Talk:European Economic Area

Membership question

Membership question: are the '2004' EU memebers, members of the EEA? are the 2007 candidates? I've found this via a google search:

... (the EEA) currently has 31 member countries. These are the 15 EU Member States; Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, which are members of the European Economic Area; and the 13 EU accession and candidate countries, namely Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and Turkey (from this month). The EEA is the first EU body to take in the accession countries. Negotiations on EEA membership are also under way with Switzerland.

This is wrong, EU candidates are not members of EEA, the EEA is not a EU body and Switzerland is not seeking to join the EEA as far as I know. Besides, this text contradicts itself as it claims that 31 countries are EEA members but also states (correct at the time it was written) that the EEA is EU15+IS+NO+LI. --Bjarki 21:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. the newest 10 EU members have negotiated their EEA membership before joining the EU and they have joined both the EEA and EU at the same time (I can find a link somewhere about this later).Alinor 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. EU candidates are not EEA members. --Bjarki 13:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not wrong, it's just about the European Environment Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.101.39 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Further to these questions, Switzerland is excluded from this article, despite the fact that they are part of EFTA and have separate bi-lateral agreements with the EU. Should this not be discussed in this article? It might be confusing to some when they look at the EFTA page which clearly identifies Switzerland. The exclusion without mention leaves this question open as a point of confusion.--Macadk - Verum aquilonem fortis et liber (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadk (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Da li je tačno da su Slovenija,Italija i Malta do decembra 2023. ratifikovale hrvatski EGP i da Hrvatska u EGP ulazi u januaru 2024.? 82.118.14.134 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Green circle around Liechtenstein?

Since the EEA has only 3 members, it might be nice to put a clear green circle around Liechtenstein? Now looking at the map, I wouldn't know they were one of the 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.94.3 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No financial burden

There is an objectionable phrase here in my opinion, the article states that "EEA members have no financial burden" but the countries do contribute to the EU budget - Norway for instance contributes over 200 million Euros a year to the budget. Personally I think it's a bit misleading.

Map: Cyprus and Malta

Cyprus and Malta are missing on the map of EEA countries. MaartenVidal 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Map: Your map and maplabel sucks

The map is not clear. If you want to present the "Members of the EEA", then present it on a map, do not mix them with another "European Union" stuff. The map is complicated to read, and the label is confusing.

Thank you for the constructive comment. How exactly does the map and the label confuse you? --Bjarki 12:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem persists in 2017. It should be a map about the EEA in the first place.--146.52.211.5 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that map is not optimal, but I do think distinction between EU and EFTA members should remain. I vote to remove Switzerland altogether from that map, change the color for Croatia to light blue (more similar to EU) and give a more distinctive color to EEA EFTA states - so that Liechtenstein is more prominent. --Merkhet (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

EEA members

I have made a minor edit to remove the previous suggestion that the EU might itself be a member of the EEA. The EU does not have legal personality, and cannot itself accede to any treaty. Only the member states can. Pearcedh 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true. Technically it is the European Community which is a member in its own capacity. For most people this is the same thing. --Bjarki 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So who's a member of the EEA?

NO, IS and LI are.

The EC is.

Are any EU countries members themselves, or do they act as part of the EC in terms of EEA membership? What about SE, FI and AT, who joined the EEA one year before joining EU? Does the EEA situation look any different for those three countries than for the other EU countries? (Stefan2 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Each EU country is a member by itself, so there are 30 member countries (27+3) as well as the EC which is a member itself. --Bjarki 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MOST OF THE DATA is OUT OF DATE on this page...AS OF 2009 Switzerland IS a MEMBER ! OFFICIAL PAGE: http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/countries-and-eionet/intro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.138.59 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the wrong EEA! This article is about the European Economic Area, but the page you refer to is about the European Environment Agency. The European Economic Area consists of all European Union countries as well as Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The European Environment Agency consists of all European Union countries as well as Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Turkey. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Switzerland is not a member (as of the timestamp of this edit), as can be seen by this link from within the EU's official EFTA website: http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement.aspx (see note at bottom of page - Switzerland has a bilateral agreement, but is the only one of the four EFTA countries that is not also part of the EEA) --Nrubdarb (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that the article states it is. The problem is with the map and its caption - a new map should be inserted which includes only EEA member states without mentioning or highlighting any EFTA or EU states. --Biblbroks (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Acronyms

I just want to say that the list of acronyms in the opening paragraph is BEAUTIFUL! Rock on! Zweifel 08:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I always intended to kill that, thanks for the reminder. --Bjarki 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ok take it easy babe. and i want to see it works or not?????

