Talk:European Free Trade Association

message: Okay categorization issue. It seems to me that placing EFTA under the categories of all its member states goes against the usual way of categorizing international organizations in Wikipedia. European Union for example isn't categorized under all 25 of its member-state categories, and NATO isn't categorized likewise under all its member-state categories. And so forth.
Since EFTA is directly EU-related on the other hand I'm gonna change the categories of :Category:Iceland :Category:Norway :Category:Switzerland :Category:Liechtenstein to that of :Category:European Union
Aris Katsaris 13:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is just wrong, EFTA is not directly EU-related at all. The EEA is where these organizations cooperate but onw EFTA member is outside EEA. --Bjarki 11:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: It would be interesting to see a list of the free trade agreements EFTA has made with non-EU countries. A Norwegian economist claimed some years ago that staying in EFTA and the EEA benefitted Norway more economically than joining the EU. This because the EEA in most businesses gives the same economical benefits as being a EU member, and in addition EFTA got several free trade agreements with non-EU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.95.199 (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FTA agreements

message: Is EFTA a Customs Union? Alinor 10:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does EFTA have a CET? 

message: The map is wrong, the Western Sahara territory is excluded from the FTA with Morocco. Please change it or tell me how. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your assertion itself is wrong. It may be that EFTA may be effectively interpreted to exclude W. Sahara - the sourced article from a highly partisan source includes only political statement, there is no clear sourcing as to Administrative or Treaty Law. Nor is it clear that the Norwegian ministerial statement is binding or followed by other EFTA main signatories. Asserting blandly that it is NOT covered is incorrect as a matter of fact. (collounsbury (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the EFTA states do not recognize Morocco sovereignty over Western Sahara we would need a source in order to claim that it is included - not the vice versa. Alinor (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFTA FTA's map / Western Sahara issue 

message: European_Economic_Area#Rights and obligations says Norway and other EFTA members pay fees to the EU for the right to freely trade with the EU but how much are the fees and how are they calculated ? Rod57 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are calculated in similar way to the EU membership fees for its member states. That's way EEA (and even Switzerland) are called "virtual EU members" - they share many of the obligations and benefits. They are only nominally outside - but in this way they have less influence on EU decisions - some of which are binding on them automatically. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs and fees 

message: It looks to me as if someone has just mentioned the official languages of the member states. But the institution's website is only in English, which suggests to me that English is the only official (perhaps only de facto official) language of the organisation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtranslates (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The first paragraph under the political history header is hard to understand. The first few sentences are fragmentary and later sentences refer to events that predate earlier sentences, leading to confusion of time and causation. I don't know enough about the topic to fix the paragraph, so I'm bringing it up here. --Khajidha (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political history 

message: The wording of the section on Membership History implies that several EFTA member states left EFTA because they joined the European Community (or the EU). Is there really cause-and-effect there? In other words, is it compulsory to leave EFTA on joining the EC/EU, or is it just impractical to be a member of both? If it's not compulsory, perhaps the wording could be changed to something like "Country X joined the EU in Year Y, and left EFTA in the same year". Thanks in advance for any answers. Valentino76 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving EFTA 

message: I removed this, since it is clearly an editor's own idea [although it seems to make sense!], see 'wp:Wikipedia is not a guide'.
Wikipedia is not the place to make such proposals. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of names on documents 

message: I would think it would be likely the UK would re-join EFTA if it left the EU. Like Switzerland it would probably have some kind bilaterally agreement with the EU; albeit without all the provisions of EEA membership.  Further research needed of course. Rob984 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:CRYSTAL, let's cross that bridge when/if we come to it. (It would be an odd outcome though! to end up paying almost as much as we do now but without participating in the budget setting, have to comply with European Union Directives having had no hand or part in specifying them, be part of the Schengen Agreement, continue to accept free movement, lose access to the common market for services [esp financial]  and the rest). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting that EEA/EU single market participation is not required for EFTA. EFTA essentially just allows for EU single market access (such as by having the EFTA Court and the EFTA Surveillance Authority), which is why they considered related. So the UK could join EFTA simply to have free trade with the other member states of EFTA, and be part of a five-state trade bloc in international negotiations on trade agreements. That is essentially all EFTA was before 1994, including when the UK was a member I am only suggesting it could be mentioned in the European Free Trade Association#Future, if anyone finds reliable sources discussing the matter. Rob984 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote something on this here based on this UK Parliamentary Research Paper.  Given that it's been official discussed as a possible path, I'd agree that a couple sentences would be appropriate in the Future section.  TDL (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United Kingdom a future member? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on European Free Trade Association. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111207230805/https://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/118371/ to http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/118371/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on European Free Trade Association. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517000353/http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/134524.pdf to http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/134524.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.klassekampen.no/61007/article/item/null
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307181930/http://www.latribunasammarinese.net/edizioni/2013/01-gennaio/03-01-2013boiw.pdf to http://www.latribunasammarinese.net/edizioni/2013/01-gennaio/03-01-2013boiw.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516150119/http://www.spsrasd.info/en/detail.php?id=11569 to http://www.spsrasd.info/en/detail.php?id=11569
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So no criticisms how interesting...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critcisms? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on European Free Trade Association. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021091149/http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/efta-convention/eftaconvention-texts/convention-2001 to http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/efta-convention/eftaconvention-texts/convention-2001
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627223626/http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=1781352196882 to http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=1781352196882
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I deleted The establishment of EFTA was initiated by the United Kingdom, which became its largest member by far, and the organisation was often seen as a British-led competing trade bloc to the Franco–German-led EEC.  [the citation needed tags are mine], because it is not supported by any citations and does not summarise any content in the body. Feel free to reinstate when these concerns have been fixed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence deleted from lede 

