Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union/Archive 3

Let's talk Russia
I'm in favor of including Russia in the list of countries not on the current enlargement agenda. I'd be in favor of expanding this list to include every European nation not in the EU and not on the agenda, so a layman could tell at a glance what the challenges are for each nation. Let's add Belarus next. Sure, the odds are vanishingly small they'll get on the agenda in the near- and mid-term, but lets spell out exactly why. I agree there shouldn't be editorializing here. As an encyclopedia though, it's our responsibility to make this a complete list. Not everyone knows about the current geopolitical situation between Russia and the EU.  The Savage  Norwegian  08:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Against. There need to be some criteria. All countries listed has some formal relationship with EU what going into way of membership or once has so official candidature, Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement, past membership try, persuing membership at least formal government policy in that way, even referendum. Russia nothing of that and except speculations, it is currently outside of any serious or any talks at all about that. Things should be out of personal pov, or fan based stories. Eu is official organisation, there is official ways and conditions and countries what are official in a way to get membership and fan fiction or predictions should be at personal blogs etc and list to be clear as possible. With focus on real and ongoing proceses.178.221.105.216 (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How many countries would we have to add to complete the list for all European nations? The microstates and Belarus. Not a very large extension of the article, and we'd have a complete list. We have polling for Russia, I found that info interesting and useful, all else aside. What article to put that polling into if not this one? And where in this article to put it if not this list? See what I mean? I agree that the opinions of out-of-power political parties aren't on the same level as an association agreement. Point taken there wholeheartedly.  The Savage  Norwegian  08:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How many nations to complete the list for all European nations? Exactly! Already many nations has some of criteria what I listed, when ones who stayed out made some we can add, it is Wikipedia always updating, big news are easy to add, better then to we speculate or make wishlist without any real core thing what suggesting to there can be membership one day. Just countries with past membership application, frozen or removed, official government policy, declared by government as a goal to there will be membership, government official indication to that will be policy, strong agreements in a way what can go into full membership etc. List should be clear as possible. With focus on real as possible things and clear based things. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and if we go deep into speculations and predictions who can predict will EU exist or what countries will be in or out or would there be EU at all. So based things, and official as possible. 178.221.105.216 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a legal text or planning summary for authorities such as the European Union. Wikipedia should inform the readers about the situation. We should be able to explain that Russia is not on the agenda and why, although it can be even shorter than the suggestion that was added and deleted. And Belarus should be mentioned also. Maybe we done't even need a box with a map, because it might be provocative to editors who oppose Russia, maybe short texts with links to Russia–European Union relations and Belarus–European Union relations and no mention of political parties. --BIL (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree to Wikipedia is not a legal text or planning summary for authorities such as the EU but also Wikipedia is not crystal ball to predicts future, also not soapbox for promotion or advocacy. There is many forums where users play with predictions etc. But Wikipedia is different. Talk is about article with the name"Future enlargement of the European Union" what suggesting to some day in future there can be countries who can be members of EU and to EU can become larger. If EU does not have any criteria ok would be different, more free about predictions, but as EU keep criteria about how some country can become a member, if there is a countries not on agenda but what has some criteria what clearly indicate to they requested membership, removed membership request, government officialy made membership aspirations or there is some agreement what indicate to there can be membership one day, we should not fall in a trap to speculate and behave like there is crystal ball. Funny example came in my mind, all soccer players are potential members to some soccer club all until they are active players but we can't add any name of any random soccer player under some club article just cuz it is in theory possible to one day that player become player of that club. If Belarus or Russia does make in the future some step what can indicate membership in some serious way, if things are changed, start nagotiations, or at least their governments announce that as official policy or aspiration, we can add that really fast and easy. There is already articles about Belarus and Russia relations with EU, but when that relations start to fit in the topic of this article, to there is strong indication to that countries will or wish to one day become part of EU we can add that. That is just my opinion in some logical way as I see things. 178.221.105.216 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that the headline is "States not on the agenda". According to your private principles, states have to have some kind of agenda to fit among "States not on the agenda". Maybe we can make a headline "States absolutely not on the agenda" and in very short mention that and link to articles about Russia and Belarus and keep "States not on the agenda" to states who themselves actually have an agenda to be member even if EU don't wish them. Please read Wikipedia is not censored. We don't need write about what's in the crystal ball, we already have a legal text, article 49 of the EU Treaty saying "Any European State which (conditions) may apply to become a member". We can just link to the articles which elaborates on these conditions. We are even censoring our own articles.--BIL (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2020

