Talk: Enlargement of the European Union

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Contents

1 Israel 2 Ratification progress 3 Edit war over Czechia vs. Czech Republic 4 The term "enlargement" 5 More colours to distinguish new states 6 Figures in euros 7 after may 1st: Merge Tables and delete the 2004 expansion section 8 Narrowing of the EU 9 Missing Issues, language problem, transitional measures, and job shift to the east 9.1 Languages: multiplying interpreters' costs 9.2 Transitional Measures 9.3 Shift of jobs from old to new members statest 10 Sealand 11 Cyprus 12 Latin America 13 Norway 14 Former Yugoslavia 15 Missing Malta 16 Why do countries (usually) want to join? 17 Caucacus states 18 Projections when countries will join 19 This article should be called "futurology" 20 Geography as a reason against accession 21 What the...is this page in some way linked with wiki 22 distance to the Caucasus and the roadblocks inbetween 23 Macedonian entry 24 Democracy, secular state as preconditions to join! 25 Other issues hindering Turkey's accssion 26 Does noone else see a problem with POV here? 27 Use of Language 28 Appalling standard of the Turkey section hopefully improved

Israel

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=17914

Maybe this opinion should be included in the section about Israel in some form?

Nightstallion 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (CET)

Ratification progress

Has any W. European country ratified the treaty? David.Monniaux 16:59, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

the one for enlargement? I'm not sure but I think it is all done and dusted. -- Cabalamat 02:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

According to [1], 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)

Edit war over Czechia vs. Czech Republic

I've protected the page. Please could all those involved in this edit war come to some decision on the talk page rather than reverting incessantly. Thank you. Angela

Good grief, has this edit war just been over what to call the western bit of the former Czechoslovakia? I know that the government of "Ceska Republika" have been trying to get English speakers to use an analogue of "Cechy", but quite simply "Czechia" is a name which is never used by native English-speaking people. -- Arwel 19:14, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arwel, I am a native speaker of English, and I use "Czechia". Just thought you might want ot know that -- Cabalamat 06:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How long have you been doing that? No-one I know (and this is a circle of people who go there quite often) does. Arwel 12:02, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I may be flogging a dead horse, but why didn't anyone point out that the Czech government itself has been pushing the denomination "Czechia" since 1993?

Czechia is the official one-word name of the Czech Republic. In 1993 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic in its memorandum to all Czech embassies and diplomatic missions recommended to use the full name "Czech Republic" only in official documents and titles of official institutions. In all other cases, the one-word name Czechia should be preferred. [2]

— Miguel 18:50, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Look - I don't mind the edit war on Czechia and Czech Republic. As if there's a lot of difference. I personally prefer Czech Republic because it's common, but Czechia is probably more correct and a lot more convenient. Anyway, protecting the page is a bad idea I think. It doesn't let the people who want to edit other parts of the article do so. For example, the incorrect GDP stats. The UN stats are out of date - we should go for the CIA Factbook 2003 stats, they are public domain as well and they are what Wikipedia uses most of. I've seen in the last months a slight rejection of the CIA Factbook by Wikipedians, but it remains the most standardised and up-to-date source for facts. For example, Romania's GDP PPP is $7,400 not $5,830. Croatia's GDP is not as high as listed. Hungary's GDP is inaccurate. Let's make an effort to make Wikipedia accurate. And, protecting the page is not necessary for minor things such as the Czechia issue. If there was mass vandalism, or revertion of the entire article, I suppose it would be right. But does it hurt if people argue over Czechia or Czech Republic. I think Wikipedia is fast changing in the bad. It's changed from an open-content, collaborative encyclopedia, to one that is ruled over by sysops and administrators who protect pages, and other Wikipedians like Shallot who choose to use proprietary sources. -- Ronline.

There would be no point in you making those changes in the middle of an edit war - they would simply be reverted along with everything else. It wasn't the fact that someone was changing Czechia to Czech Republic, but the fact that an edit war was going on that led to the article being protected. Without this, the edit war simply continues, filling up recent changes and polluting the article history. As it's been three days, I've unprotected it for now. Hopefully people will attempt to come to some agreement here this time rather than editing in a way that will lead to further protection. Angela 00:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First of all, I did not _add_ the GDP numbers from the UN source, I merely normalized them according to the source listed on the page when I saw it (and notice how I mentioned in the commit message that it looked fishy). The source simply needs to be consistent; if you want to replace them with CIA Factbook numbers, sure, but make sure you use a single edition (not all Economy of foo pages on Wikipedia are using the same edition so you have to look it up upstream). On that matter, I also don't see why the UN is any more or less proprietary a source than the CIA. They should both be getting fed data from the local statistics bodies anyhow. --Shallot 18:28, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The term "enlargement"

Q: How long have been the word "enlargement" used to refer to "accession of some state(s) to the CEE/EU"? Just wondering. Thanks. --Ann O'nyme 13:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can find a Reuters release from 1995 using the term - see [3] - and that's without looking very hard. Morwen 13:18, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

And here's one from 1992 - [4]

More colours to distinguish new states

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)

Figures in euros

Wouldn't it make sense to give the GDPs and such figures in euros instead of US dollars? -- Kimiko 18:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, giving subtotals and a total for each enlargment without giving the corresponding figures for the old EU is not as useful as it could be.

