Template talk:Non-euro currencies of the European Union

SEK

Swedish krona has to be presented in this list. Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone in future. The case is that the moment of joining Sweden could define itself. No time limits are given - it may be 1, 5 or 50 years. But that will happen at one moment. And in template the date (even approximative) is not written. So SEK should be presented in this template, as no other currency in the world is obliged to join Eurozone. But SEK is. That is the difference. --Dima1 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"On track to be migrated" isn't the same thing as "obliged to migrate", though.

A currency may be obliged to join the euro without the government making any attempts to fullfill the criteria for joining (cf. Sweden). In that case it's not currently on track to be migrated. However, because of EU treaties, it will need to become on track to be migrated at some point in the future.

A currency may be on track to be migrated while at the same time being ineligible to be migrated. For example, the Bulgarian government seemed to make some efforts to fullfill the convergence criteria even before Bulgaria joined the EU. At some point with bad relations with Russia, the dictator of Belarus suggested that Belarus might join the EU and adopt the euro. If he was serious when saying so, then the Belarussian currency temporarily was on track to be migrated. Any currency could join in the Montenegrin/Kosovar way of joining. In that case, the currency would be on track to be migrated despite not being mentioned in any EU treaty whatsoever.

None of the references given states that SEK currently is on track to be migrated. They only state that SEK currently is obliged to join the euro at some point in the future, and that's not quite the same thing. "Some point in the future" can be delayed indefinitely, and so in reality SEK never needs to become on track to be migrated. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Also note ISK. People in Iceland have suggested that ISK might join EUR unilaterally. Should ISK be mentioned in this list? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Template name is Euro adoption future. So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro. By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated. "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.

ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want. But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice. Do you understand the difference?

So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions? --Dima1 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

> Template name is Euro adoption future.
This is irrelevant: you don't see the template name in articles displaying this template. You only see the headline ("Remaining currencies on track to be migrated"), which means a different thing.

> So it contains all currencies that will be switched to euro.
The on track to be migrated part of "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" means that the currency issuer currently is (trying to) make some efforts on fullfilling the requirements to switch the issued currency to the euro.

> By this definition Swedish krona should be presented here because it is on track to be migrated.
The Swedish crown is currently not on track to be migrated, since the Swedish government currently isn't trying to make any efforts to adopt the euro. On the other hand, the Danish currency is currently on track to be migrated (the Danish government announced that there's going to be a referendum on the euro, so the currency will at least remain on track to be migrated until after the referendum has been held).

> "Some point in future" is anyway in future. It is no difference between 1 year and 100 years. Anyway it is in future.
Sweden has a legal obligation to adopt the euro at "some point in the future". So what? Most people have a legal obligation not to rob banks, but some still do. The fact that there is a legal obligation to do something (or not to do something) doesn't mean that everyone follows those obligations. Someone might fine you (or even put you in jail) for not following your obligations, but so what, it is still possible to resist to follow your obligations. So legal obligation to adopt at some point in the future isn't the same thing as for the moment being on track to fulfill the obligation.

> ISK joining EUR is just their suggestion. It has no official recognition neither from ECB nor from EU. They can suggest anything they want.
So what? Andorra, Montenegro and Kosovo managed to join the euro without any official recognition whatsoever from neither ECB nor EU. Any country could join in the same way. So ISK may very well be (or become) on track to be migrated without any recognition whatsoever from ECB or EU. Sure, it would probably be a very heavy burden for the Icelandic economy, but it wouldn't be impossible. As I wrote, being on track to migrate doesn't have anything to do with legal obligations to migrate.

> But Sweden is obliged to join Eurozone. So they have no other choice.
Instead of joining the eurozone, Sweden could chose to pay various fines to the EU. Or Sweden could leave the EU altogether, or try to obtain a formal opt-out. So Sweden does have other options.

> So I propose to restore SEK in this template. Other opinions?
See above.

However, if the text "Remaining currencies on track to be migrated" were to be changed into something different (say, "Remaining currencies obliged to adopt the euro"), then I wouldn't object to re-add SEK to the list of currencies. (130.237.227.61 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

GBP

I believe that it does not make sense to add GBP to the table for the following reasons:

• UK is not obligued to join the Eurozone
• They are not part of the ERM II
• They have not even remote plans to join the Eurozone
• It adds no data to the template, just GBP, with no rate, no date, no sources