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Potential enlargement of the European Union. There is a clear consensus that the current title is suboptimal, and that a change would be an improvement. Between the possibilities, "potential" has the most support, and is well-argued to convey that the prospective enlargement is neither certain nor merely imaginative. BD2412 T 17:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Future enlargement of the European Union → Proposed enlargement of the European Union – The word "future" implies certainty in its occurence. "Proposed" more accurately represents the contents of the article, which includes countries realistically unlikely to ever accede to the Union. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't love proposed, since some of the cases in this article are really more things that have been discussed or seen as possibilities more than they've actually been proposed. But I get the logic behind the move -- what about prospective or potential?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I second Yaksar. The reasoning behind the move makes sense, but the scope currently exceeds confirmed candidate countries. I support Potential enlargement of the European Union. CMD (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I like potential the most too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe proposed is a better alternative either. In certain countries like Georgia and Ukraine- eventual EU membership is the goal of the respective governments. In return, the EU has recognized the Euro-orientation of these states; it is well beyond a simple "proposal" at this point. As for other states which will probably never accede to the EU like Russia or Kazakhstan, the article already covers the obstacles and opposition to EU membership these states face, making it pretty clear that future membership is unlikely. Archives908 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Potential is more accurate than proposed, I think. The emphasis in the word "proposed" suggests agreement has already been reached, while "potential" offers the suggestion of likelihood and rejection. "Future" actually isn't so bad though I can see how it also suggests a journey to a destination. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, if it were to be changed, potential would be more accurate then proposed. I also agree that the current use of future isn't that bad... especially considering that many of these states have declared their ambitions/ intentions to join the EU in the future. Archives908 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why not something like Candidates for European Union membership? Avoids this issue altogether, whilst simultaneously being more descriptive of what the article is actually about in the first instance. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Candidates" has a very specific meaning in this context, the scope of which is exceeded by the article content. CMD (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. I'm aware of the specific nature of the term "candidate" in relation to EU membership; however, the article is focused largely on candidate and potential candidate states. Anything else is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory; e.g. the inclusion of the UK in the article - much as I personally hate to say it. The seven candidates and potential candidates ought to be, and are, the main focus; things like the association agreement countries are fine, and can be a separate section, but naturally are not the main subject of the article. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Future enlargement. There are several official candidates in this article. It's the goal of both the EU and these candidates to reach accession. Not sure how these plans don't qualify as future enlargement. It would be another matter altogether if we were at a point where there are no official candidates. I suppose I see the point that "future" plants the thought in your head of inevitability, but I don't think that's a terribly strong implication. If we change the name, I prefer Potential enlargement, since Proposed feels nebulous and not specific. Anyone can propose something. Potential has the whiff of feasibility.  The  Savage  Norwegian  15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Potential as more precise and not assuming it will happen (future) or is proposed.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is already rather a mess. Its content should be limited to those countries that are actual candidate countries and potential candidates: the Western Balkans and Turkey. All else should either be moved to European Neighbourhood Policy or just deleted as speculative. For the rest, I am against either potential, proposed, or even future: this page should just be called Enlargement of the European Union or EU enlargement policy; the current page, dealing with past enlargement, should be renamed Past enlargement of the European Union.--Dans (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is much simpler said then can be done. For starters, there is already a well written article for that. Please review Enlargement of the European Union carefully, this article covers the Western Balkans and Turkey significantly, it cannot simply be renamed to 'past enlargement' as the Western Balkans and Turkey have yet to join. Likewise, it would be unwise to transfer them here as they (mostly) are considered official candidates by the EU and have ongoing negotiations/intense dialogue for eventual membership. Most being well beyond mere 'proposals'. To have this article focus on that would be not only redundant, but confusing to the reader. Not to mention that significant work would have to be put into the Enlargement article, significant material would have to be switched here, and significant (and well sourced) material here would be lost. A lot of the information present here lies outside the current European Neighbourhood Policy official agenda and would not be appropriate to move to that article either. This article dives much deeper then ENP goals which were established a very long time ago, in most cases. However, I do agree that some information present may be in need of a tidy up, but there is plenty of well sourced information throughout this article which should not be neglected or over-looked. This suggestion is beyond the topic of the discussion and a whole new discussion/consensus (on both articles) would have to be reached. I believe, for the time being, its more practical and worthwhile to genuinely improve this article. Archives908 (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asterisks
I noticed Kosovo had asterisks after its mentions in the intro, without explanation. Presumably these are to note its more limited recognition. Given that this is already noted in the text directly following, I've removed the unexplained asterisks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Labour in the United Kingdom
I have removed Labour from the United Kingdom part of the article as the Labour Party has said that the United Kingdom would not rejoin the EU if Labour win power. If anything Labour should be in the opponents section. C. 22468 Talk to me  10:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Scotland
The part on Scotland may have to be amended and partially moved to another section to reflect the current state that they no longer form part of the EU. 14.0.236.217 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the text there to make clear this is now of historical note only with the UK out of the EU. What we also need somewhere, perhaps, is something discussing how if Scotland becomes independent, it may seek to rejoin the EU. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's cool. 14.0.236.217 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added this as best I can with references Abcmaxx (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Current Agenda" needs to be reviewed
Current Agenta has a small issue in the "Obstacles" part, some countries "Obstacles" are up to date while some are slight outdated, this is an an small issue if you consider the progress every nation does every year or new issues they are dealing with, same nations even have a 5-6 year old article and in some cases what the article mentions hasn't fully being mentioned. I mean there's not a significant difference to those old articles made 5-6 years ago to current situation (2021), but there's some. Albania and North Macedonia have made significant progress lately which is over the news that they completed the "conditions" EU placed for open negotiations, but Bulgaria veto affected both nations not only North Macedonia since these two are paired (you can find sources easily about this especially after EU didn't start negotiations with Albania due to Bulgaria veto on North Macedonia). Montenegro has some problems like: controversial religion law which made the state go in heavy protests and since then hasn't changed, many ethnic issues (especially after srebrenica massacre new law which passed recently and before that when the new government won elections), the Chinese dept, Dukanovic former government corruption and many more corruption stuff which happened lately. Serbia few more problems like: "autocratic" government, being pro Russian and Chinese (which EU recently added more sanctions to Russia and stoped trade with China) and no progress against corruption. Also border disputes with Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kosovo and Bosnian and Herzegovina are mostly the same with minor or no changes in the past years. I hope someone who knows to use Wikipedia better than me will take a look at this :) . Side note: What I mentioned can be easily found in Google and latest EU report. User:2A02:587:E240:B200:2993:78C1:DE30:1044 02:52, 3 July 2021‎


