Template talk:PreEuroCurrencies

British pound or Pound sterling ?

In the template PreEuroCurrencies :

Other EU British pound

In the template Currencies of Europe

Western Guernsey... Pound sterling

As for me, British Pound is beter, because the name of the country is in teh name of the currency. Marc. --Flafla89 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the Euro

All countries in the EU must at some point join the Euro, except the UK. The UK has a special opt-out agreement. Sweden and Denmark don't, and therefore must join sometime - or renegotiate some EU treaties. Any countries which join the EU in the future must change to the euro eventually. Seabhcán 13:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was that the UK and Denmark both have an opt-out. Sweden does not, but is choosing not to join. I'm not sure there's a great difference between saying they will join 'at some point', or saying they may join in the future. Is there any treaty which puts any kind of date on when they would have to join? Surely they couldn't be compelled to join if it's been rejected in a referendum? Worldtraveller 14:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

some stuff about this here

Sweden is indeed the only country without an official opt-out. They're not fulfilling the Maastricht criteria on purpose, namely by refusing to join the ERM II, but technically, they have to join the Euro once they fulfill the criteria. None of the new member states have opt-outs. The only countries to have opt-outs are the UK and Denmark; the UK initially asked for this opt-out, while Denmark re-negotiated the Maastricht treaty to obtain four opt-outs (one of them the Euro) after the original Maastricht treaty was rejected in a referendum. Denmark's government have stated their intent to call a referendum on abolishing the opt-outs some time 2005 or 2006, and it is fairly likely to succeed. All this doesn't change anything about the template, though; Denmark is a member of the ERM II, and Sweden technically will have to join the Euro. (And no, they can't be compelled to join the ERM II, to answer your query.) If you've got further questions, ask. Nightstallion 14:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. But does this not effectively mean that Sweden can avoid ever joining the Euro by simply not joining ERM II? If they have a kind of de facto opt-out in this way, then shouldn't they be put in the 'might join in future' camp? I imagine they would never join unless it was endorsed by referendum, and I do not think they will hold another referendum for several years yet, so unlike the countries in ERM II which are on some kind of reasonably defined path to Euro-hood, it's still up to Sweden whether or not they ever join. Is that not so? Worldtraveller 15:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that mainly depends on whether we want to group them by legal obligation or by de facto proceedings. Maybe we should rename the "will join" category to "obliged to join"? Although that may sound a bit negative... Nightstallion 15:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It just seems to me that Sweden's 'obligation' to join is effectively meaningless, if they could in reality stay out forever if they wanted to. So it would make more sense to me to put them in the 'may join in the future' category. Worldtraveller 15:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, that applies for all states not yet a member of the Eurozone. They do not have to join the ERM II, no matter what. So putting Sweden into the may join instead of the will join category does not seem absolutely NPOV to me... Maybe it's just me. Nightstallion 16:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see that point. But certainly Sweden is much less likely to join the Eurozone in the next 5 years than others in their category. The new EU countries are all, I believe, actively working towards adopting the Euro, while Sweden is not. I don't know, maybe it would be best to just have a section for currencies which may join in future, and put all the ones currently in 'will join' in 'may join'? Worldtraveller 16:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about differentiating between "seeks to join" and "may join"? Nightstallion 17:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That could seem reasonable. I note, though, that the Euro article lists expected dates for joining the Euro for all the countries in 'will join', but says that the UK and Sweden have no plans to join. So, I still don't really see any POV problem with just moving Sweden to the 'may join in future' category. Either way, I definitely don't think Sweden should be in the 'will join' category. Worldtraveller 17:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I moved the Swedish crown down, alphabetized all categories by the country's adjective, and bolded the strokes between current members, non-members set for accession and countries in membership negotations. Any other suggestions? Nightstallion 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Currencies

I'm not sure why WorldCurrencies template was included here, but it was putting this page into categories, so I nowiki'ed it. Ingrid 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I do not think the notes are necessary, this is just a simple template which relays the most basic of information. There's no need for such detail here which can be found just by clicking on the links to the seperate currencies. Thus, I am going to remove them unless a great case can be made to keep them. Páll 20:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not trying to make a "great case" here, but it's incorrect not to list the British pound and the Swedish krona - and it's just as incorrect not to list them. Since the situation is not really simple with the Danish krona, the British pound and the Swedish krona, though, I'd have preferred to use notes. There are a number of templates which use notes, so I didn't think that would be a problem in itself... Any special reason why you are strongly against two short notes about the actual situation? Nightstallion 20:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think notes like this are too much information for a template like this, which is designed for navigation rather than to supply all the info. The relevant articles should explain the various opt-outs etc, so I don't think the template needs to. Personally I think it would be much simpler just to have currencies listed under 'members', 'will join' and 'may join' - countries which are intending to join can go under will join, countries with an optout or who do not otherwise intend to join can go under may join, and the relevant articles can explain all the details.

Also, I am not sure it makes sense to include the Vatican and San Marino Liras, the links just take you to Italian lira, and I'm sure we wouldn't include the Gibraltar pound or Falkland pound or anything like that. Worldtraveller 23:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, the Civil Union template contains a number of notes and some information that wouldn't be necessary only to facilitate information... But if, as it seems, a number of people are against the notes, I'll simply remove them. Nightstallion 13:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of removing the third section "Non-ERM EU members". While these countries are EU members, their currencies are not currently members of anything. I'd also like to remove the Vatican and San Marino Liras (Its debatable whether these ever were proper currencies) and the notes. Any currencies outside the EuroZone are linked to the EuropeanCurrencies Template. Seabhcán 13:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somehow that the notes have returned. I am revertign to an earlier version per our discussion above. [[User:PZFUN|User:PZFUN/signature]] 22:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar pound

Is there a reason why Gibraltar pound is here? --Chochopk 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – Gibraltar is part of the European Union, and would introduce the euro the same way the UK would. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man are not? --Chochopk 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not; in fact, they are not even part of the United Kingdom, technically speaking. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify or list the source of your statement? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a good, long look at our fine article crown dependency; the UK's head of state just also happens to be the head of state of Gy, Jy and the IoM at the same time. —Nightst a llion (?) 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]