Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What does "EU special territories" mean or indicate? - Texture 17:49, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) I think the name EU special territories is a bit confusing, since a lot of countries/territories named in the article are not part of the EU and therefore cannot be regarded as being "EU special territories". Additionally, the expression EU special territories sounds as it were an official notion, which is not the case - Gugganij 23:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

What does "Metropolitan Spain" exactely mean? - Gugganij 23:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

removed "Metropolitan Spain". This term was too confusing and ambiguous.

moved/renamed the "EU special territories" wiki to "Territories with special agrements with the European union" (Territories_that_have_a_special_agreement_with_the_European_Union). TheWikipedian

What is sealand doing in here? If it's not recognised how can it have a special agreement? Secretlondon 21:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

agreed. Both countries information will be moved to expansion of the EU wiki in as "Misc" subsection.

Originally, this wiki was created to explain the different situations of overseas territories and enclaves of sovereign states. Later, it grew to include special agrements of the microstates, and now, some third countries such as Turkey. The recent change to "territories that have...." is just a proposal, so if someone can find a less confusing title, feel free to rename ot.

TheWikipedian 16:21 GMT+2

---

split this wiki in two:

wiki 1: "Special member state territories and their relations with the EU"

wiki 2: "Third Country relationships with the European union"

I hope that this will FINALLY solve the ambiguous nature of the present wiki. TheWikipedian 19:37 GMT+2

---

Disagreeing with the above comment, I suggest that the contents of this page be merged into a new page to be created, The political geography of Europe. That page would list all the European nations, plus controversial cases, with notes; and all the information on this page. The resulting information could be referred to from different places, and if nothing else, the ever-continuing dispute on what is the exact list of European countries could be confined to a single page. (I also suggested the creation of such a page on Talk:Europe.) Teemu Leisti 23:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other territories

Dou you dare to deal with the statuses Olivenza and earlier Portuguese Timor, Hong Kong and Macau?

-- (Answer)

I had thought about Olivenza and thought it was pointless since, though it was disputed, it had no consequence in its status inside Europe (continental Portugal and continental Spain are both fully covered by EU legislation).

As concerns former colonies, there are many more than these, e.g. Algeria which was fully part of the EEC and EURATOM (but not ECSC) between 1958 and 1962, so I did not begin to touch at them, could have been quite lengthy.

(BtW, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon was a French department between 1976 and 1985, and I think it was considered as an outermost region during this period, but am unsure, if somebody knows about it... It would mean that the assertion according to which Greenland is the only territory who has left the EU that I read somewhere else on the WP is false, even forgetting Algeria).

I browsed roughly through an old copy of the Portuguese constitution to try to understand whether Macau and East Timor where or not "under Portuguese jurisdiction" and henceforth liable to be covered by EURATOM treaty in the old times ; it seemed to be clearly no for Timor, rather no for Macau, but this is quite unclear... If you know something about their relations to EU, I would be very curious to read about it. --French Tourist 20:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This document in Dutch could help to add some details to the article

If some Dutch speaking person happens to stumble on this page, note that this document gives a very thorough analysis of the relations of Netherlands Antilles and Aruba with the EU. It should answer a question I left with a question mark (are they outside EURATOM treaty ? Very likely but I am unsure), but also seems to give interesting details about participation of Netherlands nationals from these territories to EU elections, and (I think I understood that at least...) some thoughts about the compatibility of EU working on "sovereign matters " (i.e. defense or external relations) while some parts of its members states are not fully integrated and their citizens don't vote. So it could help to have a look at this document to fill some gaps in the article ; I did but since I don't speak Dutch I had only a very vague idea of the documents content... --French Tourist 15:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm Dutch speaking, and according to this pdf-file the Dutch government decided to apply the Euratom-treaty only to the Netherlands (Europe) and Dutch New-Guinea, which in 1957 was still a colony, and without self-government. In 1962 it became Indonesian, so at this moment the Euratom-treaty is only valid in the European part. At the moment the Antilles and Aruba are thinking about becoming full members of the EU, like Reunion and Martinique, but the outcome is not clear. Dutch nationals on the islands cannot take part in the European elections, exceptions are made for the following categories:1. Dutch citizens who lived in the European part for at least ten years and 2. people who work for the Dutch (not the Antillean) government and their partners and childeren. I assume this last exception is mainly for Dutch soldiers stationed on the islands. These exceptions are the same as those for the elections for the Dutch parliament. Freako 23:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories citizens RELATED TO

