Talk:Potential enlargement of the European Union

Potential enlargement of the European Union was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 3, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Potential enlargement of the European Union appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,731 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and a majority of Israel's population support future enlargement of the European Union to incorporate Israel?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

Wikipedia

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 30 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Future enlargement of the European Union. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Russia–European Union relations#Membership|Russia–European Union relations]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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)[reply]

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."[1]

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."[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. I also support updating the timeline table. Salto Loco (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, see my comment above. Hetsre (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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..." [3]

That sound very suspended and very frozen to me, whatever you want to call it.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) NasssaNser_talk 15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

or Further enlargement of the European Union Salto Loco (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Note: WikiProject European Union has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose - I agree that the proposed title is presumptive. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I agree with TheSavageNorwegian //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose, same reasons above. Hetsre (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 _words^deeds 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Are these two rows mixed up for Albania and North Macedonia?

In the timeline table:

Council decides to open negotiations 24 Mar 2020 26 Jun 2012 24 Mar 2020 28 Jun 2013

Council sets negotiations start date 26 Jun 2018 26 Jun 2012 18 Jun 2019 17 Dec 2013

Should it rather be the other way around? Surely setting the start date can't happen before deciding to open negotiations? P.S. For all other countries that reached this point in the timeline, 'Council sets negotiations start date' happens after 'Council decides to open negotiations.' Hoinar-in-lume (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]