And what about possible enlargement by other European countries like Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland? -- Kimiko 18:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talking to myself here :o) Here are some numbers:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=1-11032004-EN-AP-EN&mode=download

Any objections to using these to replace the current ones? -- Kimiko 18:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nah, forget it. That link only gives GDP, not GDP/capita. GDP/capita is available somewhere else on europa.eu.int, but only from 2001. And I really don't feel like digging trough 10 or more national statistics websites. -- Kimiko 14:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you're talking to yourself, does this mean that you're ordering yourself to forget what you suggested? ;-)

James F. (talk) 15:23, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could, but that only makes it worse.. :o) -- Kimiko 00:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

after may 1st: Merge Tables and delete the 2004 expansion section

After 1st May, someone should merge the first table with EU-15 countries with the 10 candidate countries information. TheWikipedian 20:24 GMT+2

Narrowing of the EU

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)

---

It is already covered in the Special member state territories and their relations with the EU wiki

user:theWikipedian

Missing Issues, language problem, transitional measures, and job shift to the east

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Transitional Measures

• 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)

Andries 09:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shift of jobs from old to new members statest

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)

Sealand

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)

Please note that the vatican has no asociation agreements with the eu. It is allowed to mint its own euro coins (in fact, minted by Italy) because of the existance of a previous agrement with the italian state.

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.

Of course that in practice to consider sealand a state does not make sense. But it is a legal exception that should be considered, at least in the miscellanius subsection.

That why I support reintroducing Sealand in this wiki. case.It is unknown wether this "country" could join the union (in theory). In practice, the UK has never acknowledge Sealand's independece, so it is unlikely that a sea platform could be recognised a a state of the union.

user:theWikipedian

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)

• Sealand should not be included. It is not an officially recognised country, in fact it is little more than a helicopter platfrom in the sea. Your comment as to whether the Vatican joining is funny too makes no sense. The Vatican is a recognised country, and so could join, though this is highly unlikely. Grunners

Cyprus

The Cyprus article states that: EU Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen declared that Green Line, dividing Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Greek Authority of Southern Cyprus, will be the border of union beginning from 1 May 2004.

I think this article should reflect that too. The total area of the island is 9,250 sq. km and the population a little over 770,000. So the numbers in the box should also be changed to include the Greek part only. But I have no idea what the figures are for the 2 parts.

Do the 2 UK sovereign bases of Dhekalia and Akrotiri form part of the Union or not? D.D. 09:25, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I want to see a cite for that quote before we run with it. It seems unlikely, especially considering the use of the term 'Greek Authority of Southern Cyprus'. Morwen 09:36, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at [5], [6] and [7]. D.D. 10:00, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Out of the perspective of daily practice Mr. Verheugen's statement is of course right, but still, according to international law (and according to the EU, since they have no intention (yet?) to recognize the Turkish republic of Cyprus as an independant state) the whole island joined the EU, not just the southern part. Gugganij 13:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I changed the data for Cyprus since only the southern (Greek) part of Cyprus acceded to the European Union. See Cyprus and Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004. Either this article should remain like this or this and all other articles should be changed to reflect that the whole island is (officially - not de facto) part of the EU. D.D. 13:17, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Since in my point of view, the article should reflect in first place the legal status according to international law, the opinion of the Union and virtually the opinion of all countries in the world, which regard the Government of the Greek part as the legitimate government of all Cyprus, the article should be changed (with a footnote added that EU law is currently not applied in the northern part). Likewise, all the articles you mentioned should be changed accordingly as well. Gugganij 14:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

... and, indeed, seemingly from the (desired, at least) point of view of the Turkish Cypriots themselves, given the referendum result.

As far as I think Wikipedia should state, Cyprus is a single country with a good third of it occupied by a generally-unrecognised militia (but that significant steps have been taken in the direction of reuniting the island). We don't claim that FARC-held land is another country, for example.

James F. (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

That is probably the best way to go. I have adapted the article accordingly, and will adapt the others too. D.D. 18:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Latin America

Isn't this part really going overboard!? Is there anything to corroborate thing "de facto members" theory? David.Monniaux 21:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I wonder where is the supporting document? I have never seen one, even being somewhat of a europhile. Though myth may say otherwise, most of what the EU does is well-documented. -- Kaihsu 21:58, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Even too wel documented, it's impossible for a mere mortal to grok all the relevent documents, and even if theyt usually don't mean anything

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/la/

In any case, which bit in that site supports the statements (verbatim from what I deleted)?: The European Union seeks close relations with the states of Latin America (mainly Chile and Mexico which are near the European level) and to a lesser extent Brazil and might in the future accept them as de facto members although formal membership is of course out of the question. -- Kaihsu

Norway

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)

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)

Former Yugoslavia

re: Koraths Revision as of 06:07, 2 May 2004 [8]]

I think most readers aren't aware of the diffrence between the communist regime in the Former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Bloc so this should be mentioned in the text as it's relevent when considering Yugoslavias chance in the 1980s.

Also, can we make it clear Albania isn't part of former Yugoslavia? Grunners

Missing Malta

Malta is missing from 2 of the small maps Image:Crude-EU27.png and Image:Crude-EUXX.jpg. I put Malta in the first map Image:Test Crude-EU25-colored stretched greens.png but didn't get around to fixing the others and am too busy to do that for the next 3 weeks. The previous Malta-less map has some some discussion on shadings.

Also I have what seems to be a cache problem on the actual thumb image [9] that I cannpt clear by the usual shift-contol-R to force a reload.

The problem only affects my Opera and Firebird, but is Ok in IE.

The problem is Malta appears dark green but when I examine the actual image it's the correct pale green, and conversely when I download the actual thumb image it's dark green! I'm hoping this is a wierd caching problem on my side and not some browswer dependency server side. -Wikibob | Talk 22:20, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Why do countries (usually) want to join?