the recent revision has one change - about British soverign Cyprus military bases (and villages in that area) - the former version has something like "the people there are British Overseas Territories citizens not related to Gibraltar and becouse of that they are not entitled to vote in EU elections". The same wording is used about British overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific, so it looks like there are two types of "British overseas territories citizens" - related to Gibraltar (entitled for EU vote) and not related to Gibraltar (not entitled for EU vote). So I think that the new wording is wrong - "not related to Cyprus" (after all the people in the military bases' area villages ARE related to Cyprus. They are NOT related to Gibraltar) - I think that it should be reverted to "not related to Gibraltar". Someone to disagree?

I think my revision may be the one you are referring to - or it may have dealt with the problem you saw - or perhaps you made the change at some point after your posting. I cannot see "not related to Cyprus" in my version or what preceded it. I would generally be happier if it was clearer that BOTC status as such does not give any EU rights. Really there is a different BOTC status for each OT, and it is just Gibraltar's which gives EU rights. I have not had time to check, but will later, whether this partly is a mix-up between full British Citizenship and BOTC - I suspect Gibraltarians (like Falklanders) had their BOTC status upgraded to full BC many years ago (it has now been done for all the BOTs except the SBAs). #Civil Servant 20 nov 2004

Prior to 2002, Gibraltarians had access to British citizenship but they had to make an application under section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as British citizens. Falkland Islanders held British citizenship automatically, alongside BOTC.

In 2002 the Falklands model was extended to all the Overseas Territories except the Sovereign Base Areas. However people from the Overseas Territories kept BOTC.

There's a separate issue regarding who is a United Kingdom national for European Union purposes. All British citizens have this status, hence anyone from the Territories who got British citizenship under the 2002 Act is covered. However, if a BOTC is not a British citizen as well, he or she will only be a United Kingdom national for European Union purposes if connected to Gibraltar. Not many BOTCs from the Overseas Territories (other than the SBAs) are without British citizenship but it could arise in two instances. a. if someone renounced British citizenship but kept BOTC, or b. a person naturalised or registered as a BOTC after 21 May 2002 only acquires British citizenship if a separate application for British citizenship is made. JAJ 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Liechtenstein, San Marino, the Holy See, Andorra, Monacco

What are the arrangments for Liechtenstein, San Marino, the Holy See, Andorra and Monacco? Do they have their own customs, immigration and those sort of things?

see the other article - Third_country_relationships_with_the_EU 62.204.151.1 3 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

Where can EU citizens live and work?

Which of these territories have a status such that every EU citizen can move and work there without the need for any special visa? AxelBoldt 08:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a Free movement of workers article, but it still doesn't cover OCTs.

EEA status

what does say the assosiation agreement between Greenland and the EU about the EEA/internal market/customs union/etc.? what about the other territories that are not covered fully/at all by EU treatries? What about Schengen Treaty-status? 62.204.151.1 3 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

The 'SBA' flag

I see someone has put the British Army flag for the SBAs. I fell this is a bad move. Although the Dhekelia SBA hosts the Army's Dhekelia Garrison, I feel the placement of the Army flag is not good since Akrotiri SBA hosts RAF Akrotiri. It's a safe bet to use the UJ. That's what the CIA Factbook and World Statesmen use. - Hoshie.Crat 23:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The British Army flag is a non-ceremonial flag ie only used at such things as recruitment events, or joint service competitions. The offical flag of the British Army is the Union Jack (at ratio 3:5). See the British Army page for more info. The SBAs do not have their own flag in any case, and the UJ will fly over them. The British Army flag is unlikely to fly anywhere on the SBAsAstrotrain 20:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

And while we're at it: The official flags for the DOM of France are the French tricolore. The flags of Guadeloupe, Martinique, SP&M shown here are unofficial AFAIK. Nightstallion 07:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Micronations

The list of territories with unclear status with the EU is disputed.

