Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union

Two things at once?

How can Bosnia and Herzegovina be both a potential candidate and an applicant at the same time? I understand that would be a potential candidate since it has applied but not completed the questionnaire, and that it would be an applicant since it has applied. But how can it be both?

I don't know exactly who determines this or who, but doesn't any country that applies become an applicant? And if not, then wouldn't be Bosnia and Herzegovina be only a potential candidate, if we're going off of the fact that they haven't completed the questionnaire as the threshold?

Is there no official position on this from the European Union that can simply be used in all mentions of the country's status, rather than this confusing combination of both? Thanks to the editors who have contributed to this page. I'm looking forward to learning more about this issue!

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed confusing, but it is the best possible way to summarize the position of EU towards Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As of 23 June 2022, two countries are considered potential candidates (the other one is Kosovo), but only B&H has applied (see https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/joining-eu_en).

The potential candidate status is a way for EU to show support towards the country, even if the formal process is not advancing or has not started yet. It is yet to be seen if Georgia will be given the same potential candidate status during the EU Council of June 2022. Hetsre (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Georgia has just been given the "European perspective" [1]. This seems to be the same as the "potential candidacy" status, if we compare the terminology of European Commission [2] and European Council [3] used for the Western Balkans. Kammerer55 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Its essentially saying that Georgia hasnt met the minimum governance standard to be a candidate but has been recognized as culturally European and thus eligible for membership. WatcherZero (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that EU recognizes Georgia as a Potential candidate. Even if I understand and agree that it can be inferred by the terminology of EU Commission's opionion, as of 2020-07-01 the list of Candidate countries has been updated with Ukraine and Moldova, but the list of Potential candidates does not include Georgia.[4]. Should the page be less definitive, as per WP:NORUSH? Hetsre (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The list [5] has been updated once again and it now explicitly mentions Georgia as the potential candidate. Thank you for the good point though! Kammerer55 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Error with the map

Although Great Britain left the EU, Northern Ireland stayed. We need to correct this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#/media/File:European_Union_member_states_and_candidates_v2.svg LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Um no it didn't, and your map very clearly shows that it didn't. Canterbury Tail talk 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Spain

We're going back and forwards on this text:

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. The reunification of the island with Spain, and its integration into the EU, as a Spanish autonomous community has been proposed. There is a similar proposal for Cuba. However, unlike for Puerto Rico, it does not have political representation and is maintained in organizations from France.

Is seems to me and Super Dromaeosaurus that this is a very niche proposal that isn't being discussed within the context of EU enlargement, so it doesn't warrant inclusion here. However, UlyssorZebra and Terlines are keen on the text. It would be helpful if some further editors waded in to help us move forward. Bondegezou (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all agree some potential “member state expansions” must be included in the article (e.g. United Ireland), and some can't (e.g. Russia becoming a state of Germany). So we have to decide which criteria we'll use to separate those that will be included and those that won't. I propose we include those supported by at least one party represented in the national/regional parliament of at least one of the countries/regions involved.

As the Republican Turkish Party supports the reunification of Cyprus, Sinn Féin supports a United Ireland, and the Alliance for the Union of Romanians supports the unification of Moldova and Romania, I think these proposals should be included in the article. But as far as I know not one political party represented in the parliaments of Spain, Puerto Rico, or Cuba, supports either of the two islands reunifying with Spain. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a threshold: we shouldn’t cover any proposal that’s ever been mentioned. I think your analysis of political parties’ positions makes a good point in terms of the relative importance of these different proposals. That said, I don’t think we need a rule quite in that form. We can just go on WP:BALANCE — but it’s the same result. Bondegezou (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with having some kind of rule. It could be enough with analyzing each case individually. Very clearly, there's an active relevant movement in Northern Ireland and Moldova supporting unification with Ireland and Romania, respectively. For Cyprus, as Northern Cyprus is unrecognized, the possibility of reunification is always possible, and there has been a UN plan for this, the Annan Plan. No such plan has been done for uniting Cuba, Puerto Rico and Spain and it is a fringe movement I can bet that few people of those countries have heard about. Super Ψ Dro 10:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article itself notes: "the idea is a long shot". Moreover, there is no expressed intent at the institutional level. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I do think this page should include the notable unlikely ideas (notability here is implied by the articles it refers to) as long as they don't bring undue weight, and as long as they don't imply they are likely. That's also fairly standard across other pages - e.g., several unlikely countries are included in Enlargement of NATO (see the section "other proposals"); same for the unlikely 51st states (see the section "Use internationally"). To align fully with these pages, we could create a separate section for the EU for these "other proposals" which introduces these initiatives as unlikely and keeps them succinct (e.g., limits them to one sentence each). I do agree that just putting them under the "Spain" section may bring a false equivalence. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