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?

1. The sudden richeness of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece (former poor countries) -- this is, by large, the toppest motivation.
2. belonging to a club of top economies.
3. Together countries get richer, and economy grows because there is more population, more room, more economy.
4. 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.
5. The richest countries of Europe/world are part of It. Germany is the 3rd, France now the 4th, UK the 5th.
6. Everyone has power in the EU. Even if it's small.
7. Bolonging to the EU is a goal to every European government, every single one.
8. it has allways been a dream since the fall of the Roman Empire, many tried by force, the UE is winning it by agreement.
9. 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.
10. 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)

it's all about money, that's why it's repetitive. Pedro 23:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Caucacus states

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)

-As an after thought to what I wrote earlier I would like to add that I have not in any way added to this page (as seems to be the accustation when reffering to "(semi-)anonymous editors") . Just studying for Modern History this Friday and so decided to comment. I would like to know when the Caucacus states (specially your contested Georgia) might enter though I have to say after inquiring with my proffessors I feel that they seem optimistic in that they think an early entry date is possable in the case of Georgia. 18 May 2004

• Please, provide evidence (for example, links to articles saying that). 17:23, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Projections when countries will join

Our article has projections when a particular country could join EU (like "around 2020" for Ukraine). Where do they come from and how accurate they are? Particularly, for countries like Georgia or Ukraine which have not even started negotiating. Could people document the sources of these estimates on the talk page? Andris 18:22, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree - i was pondering stripping out all that speculation, but its quite a major change. Wikipedia is not futurology. Morwen 19:06, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This article is full of POV. In the past it even had info about an oil platform joining! My projection is that it will join by 2025 when an asteroid will crash against earth. Now seriously, A single topic about future joins (credible) is enough. --Pedro 19:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I propose the following plan. I will search on google for information and leave the years that are confirmed by reliable sources. Ones for which we do not find confirmations will be removed. Everyone is welcome to contribute their sources as well.

As a first step, I searched for Croatia and rewrote the section according to what I found. Here are my sources [10], [11]. If any Croatians have different information, feel free to contribute. Andris 04:21, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's a good plan. I did a cursory google search for "Croatia EU date" and quickly came up with this reasonably in-depth assessment from The Economist Intelligence Unit, and a similar analysis from the International Center for Economic which corroborate "possibly 2007, likely by 2010" that we had in the article for Croatia. I don't recall seeing any analysts that would provide opinions/data directly contradicting this sentiment, so I think it would be fair to restore it. Chancellor Schroeder's opinion is relevant, but he seems to be merely voicing a consensus (with an optimistic rather than a pessimistic overtone, obviously for political reasons). --Shallot 09:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Great! That looks like a good source. Feel free to restore the previous version on Croatia. Andris 14:38, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Second step: Macedonia [12]. Andris 04:26, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

One more source: Ukraine [13]. Andris 04:39, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

[14] about Moldovia User:80.1.242.163

[15] about Serbia & Montenegro (2012) and Turkey (2015). Andris 22:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

[16] about Caucacus[17]and other european countries becoming part of EU-neighbours policy

[18]about Macedonia for 2010

[19] a good site about the eu and enlrgement

"Indeed, the European Union—oddly, given its name—has never defined its membership limits in geographical terms. That's fortunate for Georgia, where the government recently created a minister of integration in Europe. According to the Georgian Messenger[20] , President Mikhail Saakashvili recently—very optimistically—projected that Georgia would need a maximum of three years before it could realistically consider joining the union, but it's clearly in his sights." This was from a website I found. You wanted to know when Georgia hopes to join and here it is but the Georgian Messenger will take a while to navigate so if you want to verify this quote for sure then I will leave that hassel to you! Good luck!

[21] "The four Western Balkan countries (Serbia-Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania) are hoping to join the EU between 2010 and 2015."

[22] "Moldova and Ukraine have expressed a desire to join the union but enlargement commissioner Günter Verheugen has said that their accession is 'not on the Commission's agenda'."

[23] "The main positive feature for the EU and its cooperation with these three countries is the fact that all these three countries voluntarily want to become members of the European family -- and I do not mean [a] member of the European Union. It means that they value European standards and are voluntarily ready to change their legislation to correspond to European standards as concerns their societies and democratic developments within the society,"

..."Another EU official, who asked not to be named, said it could take five years before the EU is prepared to look at incorporating Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia into the program"

BBC News article on Croatia becoming a candidate Irish Times Online article about the same but with some sort of subscription

This article should be called "futurology"

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)

• I think there should be predictions, since our readers might want to know that. But only reasonably reliable ones. EU official ones (Bulgaria/Romania in 2007) or recognized independent sources like Reuters poll of economists from leading European banks. I am quite skeptical about giving years for Armenia, since I can't find any good sources. Or Georgia, since we only have the prediction by their own government. Andris 05:43, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  • most of them would only need a small quote, except the most credible ones, that is Croacia, Romenia, Bulgaria and Turkey. Other somewhat credible, can be commented in pairs, like the countries from the ex-yuguslavia or the countries in the orbit of Russia. The rest are almost pure fantasies. And Sealand is again in the article, oh my god! People will read this and laugh. -Pedro 08:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Geography as a reason against accession

Why is geography mentioned so much in this article? Distance might be an issue but Turkey isn't much further from Europe then Greece. And its closer then the Maghreb or Israel. Geography is irrelevant except for xenophobes who have no better excuse to not let a country in except technical arbitrary geographical definitions (now you might argue that Europe is culturally defined and therefore Israel and Turkey can't join.. but that's something else). - CJWilly

Geography is important because the EU has *in principle* accepted that all European nations have a right to join as long as they fulfill the Copenhagen criteria. Now the EU hasn't altogether *rejected* the idea of non-European nations ever joining the EU, but neither is it required to accept such membership.