Can anyone else please comment on this issue? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No more comments. No obligation to adopt and no discussing or planning to change their currency to euro is enough for not adding GBP to the table now.--Dima1 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The title of the table is remaining currencies to be migrated. Just because the EU has granted the UK an opt-out does not mean that GBP is not a currency still to be migrated. The GBP is an EU currency and not to include it in the table implies it is not an EU currency. The addition of the GBP is exactly the same for the SEK which is included in the table. The SEK has a de-facto opt-out which is identicle to the GBP formal opt-out. Either both should be included or neither should be included. If neither are included then a separate table for those currencies is required.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden does not have an opt-out. Currently opt-outs have just 2 countries of the European Union - first is Denmark and another is the United Kingdom. All other non-eurozone EU countries are obliged to adopt euro. --Dima1 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden has a De-facto opt-out, which means the EU ignore its violations of the Maastricht treaty as the Euro concept wasn't politically discussed during the accession of Sweden. The de-facto opt-out works in the same way as the formal opt-out it is just not formalised.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, Sweden has to adopt the euro, the question is when. They can not play against the rules hiding forever; there have been rumors on this matter that they can be brought on trial within the EU and even expelled out if they continue this behavior. Of course, this is a bit extremist; their answer has been that they have not met the convergence criteria said by the union yet, so they can not join. However, we all expect a change in this policy soon; the global crisis and the volatility of the euro has brought new talks, and Denmark is seriously considering it to adopt the euro ... this will change Sweden behavior.

In a similar situation we have the Czech Republic, they will be able to adopt the euro soon but the current government thinks it is better to wait a bit longer. So, does that mean that we should remove the Czech koruna as well from the table?

The UK is different, they are not forced, and their change will have to be absolutely volunteered.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden is not "forced" to join it is though bound by the Maastricht treaty which was negotiated before it became a member of the EU, but before the Euro was being implemented. If Sweden remains outside of the ERM II as it currently is then it will remain in its current position. It can theoretically remain in this position for an indefinite period of time. I would also like to know the authority you are speaking of by stating the the Global liquidity crisis WILL change Swedish government policy. The government has bound it-self to the course of referendums and that is politically, highly unlikely to change. It is though conceivable that another referendum may be held sooner, but this is not a certainty. The difference between Sweden and the Czech Republic is technically Czech votes have already approved Euro adoption as it was written in specifically the treaty of accession, which was approved by a referendum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is partially not true: Sweden has to adopt the euro, but they have refused by using the referendums you mentioned, not to join the ERM II which is one of the preconditions to adopt the euro. This is a "hole" in the laws of the EU, and Sweden is simply using that hole not to adopt the euro as their referendums say. However, the last referendum was held in 2003, the opinion had changed dramatically since then, specifically because how much devaluated the crown had become against the euro. The same is happening even in England.

What I meant about the crisis is that Denmark is changing thoughts as well. If Denmark decides to change to the euro, Sweden will have yet another reason to change their response in the polls slightly, but it will affect for sure the polls more in favour to join. But all of this is pure speculation, the reality is that since Sweden joined after the Maastricht treaty, they are obliged to switch to the euro. The Czech republic is bounded by the same rules, and they also seems to have a government and polls voting for not to join the Eurozone now. Their currency is not pegged, if they do not do that they can not switch, so they are playing the same hole as Sweden.

So please leave Sweden in the template and do not add UK. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, you might want to read here [1] ... we can easily get from this site official EU and EMU regulations to back that up. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also FYI, read the first sentence of this official EU site [2]. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden, although in theory obliged to join the euro, can in practice indefinitely avoid doing so. It does not have a de facto opt-out, but instead a "derogation" in accordance with Article 122 EC as it did not meet the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro in 1998 (see Council Decision 98/317 [3]). Two-yearly checks are carried out by the Commission and the ECB on Sweden's status, and at present two conditions are not met. Sweden does not meet the exchange rate condition due to currency fluctuations against the Danish krone and Euro (Sweden does not participate in ERM II), and it has failed to carry out necessary central bank reforms (see the Commission's 2000 [4], 2002 [5], 2004 [6], 2006 [7] and 2008 [8] reports). According to the black letter of the law, once these conditions are met the Council can fix a date for the commencement of ERM III. Lamberhurst (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that this table is about currencies *on track to migrate*, and not about currencies *legally bound to migrate*. See the difference? A currency is on track to migrate if the government/central bank/whatever is doing whatever is required to migrate the currency (e.g. attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria, joining the EU, convincing the Swedish/Danish/British people to vote yes in a referendum, prepare for unilateral adoption (expensive!), or any other action). Currently, the government of Sweden seems to be doing neither of those things. Sweden is already in the EU, so no need to sign any accession treaties or things like that. The Swedish government is for the moment not attempting to fulfill the convergence criteria. The euro is rarely discussed in Swedish politics, so one can't really say that the politicians are for the moment attempting to convince the Swedish people to vote yes in a future referendum. This could of course change at any point in the future, but for the moment none of those things is true. So Sweden is not for the moment on track to join the Eurozone. Compare with Denmark where Left is actively trying to get the Danish people to vote yes in a future referendum (which they seem to keep postponing all of the time), making DKK on track to be migrated (although not legally required to migrate). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