Sealand is a micronation with disputed status (see the article on Sealand, and others).

It has been suggested that Sealand should not be included in this list as "we don't want micronations in a serious article".

My view is that this should be a list based on fact. Sealand should be on this list as in fact it is an area in the EU geographical sphere with unclear status on its soverignty and therefore unclear EU status.--jrleighton 01:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

===>The title of the article includes "state" Since, by your admission, Sealand is a micronation, rather than a state, it is irrelevant to this article. Justin (koavf) 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A micronation is a self-asserting state, therefore it is included within the title, as it is one type of state.--jrleighton 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll include micronations in serious articles as soon as pigs fly, but not before that. —Nightstallion (?) 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Two trite and dismissive comments about a serious but minor point. Oh well. Never mind.--jrleighton 13:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Justin's comment wasn't trite, only mine was. Point is, micronations are not states by any serious definition of the term, and as such won't be part of "serious" articles. —Nightstallion (?) 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "special territories of the EU members and their relations with the Union". Sealand is not EU member, so there is no point in adding it here. The "relations of EU with third states" (if we can assume that Sealand is a state) are covered by an article "Third country relationships with the EU" (see on the main EU page for link) Alinor 07:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong

I branched out Hong Kong into it's separate section (it was a part of the "other Overseas Territories" section). I have done this because I feel readers will be confused into thinking HK is still British when it is not. As for the flag, I have added the last British flag so people will not be confused. - Thanks, Hoshie | 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Eurozone

I think it's benefitial to include a section listing the countries in the Eurozone, especially those who are not full EU members. Perhaps a chart listing the degree EU law is applied and whether it uses Euro as currency. the Schengen area should also be part of this. This directly affects the EU border and its immigration policy. --Kvasir 08:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-EU member states that use the Euro are listed on the Euro page and on the "Third country relationships with the EU". This page is only for territories of the EU members... Alinor 07:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the table does not list any 3rd country. But even territories within the EU adopt euro to various degrees. That was what i wanted to illustrate in the table. --Kvasir 07:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Greenland and Faroe are listed differently than Denmark? (Denmark is listed as "ERM-II, DKK" and the two dependencies are listed as "DKK" only. Is there any real difference regarding ERM-II, or is this just an ommission?)

===>Dependent areas Greenland left the EU after a referendum in 1986, and the Faroes have simply not decided as full integration as Denmark proper. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know this, the problem is that Denmark is listed as "DKK, ERM-II" and the dependencies as "DKK"-only. Is there any fiscal (or other) difference between Denmark "proper", Greenland and Faroe regarding FISCAL/MONETARY POLICY (not EU membership).

if they use the DKK then they are effectively part of ERM-II. Should they decide to establish their own currencies, or use the GBP, CAD or some other currency instead, then it would be different JAJ 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo also uses EUR, but is not part of the Eurozone (or ERM-II). I don't know if the same logic applies to Greenland and Faroe or it is the other way around - DKK always with ERM-II.

If EUR is legal tender in Kosovo then it's at least unofficially part of the Eurozone. As for Greenland and the Faeroes, if they don't have local currencies of their own but instead use DKK, then they are effectively part of ERM-II (I don't see how a territory can use DKK and not be part of ERM-II while DKK is). JAJ 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo is not part of the EMU/ERM-II, regardless of its EUR use. Same for Montenegro and Andorra. I don't know for Monaco, San Marino, Vatican (official agreements - maybe some finansit here should read in them to tell). But my opinion is that if Denmark is part of the ERM-II (pre-EMU instrument), then Greenland and Faroe are part of the ERM-II too (because they are "part of Denmark" generaly speaking AND they use the same currency as Denmark. But again, this may be not true. From pure FINANSICAL/MONETARY point of view it is possible that Greenland/Faroe use DKK in the same way that Kosovo/Montenegro/Andorra use the EUR - without to be a part of the EMU. This opposite (to mine generaly ungrounded) view is supported by the current version of the table (Greenland/Faroe - without ERM-II). But, again maybe, this can be a simple ommission (instead of financicaly/monetary supported fact).