message: I added Catalonia in the list of possible future members of EFTA, as is currently is widely spoken and written in Catalan newspapers. 
http://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/55468/efta/assegura/catalunya/independent/viable
http://electomania.es/catalunya-se-plantearia-integrarse-en-la-efta/
https://www.curiositats.cat/que-es-la-efta/
https://www.meneame.net/m/actualidad/catalunya-plantearia-integrarse-efta
It is a fact that the possibility is open, so Catalonia should be added in an an eventual future or possible future candidate to become a member of EFTA. If you want to delete it, please contribute to this talk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosimo (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wildly contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. In the real world, it is still fantasy. I shall delete but you can replace if a reliable source describes it as credible. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it has already been done. The reason to do so remains. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid removing Catalonia 

message: I can not do this muself, as I am not sire of the technicalities, but Svalbard and Jan Mayen does not have much to do with EFTA and probably should be removed from the membership map. 155.4.193.84 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know Svalbard and Jan Mayen had much happening anyway. But surely they are Norwegian territories and therefore technically within EFTA. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked some agreements, and from what I can tell you are right. They're just excempt from pretty much everything EFTA does (e.g. the EEA), but still a member as Norway.95.195.211.56 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Svalbard and Jan Mayen from member map? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: An IP editor wishes to change the existing text to say that Switzerland has a multilateral agreement with each of the EU member states individually, rather than (as well as?) bilateral ones with the EU as a whole. Apart from a hand-waving comment that asserts that the evidence is already in the article (location not specified), no citation is given for this claim. The article Switzerland–European Union relations says
:
and in the Switzerland–European Union relations#Treaties section of the article, we have "Bilateral I agreements (signed 1999, in effect 1 June 2002)" and "Bilateral II agreements (signed 2004, in effect gradually between 2005 and 2009)". Bilateral, not multilateral.
The IP editor may well be correct but we need explicit citations to support such a substantial change. I will be very happy to drop my objection when this is done. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never claimed Switzerland concluded an agreement "with each of the EU member states individually". There is one agreement the contracting parties to which are the EU, each of its member states,and Switzerland.  --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:56b1:8600:1982:f244:6c04:a288 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I see what you mean and yes, you do have a point. However, I don't think it is a multilateral agreement in the conventional sense, such as that made between the members of EFTA at its foundation. In this case, no new agreement is created between, say, Finland and Portugal. And the agreement was not voided due to Brexit. Conversely, I accept, it is not a simple bilateral agreement in the conventional sense either. Are all EU agreements expressed like this (with a long recital of the list of members), such as the one with Turkey for example? I have to admit that I'm struggling to find the words to describe this arrangement that stops short of a long-winded legalistic tract that would be inappropriate for a generalist readership. Have you any better suggestions? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

text: More fundamentally, it is your personal interpretation of 22002A0430(01) to declare it multilateral and that is contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:synthesis. If the Swiss government was at pains to emphasise that it was a bilateral one, then we must accept that unless you can produce a wp: reliable source that supports your opinion. If not, it cannot be allowed to stand. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, the "free movement" case is indeed one where the agreement was multilateral, for the reason of competence as you say. But that doesn't justify changing the whole paragraph to say "multilateral" when most of the agreements are bilateral. Conversely, of course, it would be wrong to continue to say "bilateral" when this important exception exists. So  and  are both false because each overstates the case. Would you care to propose a new sentence (or two) that gives due weight to each context? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I don't think that this is true: "free movement" is one of the Four Freedoms and is an EU competency, not a national one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switzerland–European Union relations