Now is this just a legalistic excuse to explain away the fear of cultural and political differences? Ofcourse! But nonetheless it's an excuse that's convenient. However certain sections of the article should indeed be reworded to indicate this -- the non-inclusion of Israel will probably because of fear of the Palestinian conflict than its existence in Europe or not -- likewise with the Caucasus region. Aris Katsaris 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Greece is in Europe (so is a small part of Turkey as a matter of fact). And accession of the Maghreb countries or Israel isn't on the cards, certainly not anytime soon. Morocco has applied before and been turned down, and none of the others ever have, even if some in those countries would like to see a bid. Turkey is an entirely different matter. Negotiations on their entry have been going on for years. There is constant talk of how Turkey's application is going — just a few minutes ago I was reading an article about how there are moves there to outlaw adultery which the EU is not happy about. Most commentators expect Turkey to be in sooner or later, they have had their entry delayed somewhat but it's very likely to happen. I don't think geography is irrelevant at all. Think of how the EU came about in the first place. There were two political imperatives: first the need to bind together industries in different countries that might be useful for war production, as a way of making continuing war in Europe impossible; and second to open up borders and allow freer trade and greater wealth generation. The first one does hint at a culturally defined Europe — one that has spent hundreds of years alternating between uneasy peace with shifting alliances, and outright conflict or the tyranny of one nation over another's people. The second also relates to geography, in that it's very useful for, say, the Germans to trade with the French without tariffs and bureaucracy, or for workers to move across the border freely. Admitting Tanzania or Paraguay to the EU wouldn't really fit with either of these goals — it surely has to count against a country if they aren't even in Europe — that's not xenophobia. As for the idea the Turkey can't join if Europe is culturally defined, this idea is something used by both advocates and opponents of Turkish entry. Opponents, often conservative ones, point to Islam as being incompatible with the Christian and secular traditions of the West (even though Turkey is a secular Muslim nation and not a theocracy by any means). Advocates point to Turkish history — historically the country has been closely involved in European affairs, and its focus has been very European, you only have to look at the Ottoman Empire. Geography then isn't an arbitrary way of deciding whether a country belongs in or out, it's important but often in ways far from straightforward. I hope this provides some insight. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the...is this page in some way linked with wiki

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)

distance to the Caucasus and the roadblocks inbetween

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)

Macedonian entry

intresting article [[24]]

Democracy, secular state as preconditions to join!

Certain persons apparently object against information that Turkey has problems fulfilling the criteria for joining the EU, more specifically that Turkey still privileges Islam en musliums over other religions. Someone made a comparison with Greece. However, both for Greece, then, as for Turkey, now and tomorrow, the seperation of chutch and state is a clear, expliciet and important condition. This conditions must be met BEFORE talks can open. Greece, contrary to Turkey, knew only minor issues that since have been removed. This is: situation was already quite good for Greece and improved since. In Turkey, situation of treatment of religious minoritoes by the state is horribly bad a,d even deteriorating in cetain aspects!

Apparently, according to Mr. Katsaris, the situation in Greece has not improved, and major discriminations would still exist. Can anybody else confirm this? can Mr. Katsaris put forward objective and athoritative evidence. Thanks in advance, --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, please respect this requirement! Otherwise, you are going squarely against the explicite rules of the Wikipedia project! --Rudi Dierick 10:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have a quite huge problem figuring out the distinction between "secular state" and "full separation of church and state". You are arguing that Turkey still "privileges" Islam -- Greece still privileges the Greek Orthodox Church. Ireland for a very long time privileged the Catholic Church - perhaps it still does. The United Kingdom privileges the Anglican church. But Ireland and Greece and the United Kingdom are still secular states.

So, for you it is OK that Turkey continues sending out its imams on missionary missions, and to pay for missionaries, and have state-paid imams consacrate polygamous mariages, forbide the Greek-orthodox church to re-open training schools for its Turkish clerics etc.! Moreover, you comparethe PAST for Ireland and Greece, with the TODAY for Turkey. Also in Greece and ireland, as soon as there are others then catholics and greek-Orthodox n the typcal minimal numbers for a religion to et recognised, those states will recognise them. The privileges the fomer state religion enjoyed there have been removed! In the meanwhile, theer is no songle reason that can justify for Turkey not paying clerics of the Greek-Orthodox Church when the state does fund clerics from the Islam. After all, the Greek-orthodox church was present overthere from even long before the islam! Also, the UK does recognoise and funding other religous organisations then just the Anglican church! Apparently, you are unaware from that!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, no, I was comparing TODAY for Greece with TODAY for Turkey. TODAY Greece privileges the Greek Orthodox Church. Today the United Kingdom privileges the Anglican church. It privileges e.g. by allowing its heads of state to be a part of only that religion.