I agree with 212.247.11.156's reasoning, Sweden does not belong in this table. I've made the point before (see Euro and Sweden section) but I wasn't too successful and I let it go.... -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the only thing that you are justifying is a change of the name of the template. However, I have different thoughts on this particular topic now, let me organize them to write them down, but I am now in the position that GBP and SEK should be in this table with their respective comments explaining what you have just said. I will open a new discussion topic soon. REgards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungary euro adoption date

All sources indicate that hungary will adopt euro beyond 2014. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the official convertion date for Hungary is still 2012. The government has not change their policy nor they have said anything different. The sources recently added simply said that "it is not possible and it may be extended". Those are private research and the opinion of different sources not related to the goverment. IMO these sources are not reliable enough to change the date officially given by the government. Does anyone has a different opinion?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the official covertion date since Hungary asked for 25bn EUR help from IMF and World Bank, is no longer 2012. All updated sources indicate very clear 2014. Perhaps even after. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the relationship? The official date announced by the government continues to be 2012. you have just shown analisys that says that 2012 is not possible and I agree with you and the analisys, but until the governmenr says so, 2012 is the official date. Let's do something, place here all you sources that you think are reliable by content and I will add it to the relevant articles.

No. You don't realize that 2012 was and is no more a target?

Also, you have removed the comment in the eurozone page that says that this kind of information should be updated in several places. Please read the comment, you will understand that the changes you suggested are not only valid here but in at least five more articles. But anyway, place here the sources, I will do the changes and will let you know. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a comment, if you added back it's ok.

To make my case even stronger, I was just reading this article [9], that says that England should adopt the euro in 2012. Shall I cite and says all over Wikipedia that England will do that? Common sense please ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no political will to adopt EUR in Hungary in 2012 Miguel. Except you perhaps. Now, your personal beliefs doesn't count here. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, find an official source, your sources can be added to other articles as comments like "other analisys say that will be in 2013-2014" but this is not the official date of the government. As I said, I agree with you that it will be difficult for Hungary to join the Eurozone in 2012, but that is the target date; you stop changing it.

Can anyone please interviene? Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please read Currently, there is no official target date for euro adoption in Hungary? http://www.ecb.int/events/pdf/conferences/cbc5/Simor.pdf?5a8b608b547e4af89b33e8d1579a9b66 Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speech for the panel on ‘The euro and the enlargement: challenges ahead’, 5th ECB Central Banking Conference by Andras Simor Governor Magyar Nemzeti Bank

If he's not official....then who is, you? you who keeps deleting sourced info? Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use the official target dates (for all EU countries), which you find here. According to that source, Hungary has actually no target date for euro adoption.--Glentamara (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Hungary has no official date to join EURO. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Bulgaria are missing official target dates.--Glentamara (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Hungary. We have no target date since 2006. If the ERM-II time remains to be 2 years, we can adopt euro in 2012, but it can may be 2020 as well... We shouldn't guess it. In 2009, the government will set a new target date, as I know. 85.66.224.202 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose to change the name and the structure

Let me start with my reasons first. This week, in three different environments, I have had to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the recent parity between GBP and EUR (before anyone jumps, GBP started to get value against the EUR in the last few days). During those friendly discussions, just a few people really knew the reasons why UK still continues to have the GBP; for some they simply could not understand the reasons behind, arguing that the UK is economically in way better shape than Slovakia for example, which just recently joined, so they could not understand why the UK has not joined.

While I was explaining about the opt-outs, the UK case, the Denmark case, the Sweden case (they are all different cases) and the most recent the Czech case; for me was absolutely shocking to realize that the vast majority of the people out there, that are not close to the reality and the history of the EU (specially the Eurozone), do not really understand why there is still GBP, DKK and SEK currencies and they have a vague idea of why there are still the other eight currencies that need to be migrated. Some people did not know at all that Denmark and Sweden does not the euro, for them that happened already.

Having said all of this I honestly believe that we have been hiding the whole truth: by taking GBP out of the table, by removing sources that explain why some currencies should join earlier than others, by constantly discussing about including SEK and DKK, or as the recent request to remove them. The reason I think that way is because I am sure that almost everyone that comes to this article do not know all the facts that we (the editors of the article) know, and we should represent them all. This template is really easy to pick the eye of a reading when going through the articles that shows it; hence it should be as accurate and as complete as possible.