History section?

Maybe it would be useful to have a history section on the EEA?

The EEA was created on 1994-01-01, consisting of the EC + SE, FI, AT, NO and IS (treaty signed 1992-05-02, Swiss referendum 1992-12-06, these dates according to Swedish Wikipedia).

SE, FI and AT joined the EU on 1995-01-01, thus superseeding the EEA treaty.

LI joined at a later point (1995-05-01 according to German Wikipedia).

When 10 countries joined the EU in 2004, the EEA treaty had to be renegotiated, and the new treaty was decided upon on 2004-01-29 in Norway (according to Norwegian Wikipedia).

More can probably be mentioned. (58.188.97.134 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Map

Isn't the map wrong? It states that Svalbard (part of Norway) is part of the EEA, but as far as I know, it isn't, because the EEA treaty is incompatible with the Svalbard Treaty (mainly on the free movement of people chapter: anyone, including non-EEA citizens, may move to Svalbard and start working there without the need for visas or permits). (Stefan2 16:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

I believe that Stefan is right here. Norway -- except for Svalbard -- is a member of the EEA. Someone should please slice off the top of that map! (I don't know how, or I'd do it.) Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. Do we have a source mentioning Svalbard as excluded? Please look at the table for EFTA-EU relations. In the Schengen agreement Svalbard is explicitely mentioned as excluded. In the EEA agreement it stated that "When ratifying the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway shall have the right to exempt the territory of Svalbard from the application of the Agreement." - so if it is excluded there should be some declaration/whatever about this and thus we should put a reference to it. Else - it is covered in the EEA (as EFTA covers the Svalbard - see point 2 of the same protocol 40). Alinor (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, nor a politician, but in what seems to be the two main laws implementing EEA in Norwegian law, Svalbard is excluded. http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19921127-109-0.html#6 and http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19921127-112-0.html#3 --V79 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I found exclusion source here: [1] and changed the EFTA-EU table appropriately. Alinor (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

An error on the map: so far I know, the EEA includes the whole of the island of Cyprus (that is, including Northern Cyprus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.76.157 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Jersey and Guernsey

Although part of the UK, are these islands included in the EEA? I have heard otherwise. Kelvingreen (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are neither part of the UK nor part of the EEA. Halx (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

SImple list needed

I added a {{Clarify}} to the membership section with this reason: Please provide a simple list of member countries. The article is currently deficient in that it does not tell the casual reader this information. The Euler diagram, nice as it is, does not satisfy the reader's needs. -84user (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion 100%. I came here looking for a list and all I found was a tiny map and an image with flags, but no list. Waste of time. Thanks. Dendrotech (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Direct EEA membership (without being an EU or EFTA member)?

The article contains the following statement: "EEA membership has been discussed regarding Andorra, San Marino, Faroe Islands, Isle of Man, Morocco, Turkey, Israel"

These are countries that are neither EU or EFTA members - does this mean that a country can become a member of the EEA without being a member of the EU or EFTA? The original EEA agreement was between EU and EFTA, however I could not find a provision in it which mandates that a country must be an EU or EFTA member in order to join EEA. Is EEA membership for a third-party country (non-EU and non-EFTA member) possible? Clarification on this issue would be great. --FreedonNadd (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. Looking at the source, it often says things like "the Faeroe Islands have also carried out an assessment on membership of EFTA and the EEA" so they well could be referring to EEA membership via EFTA membership. TDL (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

However when the source talks about Morocco or Turkey, it speaks of the potential EEA membership for these countries without ever talking about EFTA (?)--FreedonNadd (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more relevant quotes:

• "Firstly, EEA membership entails either EFTA or EU membership"
• "Whether this will include proposals for participation in the EEA through EFTA remains to be seen. The EU agrees that EFTA should determine which countries it admits as members. The EU has nonetheless shown an interest in seeing how the countries can be linked to the EEA framework, for instance by means of some form of association agreement with EFTA or the EEA."

