukey which is 95% in Asia) - so the chances aren't too good. Also they would probably have to leave NAFTA. This article should stay focussed on the most likely candidates, but this doesn't mean we can't start a new article. There are plenty of websites about it - [1] [2] [3] and even an article the german newspaper Der Spiegel: [4] and an online petition [5] AndrewRT - Talk 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I read through all the articles that you mentioned above and I got the feeling that Canada's EU membership advocates are all biased against the United States. This is an unfortunate situation because I would not want Canada or the EU to become alienated from our nation (USA). Canadian membership in the EU might be a long term possibility, so it is worth to discuss it even though it may not ever become reality. (LonghornJohnny 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
Due to Canadas geographic positoning and cultural backgorund It Is highly unlickley Canada will ever become part of the EU. I am using the same criteria used to reject Morocco.--Lucy-marie 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Those citations actually make it possibly worthy of mention. After all, Canada's prime minister has already described her as A northern European welfare state - so maybe the Cyprus rule can apply, instead of the Morocco rule (after all, are either hard and fast? I doubt it) - but if there's serious talk about it ... WilyD 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I included a short mention of it in list of European Union member states by accession, so I'd naturally consider a few paragraphs here (or even an article about Canada and the European Union?) a good idea. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting concept, but I have not heard much of any such movement... then again, I live in the most provincial of the provinces (British Columbia). Perhaps this is less true in the eastern part of the country, but integration with the EU does not make much sense given the geographic distance. While politically Canadians are more closely aligned with Europeans, culturally we are undoubtedly under American influence- to the point where the border sometimes ceases to exist. Much more so than the global situation, we are dominated by American culture: We watch a lot of US television and identify with their stars... Our artists generally "make it" when they make it in the US... Our sports are completely integrated, including our own, much-loved hockey league (did anyone ever consider which country the word "National" refers to in the National Hockey League ?)... and even our everyday Canadian English is becoming more and more Standard American English (Ask anyone under 20 what a "chesterfield" is). Nonetheless, Canada can serve as a tremendous bridge between Europe, Asia and the US- and this potential role cannot be ignored by our polititions and business leaders. We don't need to join the EU to succeed in this, however. 207.6.233.239 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monaco?

No one has written up on Monaco in the Microstates section, even though San Marino, Andorra, and Vatican City have writeups. Can someone please add a writeup? Inkan1969 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems someone added a proper Monaco section. Alinor 07:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit. Hope you like it! AndrewRT - Talk 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldova and Roumania

The Roumanian government stated sometime in 2006 that it would only consider a union with Moldova AFTER both were members of the European Union. I think writing about an East Germany Scenario as such is misleading.

[edit] Russia

I like the present article's section on Russia - succinct but well sourced quotes that go straight to the point. Thanks everyone for your work, especially User:Nixer. -AndrewRT - Talk 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uk Dependencies

Should we have a small section on the Isle of Man and Channel Islands?? AndrewRT - Talk 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. —Nightstallion (?) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of Articles

I would like to propose a reorganisation of articles about the EU, including merging and renaming as follows:

Does this sound feasible? AndrewRT - Talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I disagree entirely. —Nightstallion (?) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia or FYROM (to the anon IP)

The name of the article on Wikipedia is, rightly or wrongly, Republic of Macedonia. As long as there is no change in this respect, the name of the section dedicated to this country will remain the same. Anyone who wishes to do something about it should start here and not on this page. Note that as soon as there's a consensus regarding a name change there, all the relevant sections here, and throughout Wikipedia will be renamed accordingly. I hope this clears the misunderstanding. --RedZebra 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a citizen of the EU ,(not aware if you are also) I know that, rightly or wrongly, it does not recognise that state as Republic of Macedonia, but as Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So, in the articles that have to do with EU, I found it improper not to follow the official policy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.234.86 (talk • contribs).

I see your point. However you should note that Wikipedia isn't affiliated with the EU and consequently its decisions aren't binding. The current name of the article dedicated to Macedonia clearly demonstrates this. This doesn't mean of course that a note explaining the squabbles between Athens and Skopje shouldn't be added whenever it's deemed appropriate to do so. In this article this happens to be the case and has in fact been done already. Please read the whole paragraph dedicated to the country and you'll find ample information regarding the stance of Brussels on the issue. --RedZebra 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optimistic Albanian entry.

The entry for Albania has been edited by an IP user over a series of edits and I don't really want to puncture their enthusiasm but it seems to have a bit too much WP:OR. I wouldn't call Albanian "mature" even in the context of the Partnership for Peace and it seems to be WP:OR to conflate the Partnership for Peace with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (one being NATO and the other being EU). Finally are there any polls to support "which Albania's citizens expect to happen by 2012." ?. I'll tone this down unless there is some supporting evidence to the contrary. Ttiotsw 11:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd probably revert the whole section, but this would look somewhat drastic. By the way, there seems to be some inexplicable obsession with 2012 as the year when the potential candidate countries expect they should join the EU. What exactly is this based on? I can't find any piece of information that would support it. --RedZebra 12:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've {{fact}} it and put in inline comments as some IP address based user is doing multiple edits without the preview so they are obviously looking at the text in detail. Hopefully they will see what is needed else it'll start to get messy. Ttiotsw 09:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well they have been back and I've reverted it and added more stuff with inline comments asking for them to explaine what they are doing. Anyone concerned if this just goes on for a while until they get bored ?. Its either that or get the page protected for a short while from IP addresses. The IPs are either dialup or DHCP allocated with short leases based in Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Ttiotsw 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section. The NATO bits are out as well as the unreferenced claims about the date of entry. On the other hand, there is some info now from a Le Monde article on the stance of the EU Commission regarding Albania. --RedZebra 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the version. It needs to be expanded with relevant data and possibly rewritten with useful EU-relevant information.--RedZebra 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zoe

This user being an admin was engaged in rewert-warring in Josef Stalin with other users. Seeing he is in minority, he indefblocked all his opponents (including me, who did only one edit), falsefully accusing them in meatpuppetry. He later refused to unblock me until I change my political views [6] and confess my edits to be wrong. Your comments.--Nixer 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the best course of action is to state your case here --RedZebra 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why fact tags added to Potential_candidate_countries

In Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Potential_candidate_countries I stuck in some {{fact}} tags as I felt that,

  • There is some creep in the countries listed (i.e. addition of Georgia) and I can't find the appropriate paper to confirm this and
  • I feel that Olli Rehn is being misrepresented as his view in other speeches or statements is also that enlargement is good for Europe so I feel he's being misquoted.

Thus I'm after refs/cites/links where the EU said the bit (which now mentions Georgia) and where Olli Rehn said his bit. Ttiotsw 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/l/Talk%7EEnlargement_of_the_European_Union_a8ae.html"