Hence I propose the following changes:

1. Change the title of the table of the template to "Remaining currencies in the European Union"
2. Add GBP, no target date, put a footnote that explains briefly about the "opt-out"
3. Keep Sweden, no target date, put a footnote that briefly explains about Sweden situation.
4. Keep Denmark, no target date, put a footnote that explain their situation
5. Keep the current "official target date" column as it is, to the official dates recognized by each country.
6. Add a new column "Expected target date" where references can be put in the footnotes to analysis of prestigious institutions and individuals that have explained why a particular country will introduce the euro in the year specified. This has to be backed up with sources to avoid speculation (like how it used to be until fairly recent).
7. As recently suggested, unless clearly said by the sources, just place the year, no month and no day
8. Do not include currencies outside of the EU, like Turkish Lira, that will create confusion, let the country join the union first, then we worry about their convergence criteria.

I believe if we do this, we are showing all the info, and there will be no arguments among us in what information should be in and what should not. What is more important, the information will be complete: imagine a 15 years old kid writing a paper for the geography class about Europe, everything he or she needs will be in this table, which will be the first thing that will catch anyone eyes in articles like "Future expansion of the Eurozone".

Comments are welcome. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. To include both the official target dates and the expected target dates is a good idea! --Glentamara (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree entirely. I just moved the article. Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the euro is one of the remaining currencies of the European Union, and we need to be careful of cases such as Gibraltar (which has the right under UK law to determine its own currency independently) and Campione d'Italia (where the Swiss Franc is legal tender). A title like "non-euro currencies of EU member states" may make it clearer that these should not be included.

In the cases of Sweden, Denmark and the UK, we should not imply that euro membership is an official target unless/until a referendum passes in favour of membership (or unless/until the opt-outs - whether de facto or de jure - are abandoned by some other means). I think the wording "not decided" in the column "official target date" does rather imply this - particularly when the same wording is used for all states whether membership is an official target or not.

In the cases of Denmark and the UK, we could write "opt-out" in the "official target date" field, or we could write "not targeted" in all three with a footnote on each to explain the situation in more detail.

I would agree on the other points, provided that sources for the extra column have a pretty high standard of reliability. Pfainuk talk 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on everything. - SSJ ☎ 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Miguel, Thank you for making an effort to resolve this matter. Mostly I agree with the proposal, particularly the idea of two sub-columns when it comes to conversion. I would name the first sub-column committed date – committed between the country’s government and the ECB, nothing less. I would name the second sub-column likely date – to be filled in when there appears to be at least some consensus among notable-and-quoted experts/powers about the conversion of the country’s currency. Any date in the first sub-column could be to the day, in the second column only down to a year or even a range of years. Without commitment and without some consensus, both columns could remain empty. Filled-in or empty, footnotes and references are always in order, so if there is an opt-out, the footnote would say "opt-out," with a reference to a source where the reader can learn more about the opt-out. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just the explanation about GBP and others should be very briefly written not to make this template too large. And about references. Should be Ref column for each adoption date (proposed by government and expected date) or single column with all references regardign each country? --Dima1 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree. But there are some issues:

