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:
|
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. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
The "Constituent territories of former EU members" is unnecessary and misleading. Scotland cannot accede to the EU while remaining a part of the United Kingdom. Upon session (as the SNP campaign for), Scotland would be applying for membership like every other independent state (at which point the section becomes null). However, the section infers quite heavily that Scotland could apply to join without first seceding. ZElsb ( talk) 07:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
So, what do we do about Georgia, after today's news? See here and here. Xolani ( talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Folks- Georgia's EU candidacy status has not been formally revoked. Their negotiations to acceded to the EU has been halted. They are still technically a "candidate country". Please comprehend the difference. Regards, Archives908 ( talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
In 2020 EU adopted a revised enlargement negotiation methodology. This revised methodology was even integrated into similair revised provisions for the earlier adopted negotiation frameworks for Montenegro+Serbia in May 2021. Thus all 6 negotiating candidates currently follow the same 2020/21 revised enlargement negotiation methodology.
In line with the revised methodology:
On 26 June 2024, Montenegro just met the interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24. At the press conference, this achievement was described by the following words: "the opening phase of negotiations has now been completed, and the closing phase of negotions can now begin". The European Commissionair expected a "critical mass of chapters will now be closed during the second half of 2024". While the Prime Minister of Montenegro added his country now aspired to become an EU Member state by 2028 at the latest.
Perhaps the Wikipedia article should also mention the coined phrase "closing phase of negotiations" as an intermediate step for the negotiation status (referring to when a negotiating candidate met the interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24)? Or perhaps we should just mention "interim benchmarks for chapter 23+24 met" along with a linked explaining note what this means? Or should we continue to stay silent about this negotiation milestone, and only report how many chapters have been closed?
As we have witnessed for Montenegro and Serbia, it can take several years to achieve the milestone "interim benchmark for chapter 23+24 met", which mean a long period with no progress to report on the number of closed chapters. As Montengro now passed this milestone, they are now obviously one major step ahead of Serbia in their negotiation process. Furthermore my understanding is, that the revised enlargement methodology dictates that no chapters can be closed for Ukraine+Moldova+Albania+North Macedonia, before they reach the same milestone "interim benchmark for chapter 23+24 met". In my point of view, it would therefor also be relevant for the next step status table, to somehow reflect that this milestone step has now been achieved for Montengro. But let me know what you think? Danish Expert ( talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)