 * I patrly agree with above; firstly Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova are actively on the agenda and moving towards this. Secondly Turkey, Bosnia and Kosovo are still on the agenda but progress has stalled. San Marino, Switzerland and Iceland have historic precedents on trying to join, so are different to e.g. UK or Armenia, where there are viable movements to join but no formal attempts to do so. The whole section is a mess to be honest, I've tagged the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Georgia
Georgia has just announced its immediately submitting an application for expediated membership in response to Russian invasion of Ukraine that will be delivered tomorrow. https://georgiatoday.ge/kobakhidze-govt-expeditiously-preparing-application-for-eu-candidate-status/ WatcherZero (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
Let's talk Ukraine: The country, at this moment, is clearly an applicant. For it to be "negotiating", the European Council has to approve. --Xolani (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The table says questionnaire response has been delivered. Technically this is just the response to part 1 - the rest will be returned mid May: 217.151.41.201 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Commission Opinions on Association Trio
Yesterday, User:Hetsre made [|this edit], based on Tweets from European Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Olivér Várhelyi about the Commission receiving the questionnaires from the Association Trio countries (Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) and working on its Opinions about them. I believe Hetsre's edit was based on a misunderstanding. We were previously using the word "prepare" to refer to the Commission's Opinion, and Commissioner Várhelyi used the same word. But what matters for our progress table is when things officially move, and what the Tweet was talking about is a work in progress. The three Opinions in question still haven't been issued as of today, much less in mid-May.

To clarify the matter, I have rephrased "Commission prepares Opinion" to "issues Opinion", and added a link to the official press release of the Opinion about Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe the table cells for the Opinions about Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine should be filled in only when we have similar press releases for the official, completed Opinions for those countries. Amorim Parga (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I completely agree. The new phrasing is more clear. Hetsre (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing the information about the acquis chapters
The lower half of the Status table shows the "Situation of policy area at the start of membership negotiations (Turkey, reference states), at candidate status recommendation (North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) or membership application opinion (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina)".

Because this information represents the situation at different specific points in the accession process of each state, it isn't useful when comparing the accession processes of the different states in the table. It also doesn't show the most recent available information for each state. This sets it apart from the rest of the information provided in the table, which is both the most recent available information and useful when comparing the different states.