Come on. This is trivial! Do you really mean to say that Turkey payin thousands of imams and nothing at all can be set at an equal footting as the UK having only Anglican's for hed of state? Anywa, this is not at all meant by the COE's Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities, (1) --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YOU think the one trivial and the other important, which is why I'm calling it blatant POV. And the Council of Europe has nothing to do with the European Union, btw. Aris Katsaris 01:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this gives 1 black hole and 1 inaccuacy:

1. You avoid discussing my arguments, you don't add any evidence for your point of view of reality. So, if I would have to apply your logic, I should have to cut anything you wrote and that I don't like. I won't, as that would be arrogant censorship, even after contrary evidence was provided!--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. The EU Commission explicitely refers to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2), agreed in the Council of Europe as one of the guiding documents concerning the standards both current and any new member state will be judged! In a course on European integration, prof.Koen Lenaerts 3, explained there is a fair deal of cooperation between EU and non-EU institutions, including the COE. Is he wrong? Or will you again pretend to know it much better then, in this case, a distinguished professor of law?--Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

TODAY Greece has no legally recognized Mosques in Athens even if hundreds of thousands of Muslims exist in Athens. But that's quite irrelevant actually, since my main point is you've not provided the references I've asked for you. Aris Katsaris 22:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but is the fact that Greece still continues discriminating (you're correct in this), altough it promised to improve things some years ago, any reason why the European union should as from now lower its requirements and accept any state that also maintains such discrimination? If I kill my neighbour, is that a justification for you that you should be able to do so to? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say "lower its requirements" when you've never proven that such requirements ever existed. The EU isn't forcing United Kingdom to allow Roman Catholic monarchs. The EU isn't forcing Greece to abolish the Greek Orthodox Church's position as dominant religion. Aris Katsaris 01:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Don't you have any answer on my argument that one past error does not justify making the same error again? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. I did put forward the argument that the religious quality of a monarch is NOT relevant to how well a state respects the religious freedoms of its people. That that is irrelevant, and never mentionned in the officiel documents as the Framework Convention ... But apparently, that is a source you prefer not to know, or to discard. Well, I fear that such a personnal judgement where you feel mandated to discard the COE's conventions, makes any discussion very difficult. --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. You insist that I should put forward evidence for anything you don't agree with. So, how about you putting forward evidence for your disputed claims? Why not start giving the good example yourself? For your claims in religious discrimination in 3 countries, you should, according to your own rules, put forward evidence for all thee! I'm waiting! --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And still waiting!--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might object that, while agreeing, it remains unfair that in the meanwhile, Greece is in. However, hitting a stone once is enough, otherwise we would be worse then donkey's. Isn't it? I don' see at all why the EU, having made this error with Greece once, should now repeat it once more! And for the UK and Ireland, please check public expenditure for religious training and salaries for clerics of minority religions in those countries. I've once met myself students at a Britisch university training to become a rabbi and a roman catholic priest (alongside some going for Anglican minister)! --Rudi Dierick 23:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You still think this is an argument between us about whether Turkey should join. You think this is an argument about what EU requirement *should* be. It is not. It is an argument about truth and falsehood. If you imply that EU requirement say that member-state must not favour a specific religion, that's false. Aris Katsaris 01:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have for that? When anybody reads the latest draft constitution of the EU, and the COE's Framework Convention on Minorities, then one finds very explict requriements on the mandatory non-discrimination between religions! Or don't you like the EU's constitution? --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Mr. Katsaris, before wielding the axe and censoring again, you didn't find the time to read the draft EU constitution? Nor the COE's Framework Convention on Minorities?--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get a grip, get some sanity, and get your facts straight. If you say that "seperation of chutch and state is a clear, expliciet and important condition", and you mean that as *full* and absolute separation between the two, then please do provide the reference to the EU decision that declared such a clear and explicit condition, because I've very definitely disputing the FACTUAL accuracy of your words -- aka I think you are dead dead wrong. Aris Katsaris 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if yo still need being informed or convincced that a secular state with a seperation from chruch and state is a pre-condition, that again disqualifies one person as rather incompetent to say something about this! It is plainly stupid that you still insist on this! You are making an idiot out of yourself by pretending you don't know. --Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You aren't being coherent. There are specific conditions and preconditions -- if you claim that full separation of church and state is one of them, then I definitely want to see some references, or I'm gonna keep deleting misinformation you add. Your comments on my person are irrelevant. Aris Katsaris 22:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, let's start a war between censorship and free speech! Is that what you want? It is plainly stuupid that I should have to provide detail information to anybody who first handles the axe -cutting away everything he does not like . If you wpoud be sincerely interested yo find out more abou this, the frst things to do is ask, and not start behaving like a brute!

It's not a war between censorship and free speech, it's a censorship between truth and falsehood. You support falsehood, I support truth. You make claims you can't factually support, I then removed your errors, falsehoods and lies. Aris Katsaris 00:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And God has given, you the supreme right to be the judge? You arrogant bastard! --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover you keep on adding POV attitudes. You claim that Armenia did nothing to warrant such a painful economic embargo? Says who? You? Many would also say that Armenia is currenly illegally occupying part of Azerbaijan.

Aha, you admit that Turkey embargoes Armenia because of its war with Azerbaijdian! Have a look in international, neutral fora, and you'll see international mediation efforts were going on between Armenia and Azerbajdian, but that Turkey side-stepped these, and then unilaterally started an economic war out of solidarity with its ISLAMIC neighbour! Well, that again proves that Turkey feels that islamic solidarity goes ABOVE international rule of law! So, one reason more why Turkey is UNFIT and UNCAPABLE to join the EU!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not mine or yours to either "admit" or "not admit". It's not mine or yours to input arguments about whether Armenia deserves or doesn't deserve an embargo. It *does* fall on you to indicate WHO ever said that the embargo on Armenia consistutes a problem for Turkey's entry on EU. The Wikipedia article is not a place to state opinions shares only by *you*. Aris Katsaris 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen any evidence from yoyr side either, so why should you be so much better then me that you don't have to provide any evidence to justify your axe-wielding?