In regards to Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican, they are not part of the EU to begin with, thus they are not part of this table. These territories are included in the Third country relationships with the European Union article.

In regards to Faroe Islands, the DKK link in the table points to Faroese krone. There is currently no ISO code for that currency, which is essentially on par with DKK. Greenland uses DKK, not "Greenlandic krone". --Kvasir 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Why are there so many flags in this article? Are they even necessary? They certainly don't enhance my understanding of the subject dealt in the article. The single EU flag is enough. Instead, a map or two highlighting the areas would help. --Kvasir 08:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

To this judicious remark I should add there is a problem with flags for French overseas possessions : their statuses are very different, only the flag for French Polynesia is official. For some other collectivities, no flag has been chosen ; for at least one other (Martinique an official but historical flag), for an other (Guadeloupe) and unofficial fantasy flag, for an other (Reunion) the flag of the Regional Council... This is a real mess French Tourist 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags are a significant aspect of national and territorial identity and based on other articles it seems to be a WP convention to include flag graphics in tables and references. Although with regard to the French flag issue I would agree that it would be better to remove the "unofficial" flags of the overseas areas and replace with either the official flag, or if none exists, either show no flag or the French flag. JAJ 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment was made when the flags of the territories were 3 or 4 times as big and taking up unneccessary large amount of space. They interrupted the flow of the article and did not serve any direct purpose to illustrate the point of the article. Since then I have made the flags into icon size and incorporated into a table. They now actually serve a purpose to visually direct the reader's attention to the row he/she is interested in.

As for the French territories flags, yes, please correct them as JAJ has suggested. Either an official flag or the national flag. --Kvasir 09:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

EU customs territory

Is this the same as EU VAT territory? If not we should add a column about this too. And I am also again rising the questions mentioned above: "free movement of workers", EEA internal market, freedom of establishment (protocol to the EEA).

No, the customs territory is not the same as the VAT territory. For example, the Channel Islands are within the customs territory but outside the VAT area.

The customs glossary at http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/glossary/customs/index_en.htm is currently broken, however the Google cache of the page contains the following text

The customs territory of the Community comprises of

• Austria,
• Belgium,
• Denmark, except the Faroe Islands and Greenland,
• Germany, except the Island of Heligoland and the territory of Buesingen,
• Greece,
• Finland (including the Åland Islands),
• France (including Monaco and the overseas departments Guadeloupe, French-Guiana, Martinique and Réunion), except the overseas territories and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and Mayotte,
• Ireland,
• Italy, except the municipalities of Livigno and Campione d'Italia and the national waters of Lake Lugano which are between the bank and the political frontier of the area between Ponte Tresa and Porto Ceresio,
• Luxembourg,
• the Netherlands in Europe,
• Portugal,
• Spain, except Ceuta and Melilla,
• Sweden,
• the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

As from 1 May 2004 the customs territory of the Community also includes:

• the Czech Republic,
• Estonia,
• Cyprus,
• Latvia,
• Lithuania,
• Hungary,
• Malta,
• Poland,
• Slovenia,
• the Slovak Republic.

The customs territory of the Community includes the territorial waters, the inland maritime waters and the airspace of the Member States and the territory of the Principality of Monaco, except for the territorial waters, the inland maritime waters and the airspace of those territories which are not part of the customs territory of the Community as listed above.

I will try to add a column to the table shortly. Roy Badami 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added the column, and as much data as I can. But I'm unsure of the following:

• Cyprus
  • Northern part of Cyprus. The above makes no mention of it, but it was clearly written prior to enlargement, so may not reflect the current position. Though it is largely academic whether the northern part of Cyprus falls in the customes territory, since the EU is in customs union with Turkey
  • UN buffer zone - no idea
• France. I've interpreted 'overseas territories' to include everything that was an overseas territory up to 2003. But that still leaves the following neither explicitly included nor excluded:
  • Clipperton Island
  • New Caledonia
  • Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean
• Greece. No mention of Mount Athos, so I don't know whether it would naturally be included or not. Is it part of Greece, or a dependent territory?
• Portugal. Azores and Madeira are not explicitly mentioned, so again I don't know whether they should be in or out.
• Spain. Although Ceuta and Mellila are explicitly excluded, Canary Islands are not mentioned one way or the other. Are they considered part of Spain, or a dependent territory?