Therefore, I propose removing this information from the table and leave it only in the article about each state's accession process (e.g. Accession of Montenegro to the European Union). Brainiac242 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the European Commission is using now a different scale, ranging from "early stage" to "well prepared". Hetsre (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

How about we leave it, but update it to the latest evaluation? After all, every year the European Commission releases a report for each of the candidates and potential candidates. It's helpful to see a chapter status comparison table between the different candidates instead of diving into each countries' individual pages. --Eu6 (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think that “chapter status comparison” would be better as a separate table, one that doesn’t include the four “reference states”. I mean, their latest evaluation was basically the Commission saying everything was ready for accession. Brainiac242 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. Detaching it and keeping it separate without the reference states would provide clear and useful information. Eu6 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with separation and removal of reference states. 2021 scores can be found here https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jKyF7 Hetsre (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. I split the table, removed the reference states, and updated it according to the 2021 European Commission reports. There's some data missing, but I can't find it in the official reports and it isn't in the source provided by Hetsre either. Brainiac242 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Regarding missing data, chapters 34 and 35 are not acquis chapters per se, and they are considered only in special circumstances. To date, only Serbia needs negotiations for chapter 35 (Other issues). The report for Kosovo is slightly different from the others, probably because the country did not apply for EU accession yet.
 * Thank you for the good work! Hetsre (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Summary table needs to be updated
As the title says the summary table needs to be updated to the latest information about what obstacles each candidate/applicant has. Right now old sources are used. S.G ReDark (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian/Moldovan candidacy
Both Ukraine and Moldova have officially gained the status of EU candidates DakeFasso (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The page has been updated accordingly. Hetsre (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, could you change the color that represents Ukraine and Moldova in the map from yellow to light-green? DakeFasso (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to simplify the Summary table
I think if people want to know the date at which a specific state completed a specific step in the accession process, they can see it in the Timeline table. If they want to know which policy areas a state has progressed the least at, they can see that in this section. If they want to read more about the accession process of each state, the details, the issues, the controversies, they can do so in each state's accession article, or, more generally, here.

The Summary table should, in my opinion, be just that, a summary. I propose to simplify the table significantly. Here is an example of how Moldova's row could look like:

Brainiac242 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I support this idea. S.G ReDark (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to wait a few more days before doing it, to give other people a chance to comment. Brainiac242 (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In case the table is simplified, we should move the column Chapters somewhere else (probably in Level of preparation for acquis chapters), as to keep the information about the opened and closed Chapters during negotiations. Hetsre (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We could move it, but I was actually thinking something like this:

Brainiac242 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok for me! Hetsre (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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" . This seems to be the same as the "potential candidacy" status, if we compare the terminology of European Commission and European Council  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.. Should the page be less definitive, as per WP:NORUSH? Hetsre (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The list 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 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, and  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 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)

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)


 * Why not specify it as such? Labour's party leadership is against reversing Brexit, but its base is divided. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Switzerland
"Main obstacles: Swiss public opinion and direct democracy."

Since when is direct democracy an obstacle? Source? Doesn't seem to be plausible. --217.240.56.175 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-Sovereign States
This section seems entirely superfluous. Non-sovereign states cannot join the EU. In the example provided, Scotland would need to secede from the UK, becoming a sovereign state in its own right, before it were to become eligible for EU membership. The SNP’s approach to Scottish membership is based on that.

Given that, I suggest that the Non-Sovereign States section should be removed, as well as the Sovereign States sub-heading be removed. ZElsb (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Poor quality map of San Marino and EU
The map of San Marino and EU in "States not on the agenda" section is of poor quality and should be changed. WikiEnjoyer123 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Negotiations with Moldova/Ukraine
Is it correct saying negotiations with Moldova and Ukraine "opened in December 2023", like the table currently says? It seem to me that EU decided to greenlight negotiation but actual negotiations would start by March 2024, meaning they have not yet started: https://apnews.com/article/eu-ukraine-hungary-russsia-war-aid-6a3a5828483121f19193f76b373ca692

I think there is excitement that this is happening but saying they are negotiating in present tense may not be factual.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, see my comment above. Hetsre (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not see that when I scrolled down. Then let's close this and continue discussion on your section since you were first, seems right.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Turkey negotiations suspended
Is it really correct to label Turkey's negotiations as flat out being suspended? I get they aren't going anywhere right now, but the EU's website doesn't really note anything about them flat out being suspended. Not to mention, the EU Parliament vote doesn't affect the negotiations, it was just an opinion vote. I feel it makes more sense to just label them as a regular negotiating candidate, since that's what the EU considers them according to: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/eu-enlargement_en

Also to tag on to the other discussions, Moldova and Ukraine are not yet negotiating, and therefore should be labelled as regular candidates. The EU's site for enlargement linked above notes that as well. Just my two cents. EnglishPackets (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "In December 2022, the Council of the European Union reiterated its position of June 2018 that Türkiye continues to move further away from the European Union and that ''accession negotiations with the country are therefore at a standstill and no further chapters can be considered for opening or closing..."
 * That sound very suspended and very frozen to me, whatever you want to call it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Moldova and Ukraine candidates negotiationg
Moldova and Ukraine are not technically candidates negotiating yet, since there is not a starting date to open the negotiations yet. From the EU Council conclusions:

"The European Council decides to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and with the Republic of Moldova. The European Council invites the Council to adopt the respective negotiating frameworks once the relevant steps set out in the respective Commission recommendations of 8 November 2023 are taken."