So it seems like it's still an open question how these states would be tied to the EEA. Maybe it would be better to change the word "membership" to "association agreements" in the sentence you quoted. TDL (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified the wording to reflect the fact that it's not clear how these states would be associated with the EEA. TDL (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

Did Croatia join EEA? I couldn't find a single source to confirm this information.Merkhet (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No they haven't. See for example: "As well as becoming the 28th member of the European Union, Croatia has applied to become a member of the European economic area ...", "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA ..." TDL (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This document says otherwise: "1/13 Primjena ugovora o Europskom gospodarskom području (European Economic Area - EEA), protokol 4.". It's in Croatian only, but it says that Croatia is applying the EEA Agreement from July 1st. Merkhet (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia may be unofficially applying the agreement as from 1 July but it will not become an official member until we have a decision of the EEA Council which confirms that it is admitted. The last EEA Council in May confirmed that negotiations are still ongoing (see para. 12). Lamberhurst (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak Croatian, but unless Google Translate is failing me that document concerns the application of Protocol 4 of the EEA Agreement only. Here are more sources that say they aren't yet a member: "31 EEA States, once Croatia's accession to the EEA has been finalised". TDL (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is carrying over to File:European Economic Area.svg, where editors are prematurely updating the map. TDL (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That instruction by an Assistant Minister means Croatia is starting to apply the provisions of the treaty, which does not necessarily mean anything more than that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the EFTA website (here) the agreement includes 28 member states by virtue of being an agreement between Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and the EU rather than individual member states. The website is kind enough to clarify that "The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA."--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but did you read the footnote from that website (which I mentioned above): "31 EEA States, once Croatia's accession to the EEA has been finalised"? Romania and Bulgaria didn't become EEA members until months after they joined the EU.[2][3]. At the moment, Croatia has applied to become a party to the agreement,[4] but there is no evidence that they have as of yet. TDL (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the European Commission decision of 1 June 2012 - COM (2012) 255 - stipulated that the EEA accession should be finalised by the time of Croatian accession to the EU ([5], p.9). There should be some document available online clarifying if that indeed happened or if the provisional solution mandated otherwise is in place instead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the Commission wanted Croatia to join the EEA at the same time as the EU. But "should" isn't "did". The point is that just because they're a EU member doesn't mean they are automatically EEA members. They need to separately negotiate an EEA Enlargement Agreement, which needs to be approved and enter into force before they become an EEA member. Until we find a source saying that they are EEA member, we shouldn't claim that they are. I'm sure the EEA Enlargement Agreement will be signed in the next few months, but we shouldn't misrepresent the situation until that actually happens. TDL (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of states which are party to the EEA agreement. Searching through the agreement datebase doesn't turn up any recently signed enlargement agreement. The last time the EU enlarged on 1/2/2007, the EEA enlargement agreement was not signed until 8 months later on 25/7/2007, and it didn't enter into force for another 4+ years on 09/11/2011 while all the EEA member states ratified the agreement. (The agreement was provisionally in force from 1/8/2007.) TDL (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

According to [6], EEA accession negotiations are expected to be completed by the fall of 2013. TDL (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

EEA official website (eea.europa.eu): As Croatia joins the European Union, it also becomes a full member of the European Environment Agency (EEA) on July 1, 2013. Published : Jul 01, 2013 Last modified : Jul 02, 2013 04:14 PM. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a different EEA (European Environment Agency)! Merkhet (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast answer! --Kolja21 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia joined the EEA per this source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/biodiversity-rich-croatia-becomes-33rd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.82.210 (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

See above. That link is about the European Environment Agency, but this article is about the European Economic Area. TDL (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This document from 1 July 2013 from the official EEA / EFTA website states: "Who are the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement? The 28 EU Member States, together with the three EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, make up the EEA Contracting Parties (the 31 EEA States)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdk (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the article with the correct EEA that supports Croatian membership and it's even on law portal, not some news page. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d2206187-87e4-4afd-9083-6f9f0dab2967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.148.64 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about and this is coming from a real lawyer. The fact that a Member State accedes to the European Union does not automatically mean that its citizens become EEA nationals. As per Article 128 of the EEA Agreement:

• (1) Any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council.
• (2) The terms and conditions for such participation shall be the subject of an agreement between the Contracting Parties and the applicant State. That agreement shall be submitted for ratification or approval by all Contracting Parties in accordance with their own procedures. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia is a member of EEA! All your previous statements to the contrary are based on dubious press info. Check out the official document: http://www.efta.int/~/media/Documents/eea/1112099-basic-features-of-the-EEA-Agreement.pdf. Also, UK Border Agency agrees with me: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/eucitizens/croatia/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.108.10.32 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the Council of the European Union (obviously not dubious press info) Croatia has not yet ratified the EEA Agreement: [7]. The EFTA [8], the Norwegian Embassy to Croatia [9] and the Croatian Bureau of Statistics [10] (also not dubious press info) also dispute the claim that they are members. If they really are members, there would have to have been an EEA Enlargement Agreement signed by all the EEA parties. To date, there has been no evidence presented that such an agreement has been signed, and sources saying that negotiations are still ongoing. TDL (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If there was still any doubt about this, the results from todays Council of the EEA should put them to rest: "The EEA Council welcomed the accession of Croatia to the EU on 1 July 2013 and urged all sides to complete all procedures relevant for the enlargement of the EEA with Croatia." and "Minister Linkevičius also encouraged all sides to conclude negotiations on Croatia’s accession to the EEA in the nearest future in order for Croatia to use the benefits of the EEA Agreement as well as of the Financial Mechanisms." TDL (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Croatia is now a member of the EU and this article needs to be updated accordingly. 80.254.148.187 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the EEA, not the EU. Croatia needs to separately negotiate and accede to the EEA after joining the EU. As described in this article, that process is currently underway. TDL (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Will UK need to ratify Croatia's EEA accession treaty after BREXIT? ( https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2014013 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.125.77.14 (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus and EEA: Legal and practical aspects

NC and EEA: From the legal point of view:
1. The agreement is not applied to Northern Cyprus. Protocol 10 of the treaty of accession of the European Union to Cyprus suspended the application of the EU acquis to Northern Cyprus: Protocol No 10 on Cyprus (23.09.2003) "Official Journal of the European Union", pages=955
"Turkish Cypriot Community", European Commission: EEA agreement states that it only applies to the territories of EU member states to which the EU treaties apply: "AGREEMENT ON THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA" "European Free Trade Association", p. 40.
A joint declaration to the Final Act of treaty on accession of Cyprus to the EEA confirmed that this included the Protocol on Cyprus: "AGREEMENT on the participation of ..the Republic of Cyprus..in the European Economic Area", 29.04.2004, European Union
Practically, Northern Cyprus is also regarded as part of EEA by some countries:
2. Northern Cyprus is part of the EEA according to UK Council for International Students Affairs (UKCISA): UKCISAFor categories where the residence area includes the EEA, the residence area is made up of all 30 countries in the EEA including the whole of the island of Cyprus (that is, including Northern Cyprus
3. University of Cambridge, University of Cambridge, Undergraduate Admissions Handbook 2014-15The European Economic Area (EEA) is considered to be made up of the countries of the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. For the purposes of residence, this includes the whole of the island of Cyprus (including Northern Cyprus).
Danlaycock reverted by stating: "what a specific university charges for tuition has no legal effect. treaties clearly say otherwise.". I do not say NC is a part of EEA from legal points. What I say, in practice some countries handle NC as being a part of EEA. Also, U. of Cambridge is not the only university of UKCISA; all of the universities in UK are members of UKCISA.
4. Leeds University, Southampton University, Nottingham University: For categories where the residence area includes the EEA, the residence area is made up of all 30 countries in the EEA including the whole of the island of Cyprus (that is, including Northern Cyprus).Ayka3b (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Practically, Northern Cyprus is also regarded as part of EEA by some countries" - No, you have not demonstrated that at all. All you have shown is that a few universities have decided to asses the residency status of students from NC the same way as other EEA students. The same often applies to Switzerland (ie [11][12]). That of course doesn't mean that the UK government considers Switzerland to be part of the EEA. UKCISA does not represents the government nor does it set policy, so even if it did say "NC is part of the EEA" (which it did not) using this to state that "Northern Cyprus is part of the EEA" is a misrepresentation of the facts. Listing the tuition practises of UKCISA on this page is very WP:UNDUE. TDL (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you for clarifying this to me. A better phrasing might be: "Northern Cyprus is sometimes handled by some institutions of EEA countries as if it is a part of EEA" or "Northern Cyprus is sometimes given the same rights of the member countries of EEA by some institutions of EEA". Or, your suggestion? Ayka3b (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not a country or entity recognised by any EEA state. If and when Cyprus is reunited the northern part of the island would be an EU member state. Until then, as Protocol 10 clearly indicates, it remains an area over which the application of the EU Treaties is suspended. Residents of this part of Cyprus have no legal basis on which to claim EU or EEA rights. The fact that some educational institutions may nevertheless recognise them as EEA/EU nationals does not change this. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Lamberhurst. I don't see why a policy with regards to a very specific issues at a few institutions in a single EEA member state is notable enough to mention here as it doesn't have any effect on the legal situation. If IKEA decided to treat Ukraine as an EEA state for shipping purposes we wouldn't mention that here because it simply isn't notable. TDL (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right to some extent. On the other hand, the situation is much bigger than u depict: Almost all UK universities take the same stance on this. I do not know what the situation is in terms of the other EEA countries. If the same applies for them as well, then one cannot minimize the situation with IKEA example, I think.Ayka3b (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