What side? How can I prove the non-existence of people using the Armenia embargo as an argument against Turkey's entry? I've already proven the falsehood of your false claim about Turkey not claiming a connection between war and embargo.Aris Katsaris 00:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haha, you're now turning the scientific method upside down. Copernicus and Galilei also had such arguments against them. Well, just do a search on Google, and see what you can find! I did this in French and in Dutch already, and found several mentions, including from, not wonder, organised Armenian group in EU-countries AND from members of the European Parliament (you do know that the Eur. Parliament has officially recognised the genocide by Turkish state on Armenian civilians?). --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the existence of that economic embargo is quite clearly mentionned in officiel EU-documents (see ref's on this page). But, of course, you don't like this evidence, isn't?

The only ref you claimed to have about the Armenian embargo I saw failed to contain any mention of Armenia at all. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But either way, no single European of importance seems to have ever used the embargo on Armenia as an argument against Turkey's entry. Nor have they ever used the funding of imams as such an argument. Please do stop using the words "critics" to refer to your own opinion alone. Aris Katsaris 17:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aha, Mr. katsaris -your real name or just an alias for a Turkish militarist?- is the one deciding on which European voice comamnds respect, and which voices can e neglected! Just note that in a democracy, EVERYBODY's opinion counts, yours just as well as mine, so stop applying censorshop on people with oher opinions then yours! That's called censorshop!--Rudi Dierick 21:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm Greek, you idiot. And I'm quite tired of little Nazis using wimp-out language to push their POV. I note you failed to find a single reference to such "criticisms", other than your own beliefs. Which means that your plural reference in the text to "critics of Turkey's entry" is actually a reference to the many voices in your own head. Sorry, but I won't allow corruption of the article by mixing the *actual* issues as named by those that actually know the EU's requirements or hold national mandates, versus the illiterate and ignorant ramblings of idiots suffering by multiple personality disorder. Aris Katsaris 21:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Their are no property rights on articles in Wikipedia, and you don't have any superior right to judge on whta's good enough and what not. --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for some links to external references on the very dubious state of Turkish democracy and secular state:

AI report on Turkey, 2003 Human Rights Watch overview[http://http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/turkey/2004/torture/2.htm Human Righrs Watch on torture in Turkey] --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So? No interest in evidence anymore?--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had ever disputed the dubious state of Turkish democracy or secular state, you'd be first to know. I disputed very specific facts, which you've not yet been able to support. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More factual mistakes in your additions: [25] "Concurrent with the border closure, Turkey instituted an economic embargo against Armenia, saying the ban on trade would not be lifted until a lasting Karabakh peace settlement was negotiated and Armenia withdrew its forces from occupied Azerbaijani territory." So you seem to have either lied or erred when you claimed that Turkey ever states that the war with Azerbaijan had nothing to do with this. Aris Katsaris 22:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well well, so this report admits that it applies open economic pressure against one neighbour in order to force it to make peace with another one. Whether you like it or not, but from EU member states, it is expected that they submit dispues to international arbitrage, and that they do not start with unprovoked hostilities! So, again one reason the more why Turkey is rather not fit for joining the EU! --Rudi Dierick 23:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT. Whether *you* think Turkey is fit or not fit is irrelevant. For your information I *also* think that Turkey is currently unfit for membership. But that's IRRELEVANT. My opinion about Turkey is as irrelevant as yours.

Oh yes, and God said so. I'm just a fucking irrelevant idiot, and M. Katsakis is wasting precious time tryoing to shed some heavenly light on me. Thanks the Lord! Let's pray for all those ignorants idiots!

Yes, you are a fucking irrelevant idiot. Couldn't have said it better myself. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only things relevant are the factual accuracy and NPOV stance of the article. And you've violated both -- intentionally I think. Your point about Armenia is FACTUALLY wrong. Your claim about the need to fully separate church from state is FACTUALLY wrong. Your belief that states are "expected to submit disputes to international arbitrage" is blatant POV. Your argument about polygamy as related to gender-equality is likewise POV. Your claims about the importance of various preconditions you invented are likewise insane POV since you can't actually make actual references to such preconditions for membership being real -- you simply *believe* such preconditions should exist. If you keep on adding your babble, I ask that we resolve this through mediation. But it would be best if you came to your own senses. Aris Katsaris 00:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So what is not factually correct in what I stated? Did you ever read articles on non-discrimination in the draft EU constitution? Or don't you like that document? And what's wrong about my facts on Armenia? Was the border open while I said it was closed? And since when is international arbitrage not the norm anymore? Since when can every state immediately ressort to military and economic force? No references? And since when is polygamy acceptable in a democracy respecting the equal rights of men and women? You didn't read any of the references I listed? or you dont't like them? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your so-called "facts" on the Armenian situation was that Turkey claimed it had nothing to do with the war on Azerbaijan. That was a lie as I showed you with my link. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As if a state would ever admit to something like that. For as far as an appreciation of the nature of the responsibilities in slving this unilateral Turkish border closure, see the explicite wordings in the EU reports I referred to! --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More factual mistakes: "This recommendation and eventual accession now faces democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures."

