Talk:Enlargement of the European Union/Archive 2

message: I haven't heard anything about the possibility of an EU referendum in 2005 and yet the Icelandic media follows Norway's every move in these matters closely — so is this true? --Biekko 18:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, that story confirms my suspicions that the article is a bit wishful when suggesting a imminent EU membership for Norway. The whole article actually seems to me to be slanting toward the POV that every single European country wants to join the EU and all of them probably will at some point, there is no reason to believe so at present time. --Biekko 00:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegion referendum in 2005 

message: I think it is likely that if Russia ever wished to join (highly unlikely as it is) it would either have to abandon its common economic agenda with the CIS states of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (if Ukraine does not abandon Russia first) or integrate all these countries at the same point in time. Meaning that as they cannot join seperatly they would all be forced to join together or not at all. Should this be mentioned in the main article?
: Our personal opinions on likelihood probably shouldn't be included. However the point you made is actually somewhat related to what the article already mentions that Yushchenko said: That he'll scrutinise the CIS agreements to ensure that such membership is possible. Given how that's stated, there's probably no need of repeating such a thing for any other CIS nation. Aris Katsaris 15:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIS 

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

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

message: Yes. Cape Verde is also trying to enter the EU. Some Portuguese politicians with the Embassor of Cape Verde in Portugal made a public statement defending the entering of Cape Verde due to its mixed European and African culture and Atlantic location. They say if Turkey (mixed European and Asia culture) is due to be a member, so Cape Verde also should be. Cape Verde and the Turkish Ride (in Portuguese). By the Way, the European Union Agreements and the future constitution forbits the entering of countries outside Europe. And, like in other article about the EU (future expansion), this article is highly stupid. Russia, Israel, Marocco... If you dont want this article to be bigger in subsjects, please put an entry named "The world" with info "The EU will expand its borders to Mars. The inhabitants of Pluto are starting to think they want to join the EU in 2100. There should be a tag in wikipedia for futurology, just like the POV thing. This article, how it is, is highly unencyclopedic.  -Pedro 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the present day agreements also state it. The 10 countries that joined also had their joining at risk, because of a referendum in Ireland. A future join of Turkey has already motivated a future referendum in France, and by consequence in some others. If some country disagree, the country in subject cannot join. -Pedro 22:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cape Verde and articles about the EU 

message: I removed some info that is very odd (Not to say ridiculous). But, there is still to much crazy info in the article. Please focus on past enlarments, not only dates, but info about past enlargments, the enlargment of 2007, the problems of Romania, Turkey and Croatia. And add some more info in only one secton about hypotetical joins of good change of being candidates, such has: Iceland, Norway, Macedonia, switzerland, etc. -Pedro 19:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For details on past enlargements see the link at the beggining of the page. Alinor 16:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this an article that make us proud, not ashamed

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

message: Moved this text and others from article, they needs deweasling or removing:
Some have criticized the planned expansion of the EU into the former Yugoslavia, many using the justification that if they can't live to gether in one state they should not be allowed to join an union of European nations that as time goes by resembles a state more and more, that in most former Yugoslav countries nationalism is still a potent political force, the situation is the region is unstable and that although the countries are trying to meet European standards reforms constantly fail miserably. As well some in the countries have opposed joining the European Union by suggesting that the union would try to recreate Yugoslavia or declare Serbian and Croatian to be one language (as in the SFRY).
Many who support European integration says that if it stops the entire region (with exception of Greece and Slovenia) would fall back into war and lead to a situation like that of the 1990's, due to the current instability in the region. These claims are mostly in regards to the former Yugoslavia and Albania.
Many have called for Macedonia's admission to the EU to be delayed, claiming that occurences in Macedonia show that there is no seperation of church and state, the government discriminates against religous minorities (some even claim discrimination on ethniticity) and that laws on religion do not meed European standards. This is mainly due to the dispute between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church particularly in regards to the situation regarding the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric. As well some Macedonian officials have said that no Orthodox church other then the Macedonian one can be present in the country since the Macedonain Orthodox Church is the national church.
-Wikibob 01:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: weasels