Should we refrain from considering them as candidates negotiating until the official start of the negotiations? I understand it would be very difficult and may require the temporary protection of the page. Open to discussion. Hetsre (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Nobody happier to see Moldova and Ukraine been given permission to start negotiating but negotiations don't look like they're currently already happening. This article suggest it may not happen until March 2024: https://apnews.com/article/eu-ukraine-hungary-russsia-war-aid-6a3a5828483121f19193f76b373ca692


 * Also, when commission initially recommended opening negotiations it says "the Commission recommends that Council adopts the negotiating frameworks once Ukraine and Moldova have adopted certain key measures. The Commission stands ready to report to Council by March 2024 on the progress relating to these measures."
 * Yesterday's decision said that "The European Council invites the Council to adopt the respective negotiating frameworks once the relevant steps set out in the respective Commission recommendations of 8 November 2023 are taken." So it really does appear some frameworks need to be created before actual negotiations start. I'm no expert so hopefully somebody knows the answer. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The EU accession is a complicated, bureaucratic and always changing process and there are many steps on the path which sometimes seem redundant. However, since it clearly says "The European Council decides to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and with the Republic of Moldova", then we should report it like that. Then, when the EU (either European Council or the Council of the EU) adopts the negotiating framework then we can report it as the next (separate!) step in the accession procedure. Also, I saw reports in Ukrainian sources that the general procedure was slightly tweaked this time to speed up Ukraine's accession process, so maybe that's why these two steps might look slightly different from what was previously reported in our big table for other countries. --Kammerer55 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the discussion below, it would be probably better to add a new row called "Council decides to open negotiations" in the table right before "Council sets negotiations start date" to better report what's happening. Kammerer55 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the main point of the EU decision was to allow the Commission to immediately start the acquis screening for Ukraine and Moldova to speed up further acceptance of the negotiating framework. So this is all part of the same "negotiating" process, even though it can be also thought of as the preparatory step. However, taking into account amount of political attention and reported importance for the event, it probably justifies the upgrade of status from "candidate" to "candidate negotiating" for Ukraine and Moldova. Just add the necessary notes/clarifications where necessary. (Also, we have another example of North Macedonia where none of the negotiating chapters were opened, so if Ukraine and Moldova are not considered negotiating candidates, a similar question might arise why do we consider North Macedonia as such.) Kammerer55 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the most Wikipedia-discussion ever. Nobody cared that North Macedonia and Albania hadn't opened any chapters, of course they were "negotiating". But now, all of sudden, because a few users think they need to have a new opinion, we are debating this? +1 for "negotiating". Couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this mess with the map as well. --~ Xolani (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also support updating the timeline table. Salto Loco (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This topic keeps reappearing. The map used in this article has also changed back and forth several times over the past few weeks. I therefore suggest a discussion on what "negotiating" actually means. As the map has changed recently, I've opened the discussion there. Maybe some of the people who participated in the discussion here want to chime in. Link to discussion --Xolani (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NasssaNsertalk 15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential enlargement of the European Union → Future enlargement of the European Union – more common name Salto Loco (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * or Further enlargement of the European Union Salto Loco (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The present word, Potential, is appropriately imprecise and so matches the reality, for example at the distant end Turkey and the UK but also true (if less so) of Georgia and Ukraine. Apart from violating WP:CRYSTAL, "Future enlargement" implies a strong degree of confidence that the remaining few hurdles will be cleared in the near future. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Future" definitely has more CRYSTAL vibes than "Potential". Both are descriptive titles, I'm not sure common name applies. CMD (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject European Union has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title implies the reality that no expansion is set in stone. If we rename, the discussion would immediately pivot to which countries don't deserve to be in this article because their ascension prospects are slim.  The Savage  Norwegian  18:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree that the proposed title is presumptive. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I agree with TheSavageNorwegian //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close - snowball oppose. Archives908 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, same reasons above. Hetsre (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was involved in the original move discussion that got us to "Potential". It was argued, correctly, that "future" suggests confirmation and certainty, while "potential" suggests discussion and processes. Under WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't assume completion until it's done. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.