While that is very nice of them, it doesn't change its legal status. Merkhet (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence in the article does not state what European Economic Area is. Instead it talks about what it provides. Later in the first paragraph something referred to as 'The Agreement' is mentioned, without explaining what The Agreement is. The article introduction should be made clearer. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we are referring to the "European Economic Area" rather than the "European Economic Area Agreement". The agreement "provides for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the internal market of the European Union". "internal market" is a broader term than "EEA", referring to all EU policies that facility the concept of a single harmonised EU market. However the EEA agreement is by far the primary component, providing provisions for a single market, and superseded prior agreements on the common market when it was enacted in 1994. So "EEA" is more of a technical term when referring to customs or border controls. The first sentence could do with some clarification, but it still can only refer to what the agreement provides (provisions for a single market within the EU's internal market). Otherwise it gets confusing when compared with Internal market of the EU. Possibly that article could do with some clarification also. Rob984 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Benchimol's comment on this article

Dr. Benchimol has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article is very good, complete and informative. Some little remarks should be addressed.

1. At the beginning of the article, differentiating between Eurozone and the European Economic Area should be detailed. 2. The section “EEA and Norway Grants” is, in my opinion, a bit too specific compared to the global purpose of the article. Moreover, another article already exist about this specific subject, so there no need to keep this section. 3. Some important academic references that should be discussed in the article: a. Caselli, F. et al. (1996): Reopening the Convergence Debate: A New Look at Cross-country Growth Empirics. Journal of Economic Growth 363-389. b. András Blahó, 2005. Some Aspects of European Economic Area and Competitiveness, Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 27(1), pages 63-90, June. c. Henderson, J. V. - Shalizi, Z. - Venables, A. J. (2001): Geography and Development. Journal of Economic Geography 2001/1: 81-105. d. Barro, R. J. - Sala-i Martin, X. (1991): Convergence Across States and Regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1991/1: 107-182. 4. Somme other academic references that should be cited in the article: a. Neven, D. J. - Gouyette, C. (1994): Regional Convergence in the European Community. CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 914. London. b. Hallet, M. (2000): Regional Specialisation and Concentration in the EU. Economic Papers, No. 141. Brussels. c. Fujita, M. et al. (1999): The Spatial Economy - Cities, Regions and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

d. Williamson, J. G. (1965): Regional Inequality and the Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Benchimol has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Benchimol, Jonathan, 2014. Risk aversion in the Eurozone. Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 39-56.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Jambor's comment on this article

Dr. Jambor has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is a very well written piece, detailed enough for those interested.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Jambor has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Jambor, Attila & Hubbard, Lionel J., 2012. "Changes in Hungarian Agri-Food Trade Since EU accession," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126237, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.klassekampen.no/61007/article/item/null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307181930/http://www.latribunasammarinese.net/edizioni/2013/01-gennaio/03-01-2013boiw.pdf to http://www.latribunasammarinese.net/edizioni/2013/01-gennaio/03-01-2013boiw.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms?

So no criticisms how interesting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224114835/http://daily.tportal.hr/214482/Croatian-gov-t-files-for-Croatia-s-entry-into-EEA.html to http://daily.tportal.hr/214482/Croatian-gov-t-files-for-Croatia-s-entry-into-EEA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224110308/http://daily.tportal.hr/200474/Croatia-s-GDP-remains-at-61-of-EU-average.html to http://daily.tportal.hr/200474/Croatia-s-GDP-remains-at-61-of-EU-average.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810155628/http://efta.int/~/media/Documents/legal-texts/efta-convention/efta-convention-texts/8963-v6-Vaduz_Convention_Agreement.pdf to http://www.efta.int/~/media/Documents/legal-texts/efta-convention/efta-convention-texts/8963-v6-Vaduz_Convention_Agreement.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823140509/http://www.mfa.fo/Files/Billeder/Uttanrikisradid/tekstir/ESfr%C3%A1grei%C3%B0ingEN%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.mfa.fo/Files/Billeder/Uttanrikisradid/tekstir/ESfr%C3%A1grei%C3%B0ingEN%5B1%5D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201040236/http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eea/ to http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eea/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European Economic Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206183726/http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1992/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1992/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405170456/http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1995/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/abc/history/1990-1999/1995/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530224528/http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/turkish_cypriots/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/turkish_cypriots/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702213539/http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/123075.pdf to http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/123075.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

