Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area/Archive 1

message: What does "EU special territories" mean or indicate? - Texture 17:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagreeing with the above comment, I suggest that the contents of this page be merged into a new page to be created, The political geography of Europe.  That page would list all the European nations, plus controversial cases, with notes; and all the information on this page.  The resulting information could be referred to from different places, and if nothing else, the ever-continuing dispute on what is the exact list of European countries could be confined to a single page. (I also suggested the creation of such a page on Talk:Europe.) Teemu Leisti 23:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: Dou you dare to deal with the statuses Olivenza and earlier Portuguese Timor, Hong Kong and Macau?
--
(Answer)
I had thought about Olivenza and thought it was pointless since, though it was disputed, it had no consequence in its status inside Europe (continental Portugal and continental Spain are both fully covered by EU legislation).
As concerns former colonies, there are many more than these, e.g. Algeria which was fully part of the EEC and EURATOM (but not ECSC) between 1958 and 1962, so I did not begin to touch at them, could have been quite lengthy.
(BtW, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon was a French department between 1976 and 1985, and I think it was considered as an outermost region during this period, but am unsure, if somebody knows about it... It would mean that the assertion according to which Greenland is the only territory who has left the EU that I read somewhere else on the WP is false, even forgetting Algeria).
I browsed roughly through an old copy of the Portuguese constitution to try to understand whether Macau and East Timor where or not "under Portuguese jurisdiction" and henceforth liable to be covered by EURATOM treaty in the old times ; it seemed to be clearly no for Timor, rather no for Macau, but this is quite unclear... If you know something about their relations to EU, I would be very curious to read about it. --French Tourist 20:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other territories 

message: If some Dutch speaking person happens to stumble on this page, note that this document gives a very thorough analysis of the relations of Netherlands Antilles and Aruba with the EU. It should answer a question I left with a question mark (are they outside EURATOM treaty ? Very likely but I am unsure), but also seems to give interesting details about participation of Netherlands nationals from these territories to EU elections, and (I think I understood that at least...) some thoughts about the compatibility of EU working on "sovereign matters " (i.e. defense or external relations) while some parts of its members states are not fully integrated and their citizens don't vote. So it could help to have a look at this document to fill some gaps in the article ; I did but since I don't speak Dutch I had only a very vague idea of the documents content... --French Tourist 15:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Dutch speaking, and according to this pdf-file the Dutch government decided to apply the Euratom-treaty only to the Netherlands (Europe) and Dutch New-Guinea, which in 1957 was still a colony, and without self-government. In 1962 it became Indonesian, so at this moment the Euratom-treaty is only valid in the European part. At the moment the Antilles and Aruba are thinking about becoming full members of the EU, like Reunion and Martinique, but the outcome is not clear. Dutch nationals on the islands cannot take part in the European elections, exceptions are made for the following categories:1. Dutch citizens who lived in the European part for at least ten years and 2. people who work for the Dutch (not the Antillean) government and their partners and childeren. I assume this last exception is mainly for Dutch soldiers stationed on the islands. These exceptions are the same as those for the elections for the Dutch parliament. Freako 23:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This document in Dutch could help to add some details to the article 

message: the recent revision has one change - about British soverign Cyprus military bases (and villages in that area) - the former version has something like "the people there are British Overseas Territories citizens not related to Gibraltar and becouse of that they are not entitled to vote in EU elections". The same wording is used about British overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific, so it looks like there are two types of "British overseas territories citizens" - related to Gibraltar (entitled for EU vote) and not related to Gibraltar (not entitled for EU vote). So I think that the new wording is wrong - "not related to Cyprus" (after all the people in the military bases' area villages ARE related to Cyprus. They are NOT related to Gibraltar) - I think that it should be reverted to "not related to Gibraltar". Someone to disagree?
:I think my revision may be the one you are referring to - or it may have dealt with the problem you saw - or perhaps you made the change at some point after your posting. I cannot see "not related to Cyprus" in my version or what preceded it. I would generally be happier if it was clearer that BOTC status as such does not give any EU rights. Really there is a different BOTC status for each OT, and it is just Gibraltar's which gives EU rights. I have not had time to check, but will later, whether this partly is a mix-up between full British Citizenship and BOTC - I suspect Gibraltarians (like Falklanders) had their BOTC status upgraded to full BC many years ago (it has now been done for all the BOTs except the SBAs). #Civil Servant 20 nov 2004
:: Prior to 2002, Gibraltarians had access to British citizenship but they had to make an application under section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as British citizens.    Falkland Islanders held British citizenship automatically, alongside BOTC.
::In 2002 the Falklands model was extended to all the Overseas Territories except the Sovereign Base Areas.  However people from the Overseas Territories kept BOTC.
:: There's a separate issue regarding who is a United Kingdom national for European Union purposes.    All British citizens have this status, hence anyone from the Territories who got British citizenship under the 2002 Act is covered.    However, if a BOTC is not a British citizen as well, he or she will only be a United Kingdom national for European Union purposes if connected to Gibraltar.     Not many BOTCs from the Overseas Territories (other than the SBAs) are without British citizenship but it could arise in two instances.   a.  if someone renounced British citizenship but kept BOTC, or b. a person naturalised or registered as a BOTC after 21 May 2002 only acquires British citizenship if a separate application for British citizenship is made.  JAJ 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Overseas Territories citizens RELATED TO 

