Talk:Enlargement of the European Union/Archive 1

message: Has any W. European country ratified the treaty? David.Monniaux 16:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: the one for enlargement? I'm not sure but I think it is all done and dusted. -- Cabalamat 02:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , only Cyprus, Denmark, Malta and Poland have ratified the treaty. Interesting - I wonder whether some skeptics will try to derail enlargment by voting against it in the national parliaments.David.Monniaux 00:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratification progress

message: Would it be possible for the image for each enlargment to show the new states in a different colour? It's not that easy to tell when you have to scroll up and down. --Phil 15:39, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
: Done. --Shallot 18:55, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More colours to distinguish new states 

message: What about narrowing of the EU? Article on dependant states mentions that Greenland left the EU on February 1st 1985, after acquiring home rule from Denmark. --Romanm 14:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrowing of the EU 

message: ===Languages: multiplying interpreters' costs===
*Language problem, In the European parliament all languages have to be translated in all other languages. At least the facility must be there. The amount of interpreters and the cost of translation would rise sharply. E.g. Latvian into Dutch needs a special interpreter. -- Andries
:Regarding languages and translation, I think that subject would be best covered in one or more separate articles, after all it is an aspect of operation of the EU and not enlargement.  -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important enough to be included here because the number of interpreters is a square function of the number of languages. Before May 1st there are 11 languages which means that 0.5(11^2-11)=55 interpreters are needed . In the case of 8 more languages on May 1st (I didn't include the language spoken on Malta because I don't know whether this is a separate language), the quantity of interpreters is 0.5(19^2-19)=171 That is a big difference and a lot of money. I don't know enough about the subject to contribute myself. Andries 13:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you go back to linear costs if everything goes through a fixed number (1 to 3) "working languages": you have one translation between language A and a working language, then a second translation between the working language and language B. Not very good for quality and spontaneity, but... David.Monniaux 22:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  let me guess: French, German and English. That question was raised a few yrs ago. People in here (Portugal) feared that was the end of the language (which is seen as a very important part of the country's History, origin, identity and connection to other peoples in the world) what made many to say "lets leave it!". Portuguese government was obviously against it. And I believe that will continue to be. And probably many governments throw Europe will be against. The UE grown because it respected the various cultures of Europe. Changing it will increment oposition, that is the lowest ever in EU, and people will get even more distant from the EU government. I think that a language to be official in Europe must have 1,000,000 million speakers, but there are problems, because some countries dont have that population and others have speakers of other languages that number that -- so incrinsing even more. -Pedro 21:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David, what I want to say is that some people here in the Netherlands complain about that. E.g. last Sunday on TV. A prominent opinion maker was complaining about the cost and the lack of sponateity and quality due to "relay translations". I think this should be mentioned in the article Andries 18:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Farmers in new EU countries will get a lower rate of subsidy than fartmers in existing countries, as a transitional measure. I think (but am not sure) that transitional measures will last for up to 10 years. -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Issues, language problem, transitional measures, and job shift to the east

message: *Language problem, In the European parliament all languages have to be translated in all other languages. At least the facility must be there. The amount of interpreters and the cost of translation would rise sharply. E.g. Latvian into Dutch needs a special interpreter. -- Andries
:Regarding languages and translation, I think that subject would be best covered in one or more separate articles, after all it is an aspect of operation of the EU and not enlargement.  -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important enough to be included here because the number of interpreters is a square function of the number of languages. Before May 1st there are 11 languages which means that 0.5(11^2-11)=55 interpreters are needed . In the case of 8 more languages on May 1st (I didn't include the language spoken on Malta because I don't know whether this is a separate language), the quantity of interpreters is 0.5(19^2-19)=171 That is a big difference and a lot of money. I don't know enough about the subject to contribute myself. Andries 13:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you go back to linear costs if everything goes through a fixed number (1 to 3) "working languages": you have one translation between language A and a working language, then a second translation between the working language and language B. Not very good for quality and spontaneity, but... David.Monniaux 22:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  let me guess: French, German and English. That question was raised a few yrs ago. People in here (Portugal) feared that was the end of the language (which is seen as a very important part of the country's History, origin, identity and connection to other peoples in the world) what made many to say "lets leave it!". Portuguese government was obviously against it. And I believe that will continue to be. And probably many governments throw Europe will be against. The UE grown because it respected the various cultures of Europe. Changing it will increment oposition, that is the lowest ever in EU, and people will get even more distant from the EU government. I think that a language to be official in Europe must have 1,000,000 million speakers, but there are problems, because some countries dont have that population and others have speakers of other languages that number that -- so incrinsing even more. -Pedro 21:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David, what I want to say is that some people here in the Netherlands complain about that. E.g. last Sunday on TV. A prominent opinion maker was complaining about the cost and the lack of sponateity and quality due to "relay translations". I think this should be mentioned in the article Andries 18:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages: multiplying interpreters' costs