• EUR is a remaining currency of the EU. I would favour either "Non-euro currencies of the European Union" (in which case EUR wouldn't be in the list), or "Currencies of the European Union" (in which case EUR would appear somewhere in the list).
• Is GIP a currency of the EU? GI is located inside the union, and GIP is the currency of (part of) a member state.. The currency is pegged to the GBP at par, but maybe that doesn't matter?
• XOF, XAF, XPF, ANG and AWG are currencies issued by member states, although not used within the area of the European Union. XOF and XAF are not even used by non-EU parts of member states. Wouldn't the title "Non-euro currencies of EU member states" mean that these currencies need to be added to the list as well?
• Is NOK a currency of the EU? Towns around the SE-NO border accept both SEK and NOK, on both sides of the border. Does that make NOK a currency of part of SE? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Re. the latter, NOK is not a currency of the EU. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between the Gibraltar pound and Sterling pound is rather awkward because the Gibraltar pound only exists in paper form - the clearing currency is Sterling pounds. The UK does allow its BOTs to issue their own currencies and there's no special reason to assume that (if they chose to join) Gibraltar and the UK proper would have to join at the same time - or that if one joined, the other would have to. On your third point - possibly. Maybe "Non-euro national currencies of EU member states" would be better but it's getting a tad long. But it seems a tad pointless to have the euro on a list of currencies that might join the euro. Fourth point, not in my book, unless the NOK is official in Sweden. OTOH, the CHF is official in Campione d'Italia, part of Italy, whereas the euro not (though it is widely accepted). It still doesn't belong on the list, mind. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, CHF is not a currency of the EU either. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And when it comes to the Dutch Antilles, they don't fall under "EU member states." I would therefore exclude them from falling under the European Union, and from the table. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For the records, If I am not mistaken, the Netherlands Antilles will no longer exist as a country from 1 January 2010. Curaçao and Sint Maarten gained autonomous status in 2010. They each will form two new associated states within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, resembling the status of Aruba within the Kingdom. Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius would become a direct part of the Netherlands as special municipalities of the Dutch province of Noord-Holland. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with all of Miguel's proposals, with one slight modification: perhaps the title should be "Remaining National Currencies of the European Union" to deal with the valid point raised above, namely that the EUR is technically a "remaining currency". It also seems logical that the currencies of Special Member State territories should be mentioned. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree/support the proposal completely. If I may make one suggestion, can this table be made sortable? As it is now, it appears to be ranked by Official target date. The sortable would allow the reader to sort the table by currency or what ever. _{El Greco}^(talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there were positive discussion and a lot of changes towards the common goal finally. I must apologize, I started the thread and I went to sleep, it was not my intention to let all of you hanging around on your own. But I am very pleased that the discussion was positive and constructive. I think the template still requires some work, like recovering all the sources lost recently pointing to "likely dates". I will work on that soon. Thanks everyone for the great work, a good sample of team work! Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest "Other currencies in the European Union". I would use 'in' rather than 'of' because 'of' could be taken to imply that these local currencies were used freely throughout the EU. I would use 'Other' rather than 'Remaining' as I think it sounds more neutral. If the context did not make it clear that the title meant Currencies other than the euro then the title would need to change to make this clear. Michael Glass (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "Other currencies of European Union member states". (Or am I repeating something we already had, and ruled out, in an earlier stage? Lost track of the permutations we went through....) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only now had a chance to comment on Miguel's proposal. I think the changes made are definite a good thing and a real improvement to the templates. Thanks to everyone involved! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Order

I think that we should have an alphabetical order in this table. To avoid futher moving or changing the sequence of all countries. --Dima1 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NO. It should be as it is. The way of adoption the EURO.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, right now it doesn't appear to be in any order. Denmark, which may well not join the eurozone at all (if the referendum result is "no") comes before two countries whose dates are 2014 or later, and then Latvia comes after that with a date of 2012 or later. Alphabetical would make things a lot easier to find and would make quite a lot of sense given how vague a lot of the dates are. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The way of the euro adoption is a subject of change. So the sequence like it is now is not final. I think alphabetical order is better, also we have dates of adoption. Who want can see the order by this dates. --Dima1 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical is the way to go. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that alphabetical order is better. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? That's odd, one is interested to see the countries who will join sooner and not the alphabetical order of them. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, chronological order based on expected date of accession is clearly the way to go. —Gabbe (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No wait, of course: marking the class="wikitable sortable" is obviously the best solution. Fixed.—Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The last column can not be sorted now. Please, change it. --Dima1 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

Just passing and I understand the template but it seems to be contradicting itself by suggesting that the euro currency no longer "remains". Should the title be altered to state "Non-euro currencies remaining in the European Union"? Many editors/readers will not live in the EU and the current title might lead to confusion. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I should perhaps state I was referring to the page title. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved it. Pfainuk talk 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The contradiction is the dates,example Bulgaria Official target date: - vs Target date set by the country : 2010-2011, Expected target date don't know the equivalent for it.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

References column

Hi again,

I think the current references column may hold way too much information for the specific currency and will be difficult to see which specific references comment about which specific field. For example Bulgaria, it has a reference to the rate, a comment about no target date, a reference to the document that says so, and references to sources that talk about potential adoption date.

I am suggesting to remove the column and instead put the references next to the data that explains, as it sued to be a few days back. Comments please.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have slightly change just Bulgaria to illustrate my proposal, if no concensus then I will revert it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk)

Makes sense. But since this is intended to be a template on the progress toward replacement of these currencies with the euro, I don't think a footnote (let alone one in the references column) is enough to avoid implying that all of these currencies will eventually become part of the eurozone - something that, in the cases of Denmark and the UK, we have no business in implying. Those countries with opt-outs should have the opt-outs clearly signalled by the table.