Well, if you understand Dutch, I can send you copy of an email from a certain Jean-Luc Dehaene on this. He explicitely states that during this process there will be a tight monitoring of Turkey's behaviour, more even so given that Turkey has more things to improve then ALL other members states who recently joined (at the tim of their opening of negotiations)! or is Mr. dehaene also an irrelevant idiot for you, somebody who's meaning doesn't count in the eyes of our greek self-declared supreme judge!--Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is in english and you clearly stated that "this recommendation" "now faces democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures". That's WRONG. Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh so silly. I clearly mentionned something more general "recommendation and eventual accession", and not just the 'recommendation' as you ripped this out of a whole. Buy the way, in Belgium, parliament has the right to vote NO on both questions separately! --Rudi Dierick 18:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Study on the meaning of the word "and", idiot boy. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The eventual accession *will* face democratic approval processes in European and member states legislative procedures (same as all countries' accession will), but the recommendation is just a recommendation, and doesn't need to be approved by any legislative procedure at all. That's just wrong, and another thing that needs be removed. Aris Katsaris 00:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really believe this yourself? That there won't have to be no majority votes in the parliaments of ALL current members states -including Cyprus!- as well as referendums in many member states before Turkey will be able to join? --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And don't pretend I said other things then what I said: I clearly said that the it is the accession that requires democratic approval, not this current state of discussions and recommandations. As far as I know, but I might be wrong, this recommandation requiries only a democratic OK vote from the European Parliament.

You clearly said that "this recommendation" will now face democratic approval processes. You can't even read the stuff you write, and you expect to comprehend the stuff *I* write. And ofcourse the accesion of Turkey will face democratic approval processes SAME AS EVERY OTHER ACCEDING COUNTRY. Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, indeed, both the recommendation+opening f negotiations, andf the later, eventuel accession will gace democratic approval! Here in Belgium, there is quite some debate and eventual voting o this stage (recommendation) of the discussions, whether the national governement should inist on a more 'average' or even a more strict interpretation of the Copenhagen criteria; later, of course, there might be another round of debates and possibly a vote of confidence on the opening of negotiations, and then on in a third stage, if it goes that far, another round of debate and then certainly voting of accession. Evidence is in Ducth (and probably some in French). --Rudi Dierick 18:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And be sure there will be +/- 30 different majorities needed, 25 in national parliaments and then some more in decisive referendums (some are only consultative; thers are constitutionally required). So, 30 majorities needed, isn't that a beautifill democratic approval process for the accession? --Rudi Dierick 09:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are either insane or English-illiterate or a blatant liar. I'm done talking with you. I'll keep on revising the article, deleting your lies, accepting only facts you've adequately referenced as you've proven utterly utterly untrustworthy in your input, having gone as far as revising both your text and that of others -- you even excised after-the-fact my name from your first post in this thread -- Why? Would you hate people to see how you invited me in this thread by naming me? Aris Katsaris 14:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No comments on the 30-somewhat necessary yes-votes? Is yelling and shouting the only thing you're able to? And of course, I forget that this self-declared 'Uebermensch' feels that he has a superior right to decide what's good enough!

Why should I comment on something that I already commented on many posts ago when I said "The eventual accession *will* face democratic approval processes in European"? Study on the meaning of the word "and", idiot boy. Aris Katsaris 18:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, there is some good reading overhere at x

Other issues hindering Turkey's accssion

The EU itself requires a general alignment of any new member state on the so-called 'acquis communautaire' (or acquis' in short). From 1 several failures are explicitely noted for Turkey, p. 16: "Turkey remains in the black list of the secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State controls. Cypriot vessels or vessels having landed in Cyprus are still not allowed in Turkish ports" --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the EU's desire that Turkey stops its conflict w. Armenia, following implicit quote: "The accession of Turkey would extend the EU’s borders to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Through Turkey the EU could have a stabilizing influence in Southern Caucasus, provided that Turkey is willing to try to solve conflicts with its neighbours already before its accession (p. . As Turkey has no conflicts with Azerbaidjan, nor with Georgia, this can ONLY refer to the open conflict with Armenia. And indeed; it continues: "In particular, its relations with Armenia will need to be improved with the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the land border which is currently closed." --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like this quote comes from a related document 'ISSUES ARISING FROM TURKEY’S MEMBERSHIP PERSPECTIVE', to be found on 2

So, who claimed that it was just me or only other irrelevant persons who advocated that Turkey should end its conflict with Armenia? Well, as from you, Mr. Katsakis, you should be informed that is is exactly the European Commission itself who asks Turkey to stop its hostilities against Armenia! --Rudi Dierick 22:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the 'acquis communautaire' in the area of justice and home affairs, the recommendation says: "progress is required in important areas such as the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption.--81.82.136.43 09:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the relevant section on Turkey on this page should be condensed and summarised, with a link to a more expansive page on Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Turkish issues cannot dominate a page about so many countries and their accession prospects/status. zoney ♣ talk 10:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a good suggestion to me. maybe all country specific sections shuld be moved towards dedicated Wikipedia entries. --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do remember saying that it was a blatant falsehood when you either erred or lied claiming that Turkey puts no connection between her embargo on Armenia and the Nagorn Karabakh conflict. But even though I provided the reference that proved you wrong, you keep on adding what has now definitely become a knowing lie on your part. Aris Katsaris 14:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the 'Issues ...' document, an official EU document, more specifically a 'COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT', ref. Brussels, 6.10.2004, SEC(2004) 1202, it mentions Armenia. In this report, the EU also suggests, as far as I understand it, that Turkey should start doing something it has failed to do untill now, being "contribute to easing tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the dispute concerning Nagorno-Karabakh". Indeed, contribute to easing tensions is something rather different from participating in the conflict trough applying economic pressure. --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You know I've just downloaded the link you provided, and a search through the text shows no single mention of the word "Armenia", let alone mention of opening of land borders or establishing democratic relations. So, unless you are referring to some other PDF file, sorry but I'll have to assume you are blatantly lying again: There's the quote about the Paris Memorandum, but none of the quotes about Armenia. A liar again?Aris Katsaris 14:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like references got mixed up. Just have a look at the equally official EU report 'Issues arising from Turkey's membership perspective'. It mentions Armenia six times. Have a good reading! Anyway, looks also like your 'general understanding on, and knowledge of' tensions between Turkey and Armenia is massively out-of-dated given that everything I said is mentionned in these official EU reports, while none of your assertions on this got confirmed!