According to this logic, we should include at European Union#Internal enlargement or at Withdrawal from the European Union every single secessionist or nationalist movement within the 27 states that has an article. That's a lot. There's no point in doing that unless the movements are realistic or very (more like actually) strong, such as Catalonia (in the past). And I disagree with that "Other proposals" section. It's not integrated with the rest of the article, just a random section to include some random info. Super Ψ Dro 10:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Critically, anything we are including needs to have reliable sources discussing not just the concept of a country expanding, but specifically of the territory being part of (or not being part of) the EU. Otherwise, we're just synthesizing context (EU member A could annex X, which would make X part of the EU) without having actual sourcing to show the significance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We should indeed always use reliable sources and always avoid SYNTH/OR. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for input. I think it’s apparent that most editors oppose this text’s inclusion. I will remove the text. Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Mistake on status of Turkey

Indeed European Parliament has voted to suspend the negotiaton with Turkey. However, the final decision is on the European Council and there was no decision on suspencion for the acession process yet. Also EU Parliament vote is not binding. EU Council can still decide to continue with the accession process. Which the council had not taken any step yet on Turkey's accession hence Turkey is still an 'official candidate'.

This page is currently missinforming the readers. In fact the EU Comission is still doing its yearly screening on Turkey for EU Acession since 2019 (the year that EU Parliament voted for suspension). In fact there is a accession report for 2020, 2021 and 2022. Currently Turkey is has a 'candidate' status. If any of the moderators can help fix the chart and map I would be happy.

The official EU Commission pages still says that Turkey's current status is a 'candidate country'.

https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/turkiye_en

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/eu-enlargement_en

Metuboy (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Metuboy. I am responding to your message here, since my talk page isn't the place for a discussion regarding this topic/article. I think the confusion here lies with understanding the difference between Turkey's candidate status and Turkey's application status. Turkey being a candidate state is not in dispute in this article- it is a recognized candidate country, just as your sources confirm. However, their application status is in fact frozen. Most EU accession chapters with Turkey have been frozen since the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (479 votes in favour and 37 against) of freezing negotiations. While the decision is not legally binding, the vote did support a temporary freeze which has mostly held up since. This does not mean that Turkey is no longer a candidate country, just that their application progress (opening/closing chapters) is at a near standstill due to political/human rights concerns. To summarize, Turkey is still technically a candidate country and started negotiations in 2005, however, since 2016 the vast majority of accession chapters remain unopened and negotiations stalled. Therefore, the terminology used in the article is factually correct. I hope this clears it up for you. Archives908 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Cleanup banner

I propose to remove the Cleanup banner: the issue has been addressed in my opinion, since the Current agenda section has been extensively updated. Hetsre (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Archives908 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Labour Party

I have re-added the Labour Party to the list of opponents to the UK's ascension to the EU, along with two sources including one from a UK paper of record. Edits to this effect have been removed at least three times by the same IP editor with claims that "the party is divided" on the issue of the EU. I don't doubt this, but unless a source can be found that says otherwise, the elements of the party who are sympathetic to Europe do not outweigh Keir Starmer's very clearly and very widely reported position on the issue. JayAmber (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)