Non-euro currencies of EU member states

Currency	Code	Central rate	Official target date	Expected target date
Danish krone	DKK	7.46038	Opt-out
Pound sterling	GBP	—	—	—

We can do it in either of the ways demonstrated in the table on the right, or in whatever other way - provided that it is clear that the DKK and the GBP are not in the same position as the other currencies on the table. Pfainuk talk 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that whatever clarification needed (like Bulgaria is not part of the ERM II but does have the leve pegged to the euro, hence there is a rate shown) it should be represented as a reference or footnote next to teh item being clarified or referenced, not at the end of the table; like what I did for Bulgaria just to illustrate what I am taking about.

DKK, GBP and SEK will have different references, so it will be obvious they are not in the same position as the others. I honestly believe that by doing that the template is easier to read. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done all countries, IMO it looks way better, we are still missing a footnote for SEK (something like Sweden has chosen not to adopt it althought it is obliged to join).

Current version looks good to me. I will have a go at that Swedish footnote. Pfainuk talk 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No red color to UK. UK must adopt EURO in the future anyway. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

False. The UK and Denmark both negotiated opt-outs from the euro before ratifying the Maastricht Treaty, which means that the EU cannot force either to join the euro. The British almost refused to ratify the treaty even without the requirement to join the euro. See opt-outs in the European Union for details. Pfainuk talk 15:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about that option. I know about it. UK will change in less than 20 years. GBP becomes irrelevant in the new context of the world. Imagine world in 2030. I don't think Pound will rezist so far.--Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be your view, but per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV we mustn't make any decisions based on this sort of speculation. Unless and until the UK and Denmark actually decide to join - which neither has done so far - we should not imply that it is in any way inevitable that they will join the eurozone. This means, in a list such as this, we must be very clear that there is a difference between DKK/GBP and the rest of the currencies (as we are now). Pfainuk talk 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be an option to leave out the references altogether? After all, this table is just a very short summary of Enlargement of the eurozone, and there are references for everything in that article (as far as I know). Just pointing to that article could be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Double redirect

Double redirects here: Template talk:Euro adoption future

Can this be changed into a single redirect only? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

There appear to be no double redirects now. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Example.ogg

There's a media file "Example.ogg" at the end of this template which ends up in all articles using the template. Should this really be there? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Final version?

Thank you all for coming together to what I believe is a way more informative template. I was wondering if all information we needed is currently captured; if this is the final template we need to work in fixing other articles that refer to it directly or indirectly, in order to have consistency across Wikipedia. If anyone has any other opinion please speak now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We are approaching, the final version.. we'll see. Let the people see it, read it, re-think it. We have to have patience. --Qaz 1009 rfv (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that there is at least 10 other articles that need to be changed based on what we all have come up to the conclusion here. Anyway, is a long weekend over here, I will work in the other articles from Tuesday. I am simply trying to fix the contradictory messages that those article and this template are saying. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ERM II Date

Is it worth putting ERM II adoption date in here too, as this is important to understand the likely adoption date. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Syntax too complex

The syntax on this page is far too complex for the relatively simple job we are wanting it to do. All this does it make it harder for people to edit. Can someone take a knife to it please? 155.192.161.120 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Special status for Sweden ?

@Glentamara, Knisfo, and Danlaycock:: For a long time we had the special status "defacto opt-out" listed for Sweden. With the following note explaining what it meant:

• Sweden, while obliged to join the euro under its Treaty of Accession, has chosen not to join ERM II without prior approval by a referendum, meaning that Sweden is certain to fail meeting the convergence criteria for euro adoption until after such time. Sweden is the only member state without a formal opt out, to whom the European Commission politically accepted its euro adoption preparations to be stopped until prior approval by a referendum. Hence, it has the status as a "de facto opt-out".

The EC accepted Sweden can halt preparations until approval by referendum which is equal to defacto opt-out. No other derogation states have this special status. Your stated opinions in the edit summaries, that other states also can schedule "euro referendums", does not hold true. All of the new EU member states already held accession referendums of which "euro adoption" was an integrated part of the package. The EC does not allow these new member states to schedule euro referendums. We have several EC statements confirming this during the past (i.e. they responded with such statements when Czech's former precident Vaclav Klaus recently suggested the Czech Republic to arrange a euro-referendum). If these new member states scheduled a "euro referendum", the European Commission would consider it to be a breach of their accession treaty. Sweden is the only exception from this firm stance (as they were granted the option to hold euro-referendums - because of having joined the European Union ahead of the birth of the euro). This is why Sweden's status is so special, and while they do not have a dejure opt-out this mean they have a defacto opt-out. Based on this above info, I suggest we keep writing "defacto opt-out" for Sweden in the table. Danish Expert (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What a single (former) commissioner says is quite irrelevant. Has the Commission adopted any official position on Sweden? And do you have any references where the Commission has taken the opposite position on the other member states?