So, now it's your turn to start providing evidence for your claims and supporting the cuts you made! --Rudi Dierick 19:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does noone else see a problem with POV here?

Am I the only one who will have to keep on removing blatant POV like Rudi's so-bad-it's-funny "This line of reasoning is quite bizar, but very revealing; as the EU defines itself very explicitely as a secular club, even removing a historic references towards christianity from its consitution-being-written, then why shoud Turkish governement and protagonists of Turkey joiningthe EU insist on seeing the EU as a christian club?"? Does noone else care about removing such crap from Wikipedia?

How about the POV of "The tight economic embargo against Armenia, although this country didn't commit an hostility of any scale warranting such a painfull economic embargo"? Am I the only one seeing this as unacceptable POV, utterly unbecoming of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia now taking positions on what warrants painful economic embargos and what doesn't?

How about Rudi's several exclamation marks in the text? Am I the only one who sees both a stylistic and POV problem with these?

If none of you can bother with removing the POV, atleast do help him improve the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Aris Katsaris 14:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There indeed are still issues with the content (IMO), but I have left all points intact (though removing detail too in-depth for this page that is not just about Turkey). If there is disagreement on my version, please rework, not revert. I have been considering protecting the page, but I figured that getting involved might help more. If the revert war continues, I shall ask another admin to protect the page (their decision as to which version). Rest assured that the page history shows clearly the party at greatest fault in this dispute. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. zoney ♣ talk 18:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your "compromise" version would be fine with me. You are much better at reworking stuff than I am, who am unfortunately more prone to deleting offensively-unWikipedian content. Aris Katsaris 21:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful contents for which the contributor after request can not provide references within one one or two weeks can and should be deleted if it can not be reworked into something acceptable. We should keep this encyclopedia free from nonsense, esp. for such an important subject such as this one. I have the impression that Rudi does not supply sufficient references for his assertions but that is a mere impression and I do not have time to study the evidence. Andries 20:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pardon? Not sufficient evidence? For most of the items disputed by Mr. katsakis, I've provided officiel reports from Eu and COE that confirmed one by one those items. the number of statements I wrote, that Mr. katsaris hotly and o so diplomatically disputed, and that then were EXACTLy confirmed by the official reports, it's a long list. For none, Mr. Katsaris was able to provide authoritative evidence that said the oppsosite of what I wrote! Moreover, ALL the references in the article as it is today were added by me, that makes up 100%. Sofar, Mr. katsaris has not been able to provide anything close to that. Verify the references and in the article and the discussion yourself. So, I'm really very surprised by your statement that I consider wholly erronuus, unfair and indeed, superficial (as, you somehow honestly acknowledged by saying you had no "time to study the evidence"). Moreover, I don't consider it according to the sipirit and the guidelines for somebody who did not (yet) had the time the study, already to propose deleting!

Furthermore, also have a look at the totally different approaches by Mr. katsaris and Zoney.

In short: I feel, also in the absence of any clarfication or explication from your side on exactly what you consider dubious, that your comment is really misplaced and grosly disrespectfull.

Rudi, I empasized that is was a mere impression and I will refrain from making more comments before I have studied the evidence. I may have been totally wrong. Andries 22:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem is more about POV than it is about factual accuracy -- Rudy did manage eventually to back *one* statement he made (the one about Armenia) and I accepted it in the reworking of the article. The problem of the blatant POV however remains as Rudy readded it after Zoney's edit -- such statements like "Altough Turkey pretends being in favour of a secular state and respecting gender equality, thousands of state-paid imams still consacrate polygamous mariages" or "The recent 'recognition' of the Kurdish language by Turkish authorities appears to be a cosmetic operation"

If those polygamous marriages aren't recognized by the state, I don't see what it has to do with the state's secularism. In fact it's a POV idea (even if one I tend to agree with) that polygamy (regardless whether recognized by the state or not) necessarily implies gender inequality. Likewise POV is the characterization of the recognition of Kurdish as "cosmetic". As judged by whom? Aris Katsaris 22:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of Language

In the section about Turkey, it is written "bogus" without a "totally" in front. This is clearly bad form. GWC Autumn 55 2004 22.20 EST

Appalling standard of the Turkey section hopefully improved

I hope the section on Turkey is now significantly better than it was. It was quite dreadful that the content remained in its current state for so long - but it was a nasty piece of work to tackle.

I do suggest that the main body of the section will need moved to a sub-article, with only a short summary remaining, consisting of three/four short paragraphs on:

• History (as is)
• EU concerns (brief - mention areas but do not detail)
• Turkey progress (brief - general direction and general obstacles still)
• EU plans (brief - no unnecessary speculation)

This article here (Enlargement of the European Union) is not solely about Turkey.

zoney ♣ talk 22:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)