message: The list of territories with unclear status with the EU is disputed.
Sealand is a micronation with disputed status (see the article on Sealand, and others). 
It has been suggested that Sealand should not be included in this list as "we don't want micronations in a serious article".  
My view is that this should be a list based on fact. Sealand should be on this list as in fact it is an area in the EU geographical sphere with unclear status on its soverignty and therefore unclear EU status.--jrleighton 01:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A micronation is a self-asserting state, therefore it is included within the title, as it is one type of state.--jrleighton 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll include micronations in serious articles as soon as pigs fly, but not before that. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two trite and dismissive comments about a serious but minor point. Oh well. Never mind.--jrleighton 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justin's comment wasn't trite, only mine was. Point is, micronations are not states by any serious definition of the term, and as such won't be part of "serious" articles. —Nightstallion (?) 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is about "special territories of the EU members and their relations with the Union". Sealand is not EU member, so there is no point in adding it here. The "relations of EU with third states" (if we can assume that Sealand is a state) are covered by an article "Third country relationships with the EU" (see on the main EU page for link) Alinor 07:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micronations 

message: I branched out Hong Kong into it's separate section (it was a part of the "other Overseas Territories" section). I have done this because I feel readers will be confused into thinking HK is still British when it is not. As for the flag, I have added the last British flag so people will not be confused. - Thanks, Hoshie |  19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: Is this the same as EU VAT territory? If not we should add a column about this too. And I am also again rising the questions mentioned above: "free movement of workers", EEA internal market, freedom of establishment (protocol to the EEA).
No, the customs territory is not the same as the VAT territory.  For example, the Channel Islands are within the customs territory but outside the VAT area.
The customs glossary at http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/glossary/customs/index_en.htm is currently broken, however the Google cache of the page contains the following text
The customs territory of the Community comprises of
* Austria,
* Belgium,
* Denmark, except the Faroe Islands and Greenland,
* Germany, except the Island of Heligoland and the territory of Buesingen,
* Greece,
* Finland (including the Åland Islands),
* France (including Monaco and the overseas departments Guadeloupe, French-Guiana, Martinique and Réunion), except the overseas territories and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and Mayotte,
* Ireland,
* Italy, except the municipalities of Livigno and Campione d'Italia and the national waters of Lake Lugano which are between the bank and the political frontier of the area between Ponte Tresa and Porto Ceresio,
* Luxembourg,
* the Netherlands in Europe,
* Portugal,
* Spain, except Ceuta and Melilla,
* Sweden,
* the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
As from 1 May 2004 the customs territory of the Community also includes:
* the Czech Republic,
* Estonia,
* Cyprus,
* Latvia,
* Lithuania,
* Hungary,
* Malta,
* Poland,
* Slovenia,
* the Slovak Republic.
The customs territory of the Community includes the territorial waters, the inland maritime waters and the airspace of the Member States and the territory of the Principality of Monaco, except for the territorial waters, the inland maritime waters and the airspace of those territories which are not part of the customs territory of the Community as listed above.
I will try to add a column to the table shortly. Roy Badami 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Athos, the Azores, Madeira, Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are not dependencies; for instance, they don't have ISO 3166-1 codes. —Nightstallion (?) 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact, you're wrong. The overseas territories have had ISO codes for a *LONG* time now, and the crown dependencies got them this year. Either way, the territories I mentioned are not dependencies by any definition of the word. —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU customs territory 

message: Does anyone know how the coming reorganization of the Netherlands Antilles will affect mattes?  Will the islands that will become Dutch municipalities also become part of the EU as outermost regions? --Jfruh (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  netherlands antilles reorg 

message: I found Svalbard in the article. What about Jan Mayen and other Norwegian non-contigious bits like Bouvet and Peter I? - Privacy 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jan Mayen is treated like Norway, included in Schengen. It does not have any Treaty like svalbard but is fully Norwegian. But I think we should not include uninhabitated islands without tourist facilities whatsoever. BIL 11:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the political status of Svalbard with respect to Norway and the European Union? Other uninhabited territories are also mentioned in the article. - Privacy 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Mayen