There is no legal obstacle for non-euro member states to hold referenda on when they want to adopt the euro; that is why Sweden could do so. The other non-euro member states can in principle do exactly the same thing as Sweden, namely postpone the euro adoption indefinitely, with or without a referendum. There is nothing in the treaties that hinders a member state from staying out from the euro as long time as it wants. See Hungary as a concrete example. What exactly do you mean is the difference between Hungary and Sweden? --Glentamara (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This same information has recently been added to Enlargement of the eurozone here and here, so if there is no consensus to add it here it should likewise be removed there.

I tend to agree with Knisfo/Glentamara on this. The source cited [10] doesn't actually say anything about a referendum. The closest it gets is to saying that it is "up to the Swedish people to decide on the issue." But that could simply mean for the people to decide by democratically electing a government whose platform is to join, not necessarily a referendum. I've seen no sources to date in which an EU official clearly says that Sweden is treated specially. And other EU commissioners have suggested that they retain the right to force them to join. In response to a question on Sweden not joining, Joaquín Almunia responded: "it is theoretically possible in the future to initiate infringement procedures against states which are not preparing themselves".

Like all other non-euro states, Sweden also had an accession referendum in which euro adoption was part of the package. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 set out the rules for the eurozone. In the Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994 they accepted the terms of accession which included the Maastricht Treaty. Yes the euro hadn't yet been launched, but the rules were all in place and they accepted them.

Perhaps there is some room for compromise here? What if we put "pending referendum" or something along those lines under "Target date" for Sweden with the first sentence of DE's note? That would get across the point that they don't plan to join without a referendum, while avoiding the contentious "opt-out" terminology. Thoughts? TDL (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

For sure, I can fully accept the compromise proposed above by TDL. In regards of this "special status for Sweden" issue, I had no time to do an extensive in depth research, in order to check for the existence of written EC documents backing up what the commissioner said orally in 2010. I only took note, that we have existing sources citing the commissioner to have said something like this: "none of the new EU member states having acceded in the new millennium, are allowed to arrange euro referendums in the same way Denmark+Sweden previously did". I do not know if the EC have any written material to back up their political position. But I do know, that this at least is the outspoken political position by the economic commissioner in office. I also know, that some euro opposing parties in Poland (PiS) and Czech Republic (ODS) reacted in response to the commissioner's statement by saying "the way we see it the euro we voted yes to as part of our accession treaty is no longer the same euro today (because of a range of additional organisational structures recently build to support the euro) and this justify why our country should now be entitled to schedule a new dedicated euro referendum". However, none of the current governments in the new EU member states with euro derogations have planned to schedule any euro referendums, and none of the states joining the euro in the new millennium held any prior euro referendums. So whenever the EC has accepted a future euro referendum to be scheduled, its a special situation, and in my opinion worth noting one way or the other. Rephrasing the "defacto opt-out" to "pending referendum", is OK with me, and far better than completely removing the note. note: FYI the italic quotes above is my recollection of the content of some articles I read a couple of years ago; When I did the recent compile of the "disputed Swedish note", it was solely done on basis of the already written material at the Sweden and the euro article. I do not at present have time to look further into this issue by conducting a search for additional sources. Danish Expert (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not steadfastly against the "de facto opt-out" wording. If someone could find a source where the EC drew a distinction between Sweden and the new states, saying that the former was allowed to have a referendum and the latter were not, then I'd be OK with it. I just haven't ever been able to find anything definitive along those lines. I too have read it on-wiki, but the external sources are never quite so convincing, either emphasizing that it is an informal opt-out or not addressing the question of whether it applied to new states. Presumably this is because they don't want to set a precedent that it is possible and encourage others to seek a "de facto opt-out". Much easier to just look the other way than to formally come out and say what everyone knows: they can't force Sweden or anyone to adopt the euro so realistically everyone already has a "de facto opt-out". If we can get the point across without using this terminology I think that is preferable. And I think the important point here is that Sweden, unlike other countries, have come out and said that they will not set an adoption date until approval in a referendum.