message: *Transitional measures, Labor market protection and limited access of food processing companies to the EU market. Do farmers in the new EU states get money from the EU, just like the farmers in the old EU states? -- Andries
:Farmers in new EU countries will get a lower rate of subsidy than fartmers in existing countries, as a transitional measure. I think (but am not sure) that transitional measures will last for up to 10 years. -- Cabalamat 13:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transitional Measures

message: Today I read an article in the German magazine der Spiegel (nr. 18 26.04.04) that treated the shift of jobs from Germany to the new members states. This will be, I think, an important consequence of the enlargement. Andries 18:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Shift of jobs from old to new members statest

message: I don't see why including Sealing is making fun of the wikipedia. After all, it is not legally recognised as a state, but neither the UK nor the UN have done anything to stop Sealand acting a fiscal paradise. Theoretically, the Vatican City could also apply to join the EU. Is that funny too?
user:theWikipedian
* But The Vatican is already associated with the EU. It even has its euro coins. I don't know if it can... Probabily not. Sealand doesn't exist! And I find a stupidity that it even got a page like if it were a country. It is only a curiosity, we also have got our fantasy kingdom: Kingdom of Berlengas Islands (Reino das Berlengas)... on real Islands! "Governed" today by an Old man and his grandchild. Sealand? be serious! Pedro 02:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's Italy? What's the EU? From the article:(...)Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) They are the European Union. Think a little about you've written: Until the UN rules out the statehood of Sealand, no matter how silly or stupid a contry might be, it is still a legal uncertainty. If the Uk invades Sealand some day, this issue will be over. That's not stupid, that's a lunatic POV. Sorry for that. It even unlikely that they'll think about that, and it is a lost of time debating such a thing. In Northern Italy, there's a more serious fantasy country that even has border control. And the numorous european nations under the rule of european states, what about them? Excepting for Portugal and Ireland, every country of the EU has other nations under control, how many declared independence? In Spain, almost every autonomony is a fantasy country (Catalonia, Galicia, etc...) and they believe that they are countries, what about that? --Pedro 16:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: About the comment that the Vatican only has its own coins by agreement with Italy: WRONG. If they didn't have permission from the EU, that would mean they'd count as Italian coins. AND, if they counted as Italian coins, that would mean Italy would have two sets (I'm just including the Vatican for this theoretical) of coins, which it can't. - RedHot 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealand

message: :Norway, like most other Scandinavian states, is reluctant to surrender sovereignty to a central European government. The Norwegian government also wishes to keep control of fishery resources in their territorial waters. Norway has applied twice for EEC and EU membership, but the two referenda on the issue have been lost by the government. 
I found this confusing.  Does it mean to say that the people don't want to join but their government does?  If so, can someone clarify the paragraph for easier reading, and it would be very interesting to hear about this discrepancy; as an outsider, I would think the government would drop it, if the people are as reluctant as the article seems to claim.  Tempshill 23:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, twice now Norwegian governments have negotiated entry terms to the EEC/EU, and had the plan rejected in subsequent referendums. Norwegian public opinion seems quite variable, and I believe is currently more favourable to to membership. Arwel 11:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: I've wondered about this for some time. Many countries (especially Turkey) are making huge changes to their policies and governmental structures in order to join the EU. This article never explains why countries are willing to do so much to join -- or why some countries don't want to join. Quadell 16:27, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
: every country in Europe wants to join, even Russia. Some people that live very well (richest in the world that doesnt interest them, like Norway's population - the country wanted to join, didn't because of a referendum) Iceland is in talks to join.
Why?
# The sudden richeness of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece (former poor countries) -- this is, by large, the toppest motivation.
# belonging to a club of top economies.
# Together countries get richer, and economy grows because there is more population, more room, more economy.
# To be a super-power, Europeans dislike the American rule, so they want to become a super-power, alone they can't. They already are the world toppest economy. The market is unified since 1992. There is no such thing as German market, French market... There is a single market.
# The richest countries of Europe/world are part of It. Germany is the 3rd, France now the 4th, UK the 5th.
# Everyone has power in the EU. Even if it's small.
# Bolonging to the EU is a goal to every European government, every single one.
# it has allways been a dream since the fall of the Roman Empire, many tried by force, the EU is winning it by agreement.
# The most historical countries of Europe are part of it. All of them, some very old countries that didnt want to loose independence throw out History, like France, Denmark, UK or Portugal.
# etc.
--User:PedroPVZ
: The list above is a bit repetitive and self-referential, but it's mostly correct. The aspiring members are generally attracted first and foremost by the economic benefits of the single market -- the removal of taxes for their exports into other EU countries means the world to most European countries because most of their import/export is done with the rest of the continent.
: (This also happens to be one of the principal reasons why the US has only had limited success in luring/strongarming/whatever European countries into cooperation with it WRT the Iraq war. Promises from and friendship with a superpower is all cool and great, but when two thirds of your exports are directly subject to EU trade tariffs, you're much more inclined to listen to them instead.)
: The money that the rest of EU invested into the "old new" members also looked attractive, but it's pretty clear to everyone that the EU won't be so generously subsidizing all new members like that in the future. Nevertheless, this doesn't really pose a problem, most applicant countries would/will still improve greatly with much less.
: The political angle is also reasonably important to most countries as there are many indirect benefits to having stronger ties with the neighbours on the continent, but I believe that it's generally the economics that drive the accession process forward, both in the opinion of the public and the political elites in prospective member countries.
: --Shallot 20:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's all about money, that's why it's repetitive. Pedro 23:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not all about money. Many countries and/or citizens want to join the EC/establish closer ties for reasons of security and democracy. Warfare between European countries used to be endemnic, but is now over within the the EC. And by joining the EC you ensure the survival of democracratic institutions, which is obviously a concern of the new democracies in Eastern Europe. :ChrisG 17:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Security maybe, not sure. Democracy I don’t believe in it. I believe the younger generation already feels as Europeans. A European nationalist sentiment is growing, but it depends how the EU sees its youngsters. Erasmus exists for something; it’s to build to facilitate the sentiment of union.Pedro 20:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Turkey has already a customs union with the EU (since 1987 I think) and has recently been called "competitive enough to face European competition" by the European Commission I think. Membership could provide more financial aid however (structural funds). Mjolnir1984 23:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do countries (usually) want to join? 

message: I edited the recent addition on Caucusus. A few things that I changed:
* I removed the claim that Caucusus invented wine. Other countries claim that as well. 
* I toned down the very upbeat style in which the text about Georgia was written.
* I removed the sentence that Mikhail Saakashvili's government in Georgia has almost eradicated corruption. I believe they have made a tremendous progress but it's a bit too early to claim that, as they have only been in power for less than a year. 
Let me know if I have made any mistakes. A few questions that I have:
* Can Georgia really join by 2010? It's 2004 now and, for almost all previous EU expansion countries, it has taken more than 6 years from the time when they applied to when they joined.
* Is Armenia so far behind the other two countries as it sounds from the text? "Economy of Armenia is recovering but very slowly...", etc. Are those claims accurate? Any sources confirming that?
I didn't feel sufficiently knowledgable to change these things but they should certainly be cross-checked. 18:39, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
-I would have to say that I don't know much about the Caucacus states but looking at country profiles and statistics from the region I think the addition seems appropriate. Georgia seems to be a likely EU candidate although entry as early as 2010 i think is optimistic (yet possable). I think reading the news over the past few days that the dismissal of a European representative in the country could damage this relationship but the EU, at least that I know of, seems keen on Georgia's currrent pro-western approach. But I think it will not be able to enter untill disputes are resolved which is disapointing as it still has two regions under conflict which are not expected to be settled as easily as Ajaria. May 17 2004 
: Contrary to what seems to be an amusing trend of wishful thinking among the various (semi-)anonymous editors, it's entirely surreal that a country with 3200 USD GDP per capita, at least a couple of fairly rebellious provinces, that has just barely deposed an authoritarian ruler, that is in the vicinity of several rather problematic places and no other EU countries, and that hasn't even applied for candidate status, could become part of the EU within the decade. Heck, three years from now is considered a wee bit optimistic in the case of Bulgaria which has been working on accession treaties for years now and that has much better stats than Georgia... And don't get me wrong, .ge is just an example, others are similar or worse. --Shallot 18:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucacus states