UK needs to be added back in as an EFTA member until 31 December 2020. Aeonx (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued UK participation throughout 2020

As the EEA Agreement is still fully operational concerning the UK, along with all the other similar EU external treaties, it would seem the UK is still in the EEA throughout the transitional period up till 31st December 2020.

https://www.efta.int/EEA/news/EEA-EFTA-States-take-final-step-towards-Brexit-preparations-516821 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.164 (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I agree, the UK is still an EEA member, at least in effect. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would state that for the purposes of the EEA, the territory of the UK is still part of the EU. A new colour for the uk in the image would be needed, but grey doesn't cover it... L.tak (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

[13]: "The United Kingdom (UK) ceased to be a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement after its withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020." The UK is no longer in the EEA, but it continues to apply EEA regulations. Frenzie23 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, and to quote form the same source "Nevertheless, during the transition period the UK will continue to be treated as an EEA State". In other words: no not a member, but during the transition phase that will have no effect on applications of EEA provisions. L.tak (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as all parties - the UK, EU and EFTA states, agree that we are 'bound' by the obligations of the EEA, AND to be 'treated' as an EEA state, it is therefore a practically and legally operational treaty throughout this year. We are at the very least an "EEA participant" and so appearing on the map the the EEA agreement covers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.164 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've went ahead and boldly added a new colour to the map for the UK since it appears to be the consensus to do so here. Rob984 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I support that. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

how on earth can this be contested? The UK is no longer a member of the EU, and hence no longer a member of the EEA. The fact that the UK is still "part of the EU" and hence of the EEA area, because of a transition period agreed with the EU - does not mean it is still a member of either the EEA or the EU. The separation agreement with the EEA EFTA: https://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/eea/eea/legal-texts/Explainer_UK-EEA_EFTA_Separation_Agreement.pdf clearly states that: "The UK is a party to the EEA Agreement by virtue of its membership of the EU. This agreement will cease to apply when the UK leaves the EU, although the UK will remain bound by relevant EU agreements with these countries, including the EEA Agreement, for the duration of the implementation period."

Yes, the UK has left the EU, and thus no longer a member od the EEA, but it is still "party to the EEA agreement" during the transition period. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

."remain bound by relevant EU agreements " is different from "PARTY to the agreement", which the UK is not, because: "This agreement will cease to apply when the UK leaves the EU".

To avoid repeating information in many part of the article. This note was introduced: "The UK as a member of the EU is considered as a member of the EEA. It is planned that as soon as the UK is no more a member of the EU, UK is no more be a member of the EEA. This exit is defined by the withdrawal agreement for the relationship between the UK and the EU and by a separation agreement for the relation between the UK and the EEA. Those agreements planned a transition period between the UK and the EU and an implementation period between the UK and the EEA." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.51 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Croatia

That Croatia would not be part of the EEA is original research and based on some misunderstanding of its accession agreement. The agreement has indeed not been fully ratified yet, however, it is since 12 April 2014 applied on a provisional basis, which means that Croatia is already an EEA member. Sources for the provisional application you find here and for being a member of EEA, see e.g., this and this. --Glentamara (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Now Croatia is a member of the EU. As a member of the EU it should be considered as a member of the EEA. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/croatia_fr

We do not know if Croatia as been a member of the EEA without being a member of the EU. Do you have source to say Croatia was a member of the EEA before the EU? Else article is possibly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.51 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

France OMRs

Are France Outermost Regions (e.g. Réunion, Martinique, etc) also part of the EEA? I'm no expert but perhaps it is worth adding such info in the table row for France. Pinnecco (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Outermost Regions have specific status in the countries they belong to. Those countries are member of the EU. Countries of the EU are member of the EEA. Rules which apply in the EEA are related with rules which apply to the EU. If there is no relevant source, might be there is nothing to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.155.51 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

untidy/confusing edits - please explain what you are trying to do on Talk page

One legend on EEA is very confusing:

• EU states which form part of the EEA
• EFTA states which form part of the EEA
• Non-EU/non-EFTA state with transitional/implementation status[2]
• EU state which provisionally forms part of the EEA
• EFTA state which signed the EEA agreement but did not join