message: I updated this with the news about Macedonia I saw on the main page. Please check that I was correct. Thanks. gren グレン 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I reverted you. Orange is for candidates, green is for acceding countries.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I thought I read acceding on the current events page... didn't check the source.  Maybe it was a mistake that someone reverted or maybe I read it incorrectly. Thanks. gren グレン 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:CrudeEU27.png]] 

message: To keep the record straight - UN does not refer to Macedonia as FYROM but only as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Both long and short names in use in UN are the same - "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Check these links:
UN site search for "former yugoslav republic of macedonia" - 17500 results and UN site search for FYROM - 606 results
I consider that usage of FYROM is just an error - Macedonia and Greece agreed on use of "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" not FYROM. Also, ISO defines this ISO 3166-1 record:
"Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of (MK, MKD, 807)"
We can see this at UN member states
By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.
Considering the fact that more than 100 countries and 3 permenent members (out of 5) comprising more than 90% of Earth population recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name I suggest that we directly omit using "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" at all, but only the constitutional name. As Wikipedia does for every other country in the world.
Also in the Presidency conclusions there's no mention of the Greek problem with the name of Republic of Macedonia. Therefore, I believe it is quite logical to be omitted. I don't believe it is an issue - look in the full text of the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union . This seven pages document contanins ONLY ONE sentence mentioning the Greek problem with the name.
In Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there's no mention that solving the Greek problem with the name is a condition for EU membership.
To make things very interesting - in ANALYTICAL REPORT for the Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for EU membership you can find this (ONE and ONLY) paragraph regarding Greek problem with the constitutional name of Republic of Macedonia (whichi is the Wikipedia's official name to be used, not FYROM):
Relations with Greece have improved in the last few years. Greece is the most important
investor in the country (57% of the total foreign investments) and trade has been constantly
increasing. However the dispute over the name of the country has remained an open issue
since 1993. In 1993 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was recognised in the UN
under this provisional name. In UNSC Resolutions 817/93 and 845/93, the UN Security
Council urged the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece to continue their
efforts under the auspices of the UN Secretary General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the
issue. In 1995 an Interim Agreement created a framework for bilateral relations which stated,
amongst other elements, that talks would continue between the two parties under the auspices
of the UN to find a compromise. Article 11 (1) of this Agreement stated that “Upon entry into
force of this Interim Accord, …[Greece] agrees not to object to the application by or the
membership of the …[former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] in international, multilateral
and regional organisations and institutions of which… [Greece] is a member; however,
…[Greece] reserves the right to object to any membership referred to above if and to the
extent the …[former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia] is to be referred to in such
organisation or institution differently than in paragraph 2 of the UN Security Council
Resolution 817 (19932).”
In this very paragraph it is reiterated that Greece shall not and will not block Macedonian accession. It is in direct collision with the text in the article Enlargement of the European Union.
Any edits that do not correspond with these official documents of the EU does not serve the reader well but might only be used to support Greek POV.
Kirev 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kirev, I don't think that the revised paragraph about the name is POV. In the revised paragraph it is clearly stated that "The name dispute resolution is NOT precondition for membership" - this paragraph only shows under what name Macedonia will join if the dispute is not resolved. 212.36.8.100 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the reference that Macedonia will join EU as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"? It's Svetlyo's POV that it will happen, BUT that does not mean that Wikipedia has to oblige him and put that made up paragraph without any references and, furthermore, change its naming conventions because of Macedonia EU accession... Therefore - when we quote original EU documents (and using press release is as good as a proof as Blair saying Macedonia on the latest press conference) we shouldn't change a bit, BUT, when we put some text in some article, than it should be according to Republic of Macedonia naming convention. Furthermore, as there's no basis in EU official documents, there's no need to give such a value to the Greek problem with Macedonian name and mention it in such length - EU documents are quite clear that it is not a problem for accession and that Greece has to help Macedonia with the accession. Kirev 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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