Roy Badami 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Athos, the Azores, Madeira, Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are not dependencies; for instance, they don't have ISO 3166-1 codes. —Nightstallion (?) 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's up to the state in question whether to apply for ISO 3166 codes for it's dependent territories. eg the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories don't have their own country codes. Roy Badami 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you're wrong. The overseas territories have had ISO codes for a *LONG* time now, and the crown dependencies got them this year. Either way, the territories I mentioned are not dependencies by any definition of the word. —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The OCT-"overseas countries and territories" are written in the table as not belonging to the EU customs territory. But the Treaty of Rome article 184 [1] states:

• 1. Customs duties on imports into the Member States of goods originating in the countries and territories shall be prohibited in conformity with the prohibition of customs duties between Member States in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.
• 2. Customs duties on imports into each country or territory from Member States or from the other countries or territories shall be prohibited in accordance with the provisions of Article 25.
• 3. The countries and territories may, however, levy customs duties which meet the needs of their development and industrialisation or produce revenue for their budgets.
• The duties referred to in the preceding subparagraph may not exceed the level of those imposed on imports of products from the Member State with which each country or territory has special relations.
• 4. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to countries and territories which, by reason of the particular international obligations by which they are bound, already apply a non-discriminatory customs tariff.
• 5. The introduction of or any change in customs duties imposed on goods imported into the countries and territories shall not, either in law or in fact, give rise to any direct or indirect discrimination between imports from the various Member States.

They seem to at least partly belong to the EU customs territory, there shall be no customs for export from these areas to the EU proper, however maybe when importing into these areas. What is valid? What shall we write in the table column? -- BIL 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Schengen status

Most of the "No" in the Schengen column look ungrounded. If we exclude the obvious Ireland, UK and the territories listed as "excluded" in the Schengen treaty article (like Heligoland) then there are still some "No" entries, that seem unjustified. Someone to clarify or provide links?

which ones in particular do you feel are unjustified? JAJ 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

all of the "No" entries with the exception of Heligoland, Greenland and Faroe. I say "unjustified", because on the Schengen article (where there was a discussion espicialy about "special territories" and Schengen-application there) there is a list of exceptions and it is shorter than the "No"-list here. The discussion on the Schengen treaty was mostly supported by links, so I think that it would be good to provide links (if availible) for the other "No"s here...

Most strange are the France integral departements of French Guiana, Reunion, etc... Alinor 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be strange? Those aren't "integral" departments in the sense they are thosands of km's from metropolitan France. There is no reason these territories to be part of the Schengen area. The Schengen area is to provide freedom of movement on LAND borders among EU countries. It would make sense to have it among countries that are already bordering each other. Island countries like the UK and ireland have no need to join because they have no land border with continental EU countries to begin with. --Kvasir 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Article 138 of the Schengen agreement states that it applies only to "the European territory of France Republic". And the same for the Netherlands. See: [2] --Trainthh 11:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

netherlands antilles reorg

Does anyone know how the coming reorganization of the Netherlands Antilles will affect mattes? Will the islands that will become Dutch municipalities also become part of the EU as outermost regions? --Jfruh (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan Mayen

I found Svalbard in the article. What about Jan Mayen and other Norwegian non-contigious bits like Bouvet and Peter I? - Privacy 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan Mayen is treated like Norway, included in Schengen. It does not have any Treaty like svalbard but is fully Norwegian. But I think we should not include uninhabitated islands without tourist facilities whatsoever. BIL 11:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the political status of Svalbard with respect to Norway and the European Union? Other uninhabited territories are also mentioned in the article. - Privacy 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)