This need to be explained: "please explain what you are trying to do on Talk page" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Economic_Area&diff=962011889&oldid=961963516

There are several issues with this:

1. Line 1 vs 4: First line says EU states are part of the EEA, while line 4 says that 1 EU state is "provisionally" part of the EEA. This is not easy to understand and is at least confusing:

   • If Croatia is not a full part of the EEA (because ratification was not completed), first line should clarify that only 26 out of 27 EU members states are part of the EEA
   • If Croatia is full part of the EEA (because Croatia is member of the EU and EU member of the EEA), line 4 should be grouped with line 1, in the most appropriate way.

   Start and end date of the provisional period could be clarified too.

   If it is not so clear a footnote could clarify this point or give a link to the section which clarifies this point. This note could then be called/referenced from other paragraphs when needed.

2. Line 2: We could clarify how many EFTA member states are member of the EEA (might be 3)
3. Line 3:
   • We could clarify this non EU, non EEA member state is the UK.
   • Currently, UK is not a member of the EEA as a Non-EU state but as a former EU state, with the withdrawal and separation agreements. We could add the word former EU member, and for the future wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
   • We could clarify the planned date ending transition period of the withdrawal agreement and implementation period of the separation agreement.
4. Line 5. We could clarify this is Switzerland and put it separately because this is the only one which is not i the EEA.
5. Last but not least, if the EU is a member of the agreement, it could be clarified too.

Then, the official number of EEA members or EEA member states could also be clarified in the legend.

Map etc need updating

The UK has left. 2.25.230.114 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

UK on map?

The UK has been an EEA member from the start, and it now doesn't apply to it anymore. I would prefer to indicate it in our map (either using this image, or -if other languge versions of wikipedia that also use the image don't agree- a new image), with a separate colour, and consider it wp:recentism not to note that it was a member in the map. Former members are also indicated on other maps (eg the Kyoto protocol and Paris Agreement). My change to the map and the legend was reverted however. Looking for ideas on what's the best way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Simpler membership map

I made a simplier membership map:

  EU states which form part of the EEA

  EU state which forms part of the EEA through the provisional application of an accession agreement

  EFTA states which form part of the EEA

I don't think it's relevant in this map to show Switzerland, which signed but never ratified the agreement, especially considering the UK also signed the agreement and subsequently withdrew.

Rob984 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary to have a separate coloring for Croatia. The fact that the accession agreement is provisionally applied has no practical effects. It's just a formality, which is also the reason why many member states are really slow ratifying the agreement. --Glentamara (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest using this simple map in the infobox at the top, and the more detailed map in the body in the membership section to illustrate the history. TDL (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Brainiac242 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

status of Croatia

We have had changes (mainly by non-registered users) contending that Croatia is a full member. Although it applies EEA, the accession process only ends with entry into force of the treaty (see [https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2014013 the agreement ratifications which indicate that ao France and Malta have not ratifed). L.tak (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Croatia is a full member of EEA through the provisional application of its accession protocol. The finalization of the ratification process is just a formality, with no practical meaning. That's probably why many member states have not even bothered to finalize the process after almost 10 years. --Nablicus (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I think it is reasonable to point out the provisional application of the accession agreement of Croatia somewhere in the article. However, making a big fuss out of it by marking the country differently on the maps and mentioning it in the lead etc. is to give too much attention to this purely technical aspect. --Nablicus (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The last information from May '23. It says the Croatian EEA membership is ratified by 25 out of 30 parties! In August still the same situation?! 78.99.51.26 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

27 out 30 states have now approved Croatia’s EEA accession. 130.243.212.38 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Croatia - on the difference between ratification and notification

Article 6 of the 2014 Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Economic Area states the following:

''1. This Agreement shall be ratified or approved by the Present Contracting Parties and the New Contracting Party in accordance with their own procedures. The instruments of ratification or approval shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union.