message: This article should be called "futurology". I think It shoulb be placed under Futurology in Europe (as a case of it). Why doesnt it comment on past enlargment and why it centers on teorical and unrealistic joins. Georgia in 3 yrs?.... --Pedro 22:26, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be called "futurology"

message: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union
:See Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance)#WordIQ. -- Arwel 19:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What the...is this page in some way linked with wiki

message: Trilobite, consider that Greece has just a few hundred kilometers of international waters of Ionian sea between Crete and southeastern Italy (around Otranto), and the nearby countries are Albania and Tunisia, none of which could really pose a threat for Greece or Italy. Then consider that Georgia has three or four times the distance of international waters of the Black sea only to get to the newest arrivals (Romania and Bulgaria), let alone the western countries, and then there's Russia and Ukraine (and their interests and their navy) very nearby, as well as Turkey which also isn't a member yet. In the context of the Caucasus states overall, Armenia likely also has a huge grudge against Turkey because of the 1920s genocide so that won't quite help them either, at least not in the short term... so basically they have various geopolitical obstacles on their route to EU that we need to explicate and can't set aside just because of a reasonably benevolent policy of the EC. --Joy [shallot] 10:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  distance to the Caucasus and the roadblocks inbetween 

message: intresting article []
Enlargement_Of_The_European_Union.gif needs to be amended to include Macedonia as a candidate. Robertbrockway 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian entry 

message: There is a nice picture of anti-EU protesters in Warsaw by User:Space Cadet. I have no idea where to place it though. Any ideas?
thumb|200px|right|Protesters in Warsaw
: Euroskepticism, perhaps? They aren't pertinent to the enlargement itself, which is already done in .pl. --Joy [shallot] 12:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Well, finally, it seems that the addition of the Armenia dispute itself is to some degree valid. A news story this morning in the Irish Times, makes mention of France wanting to see Turkey apologise for the massacre as part of entry conditions. Free online version of story
I still say though that the Turkey issue be summarised in a neutral fashion and the full long piece moved to its own article.
zoney ♣ talk 11:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! I just came onto this talk page to suggest that very thing. Moving the whole Turkey section to Accession of Turkey to the European Union or something like that and coming up with a brief summary here would allow us to get the NPOV dispute notice off what is otherwise a mostly undisputed page, and to slim this article down. It is currently a weighty 40KB, and policy says articles should be chopped up before they get that big. Does anyone object? — Trilobite (Talk) 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. Go ahead.  --Rudi Dierick 21:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The new article needs work. Some of it is really poorly written. I have left only the briefest of summaries in the main article so someone might want to at least add the main arguments for and against entry. I've moved the Turkey arguments from this talk page to Talk:Accession of Turkey to the European Union. I have also got rid of the NPOV notice, as the problematic passages have departed. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey - Armenia issue real 

message: Wishful thinking seems to have escalated, again :) While mildly amusing, the maps that include up to 46 members are really not particularly encyclopedic. --Joy [shallot] 00:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps show only the possibilities and the statistics show the numerical aspect of enlargements (GDP, population, etc.), everywhere in the text is written that "this is not likely to happen at all or at least not in the long term", etc. similar formulations. Anything after Croatia is vauge. The maps with 46 members are not much less encyclopedic than those with 32 or 33. No one knows for sure what will happen in the Balkans. At the same time Ukraine/Caucaus/etc. may jump ahead - again nothing is sure... My point is - the article covers good both possibilities - to join and to not join. Alinor 17:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree that it's just possibilities, but I'm saying that we don't really need all those possibilites depicted so graphically (sic) in this article, talking about everything at this length creates an impression of more than just probability. Until recently, we didn't have maps for anything other than the addition of .hr and .tr, and nobody complained about any missing maps... --Joy [shallot] 22:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether it is futurology or not, I'm not quite happy with the new maps before 1990 because they actually show territory of the EU which wasn't its territory back then - East Germany. Could someone correct that, please? Nightstallion 21:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  futurology, again