Any objections @Glentamara and Knisfo: to the "pending referendum" compromise above? TDL (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the (official) position of the Commission, I don't see the point of writing "de facto opt-out" for Sweden. The column of the table reads "Official target date". Sweden doesn't have a target date, so why not just let it be "—". I don't even understand why we don't write the same for UK and Denmark. In principle, they could have a target date even though they have a formal opt-out (but in practice this won't happen of course because the two things are closely linked to each other). Nonetheless, "Formal opt-out" is not a kind of target date. Maybe it would be better to write something more detailed on all those member states that do not have a precise target date, to distinguish between those member states that are aiming at adopting the euro in the forseeable future but has not target date yet, and those that are not aiming at all at adopting the euro (Denmark, UK, Sweden, Hungary). --Glentamara (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bytheway, if the Commission has taken the formal position that Sweden has a de fact opt-out, how come then that they are still assess in each convergence report. Of course, that is because the treaties do not allow the Commission to treat Sweden differently from the other member states without opt-outs. The difference between Sweden and other member states without opt-outs, e.g., Hungary, is much, much smaller than the difference between Denmark and UK and the rest of the member states. --Glentamara (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I replied above, the reason why Sweden is still assessed by all EC+ECB convergence reports, is because they do not have a de-jure opt-out (like UK+Denmark). They only have a de-facto opt-out. De-jure means legal applying, while de-facto just is another word for something not quiet meeting the legal standard for what it claim while however being considered to be the same "in reality". The reason why I think its relevant to include info about these opt-out statuses in the "target date" column, is as you also acknowledged in your reply, that the opt-out situation in reality mean, that "no target date" will be settled in the near future as this require that a euro referendum first shall be held in the concerned member states as part of setting a fixed target date. The Commission outlined a hard position towards all new members accessing EU in the new millennium, stressing that the Commission disapproved any euro referendums to be held. Yet - they publicly stated that Sweden due to its historical reasons of already having organized a euro-referendum, would be allowed to let their time of euro adoption depend on prior approval by a new euro-referendum. With all this in mind, I support we still keep the noted "opt-out" phrase for UK+Denmark in the table, and that we for Sweden - instead of noting "defacto opt-out" - now simply note (as per TDL's compromise proposal): "pending referendum". Danish Expert (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that the Commission would be able to stop a referendum, for instance in Poland, where it could be necessary to amend to constitution if not a qualified majority in the parliament supports euro adoption. A referendum is not only a way to stop adoption of the euro, it could also be a way of speeding up the process. In addition, I think that what the Commission said 10 or more years ago is quite irrelevant today, not least because of the financial crisis. That said, I support TDL's compromise proposal. --Glentamara (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess the point is that there is a difference between "hasen't yet set a target date" and "is not obliged to set a target date". If we are going to have a table entitled "Euro adoption by EU member states" I think it is important to somehow get across the point that two of these states are not obliged to adopt the euro. "Official target date" is a convenient place to explain this, but perhaps it could be done elsewhere. TDL (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Template now display the Swedish target date phrase - as per the consensus agreed "TDL's compromise proposoal". Danish Expert (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the compromise proposal that was accepted was for "the first sentence of DE's note" not the entire thing. Thus I have again removed the bit about the EC treating Sweden differently as it seems clear there is no consensus for that on the talk page. TDL (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologize for being sloppy and a bit too fast by just inserting the note without edit. I of course accept the removal of the last part of the note, as part of the compromise. However, there is a need for the enlargement of the eurozone article at some point of time to explain the issue, that the Commission has disapproved any "euro referendums" to be scheduled in the new group of Member States acceding in the new millennium. When I a couple of years ago started to read our Wikipedia articles about euro enlargement, it left me with the same understanding expressed by Glentamara, that all states were free to schedule euro referendums if they liked. When digging one inch deeper into the issue (reading some articles about this issue, referring to the Commission statements made in 2010-12), it is however evident this is not the case. I would welcome, if other editors (with more time than me) at some point do the work to search for sources backing up this story about "no euro referendums allowed (except for Sweden)". Perhaps such search will reveal "no existence of written Commission documents" to back up the point. The sources citing the Commission's orally spoken opinion about this matter (which I mentioned exist somewhere out on the web) would however -in my point of view- would be sufficient for us still to write a line or two about this issue in the article. Because for this issue, we should not under-estimate the strength of political and economical power exercised by the Commission to enforce their spoken will (particular if we pay attention to the fact that all new Eastern Europe Member States highly benefit from receiving EU economic structural funds - and therefor it sort of pays off to maintain good friendship with the Commission rather than to completely piss them off). I am out of time to work more on this issue, but would welcome any other editor to find the 2010-12 articles I referred to, and then add a line or two about it in the enlargement of the eurozone article. For this "Non-euro currencies" template, I can however accept we keep the current compromise implemented (after TDL's edit on 15 September), no matter the outcome of this additional called for editor work in the other mentioned article. Danish Expert (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)