2. It shall enter into force on the day following the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or approval of a Present Contracting Party or the New Contracting Party, provided that the following related protocols enter into force on the same day:

Seeing that instruments of ratification are deposited, or "notified" to the Council of the EU, notification itself is not part of the ratification process. Budsalone (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing Italy's internal domestic procedure required to ratify the treaty, and the ratification process at the international level to formally indicate its consent to be bound by the treaty. It is only when the later is completed that ratification of the treaty is completed. Here are some sources explaining more details about this:

• UN Glossary of terms relating to Treaty actions:

Ratification

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

• wikisource:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

(b) 'ratification', 'acceptance', 'approval' and 'accession' mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

I'd also note that a link to a vote to approve the treaty by the Senate is not even sufficient to evidence that Italy's internal ratification procedure has been completed. Has the treaty been approved by the lower house? Has the president approved? Have the relevant decisions been published? There are many legal formalities that need to occur for a state to ratify a treaty. If we want to claim that this procedure is completed we need sources to state that, rather than trying to deduce it by WP:synthesis from primary sources.

Italy will almost certainly completes their ratification soon by submitting their notification to the depositary, but as of now it hasn't so I will reverted the change until there are sources showing that their ratification is completed. TDL (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd add that the language in the bill that was approved makes this clear as well, as it merely authorizes the President to ratify the agreement at some future date once the law enters into force.[14]. TDL (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The EU legal act I cited clearly outlines the succession of different phases, including ratification in a member state and the subsequent notification of the ratification to the EU. Ignoring this and attempting to muddy the waters with internet glossaries and Wikipedia pages changes nothing in that respect and certainly does not invalidate the stipulations of the actual international agreement.

Regarding the Senate link, it was clear that you failed to grasp that the Senate page provided information on the entire national procedure, including the final stage at the national level, not just the Senate stage. This explains your numerous questions and musings, despite the Senate link clearly indicating that the ratification procedure had been completed at the national level by the end of May. By the time you posted your second message, you had apparently become aware of the law that had been in force since the end of May. Congratulations! I wish you had taken the time to revise your reasoning from the first message or at least acknowledged that you misinterpreted or missed the relevant completion dates for each procedure indicated on the Senate page. Instead, you opted for an interpretation of the actual act (which couldn't have been a "bill" as it had been in force for over a month by that point, though I can understand why you might misrepresent it as such). Why? Again, the international agreement Italy signed (and I cited in my original message) clearly indicates what is/was to be done.

In any case, this is now just a courtesy reply on my part. I saw your message but figured it would have been an utter waste of time to reason with you, when it's clear that in the matter of weeks Italy would notify the EU of the completion of its ratification (effected through the end-of-May act), just like 29 other countries had done previously.

What a waste of time! Budsalone (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, such a "courteous" reply. I'm not sure whether to start by correcting your misunderstandings of internal law, or pointing out your straw man and Ad hominem arguments.

The EU legal act does indeed break down the process into two phases, as I clearly explained to you above. However you've again missed the point of the dispute, which is that you claim that ratification is completed after phase 1, while the generally accepted definition under internal law is that it's completed after phase 2. Ignoring the fact that the cited legislation does not actually support your claim, and dismissing authoritative sources such as the UN Treaty Affairs and VCLT which clearly and explicitly prove your claim false, does not make your unsubstantiated interpretations of the legal act any more valid no matter how many times you chose to cite it.

On the Senate link, it's again clear that you did not grasp the substance of the dispute. What I said was that the source provided only supported that certain steps of the ratification procedure had been completed, not that the national ratification process in its entity had been completed. Despite your claims otherwise, it is simply not true that the source states that the national ratification procedure is completed. You argument is premised on the unstated assumption that the publication of the legislation was the final step of the national ratification process, and so are therefore misinterpreting the source to conclude that the national ratification process is fully completed. Those are your personal conclusions based on interpreting primary sources, which is WP:original research and is not permissible on the encyclopedia. If you want to claim that the national ratification process has been completed, you need evidence that it has been completed, not just that certain steps of the process (such as legislation authorizing ratification being published) have been completed.

On your attacks about my use of language, if you read carefully you will see that I referred to the "bill that was approved", ie I was referring to the bill in the past tense prior to its approval. That is the appropriate terminology to use, as acts don't get approved. It only becomes an act after approval. You can learn more at Bill (law).

I agree that this was a waste of time! Next time I would suggest that it would be more productive to be patient and wait until the facts become true and WP:verifiable, rather than trying to conduct WP:original research and prematurely edit war articles to present expected future events as completed. This just misleads readers of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a WP:crystal ball, and there is WP:no deadline for completion. TDL (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Budsalone and Danlaycock: Regardless of whether or not notification is part of the ratification process, Italy has now ratified the agreement, as its notification was completed on 19 July. Brainiac242 (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sir es number is banned but why 9079874581

Sir please check 2409:40D4:12:7B4A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

es TheBritinator (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)