Talk:International status and usage of the euro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject European Union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge[edit]

Currencies related to the euro is now covered by this article. Propose merge (delete), everything already included here.- J.Logan`t: 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Below is the contence of that page's talk page;- J.Logan`t: 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

What is the total population of the countries using the euro and those countries whose currencies are pegged to the euro?

Good question. Don't know, but maybe someone else could work it out. - RHeodt 10:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Just worked it out. It's approximately 480 881 172. - Рэдхот(tce) 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete?[edit]

I'm not a real expert with money so, can anyone who is tell me, is this list of currencies complete? - Gerbon689

Isn't the Comorian franc pegged to the EUR, as well? Nightstallion 16:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes you're right. I added it now. - Gerbon689
Thanks. And while I haven't been able to find exact specifications, this site indicates that CYP is also pegged to the EUR. (Never mind that it still lists LVL as being pegged to SDR instead of EUR.) Nightstallion 20:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd also seen that on a site, but like you, have been trying to get specifications. I've e-mailed the European Central Bank and requested a full list, so hopefully they'll tell me. - Gerbon689 16:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SUCCESS. I have finally tracked down the central rate for CYP. I haven't got a response from the ECB yet, but I did find the rate on the EU's official sit (europa.eu.int). I added it now - Gerbon689 16:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the Chinese currency pegged to the US dollar within a narrow band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.230 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Order[edit]

In my opinion, there's three ways to order this list:

  • alphabetically (by demonym)
  • chronologically (by start of peg or link, or date of ERM II entry)
  • by value of €1 in the respective currency

Which one would be preferred? I'd be for chronological. Flag of Austria.svg ナイトスタリオン 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think to order alphabetically by ISO currency code. It used to be it ordered that way, so I'm gonna (try to) reorder them now. - RHeodt 10:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Swiss Franc not pegged to the Euro[edit]

Dear english Wikipedia-Contributors The claim, that the swiss franc is "unofficial" pegged to the euro is simple wrong. The Swiss National Bank, the only responisble body in Switzerland for its currency policy, clearly stated that there are no official or unofficial bindings to the Euro. Following a quote (german) of one of the members of its steering body (Prof. Jordan). "Die SNB setzt ihre Leitzinsen also mit dem Ziel fest, mittelfristig die Preisstabilität aufrecht zu erhalten. Sie verfolgt kein Wechselkursziel, weder zum Euro noch zum US-Dollar. Da der Wechselkurs des Schweizer Frankens zum Euro und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Eurozone aber einen grossen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung der schweizerischen Wirtschaft und auf die Preise in der Schweiz haben, werden sie von der SNB sorgfältig beobachtet und stellen wichtige Elemente bei der Festlegung des geldpolitischen Kurses dar." See here [1]. Since begin of 2003 (then ratio was 1.45:1 CHF/EUR) the ratio is within a band of 4%, thats true, but there is no guarantee at all, that this will not change. At the moment the ratio is 1.58 and it can easily exceed 1.61 within the next weeks and then break the band. Fairfis 09:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed Swiss Franc from the list. --NeoUrfahraner 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the point of it, wasn't really to claim that it is pegged, just that it doesn't normally exceed that band, like it said, because Switzerland is surrounded by euro, they can't do any business at bordering states, without using euro. I won't readd it, but I think if it's phrased better, it should go back in. - RHeodt 10:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Renminbi?[edit]

I have to agree with 144.136.115.144. If we include any currency that is partially pegged to euro, the list could go on forever. In addition, many central banks may not publish their secret formula for pegging (if that is their practice), or it could be hard to look up. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

It says that 1 BAM = 1 DEM and that 1 BGN = 1 DEM, but it also says that 1 EUR = 1.95583 BAM while 1 EUR = 1.95587 BGN, so if it's really true that 1 BGN is less than 1 BAM, then only one of them can be pegged at exactly 1 DEM. (212.247.11.153 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I believe it's just a typo. Both were pegged to the German mark. The official website of the Bulgarian National Bank also quotes 1.95583 [2]. I will update the article. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's actually vandalism [3]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction II[edit]

It says in this article that MAD is pegged to the euro, but [4] shows MAD as not being pegged to the euro, so one of them is wrong (no idea which one). (Stefan2 18:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

I left a comment on the image's talk page. The map is for hard peg only. MAD still floats with euro. So it's not colored. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ambigue paragraph[edit]

Below is transferred from Talk:Euro by - J.Logan`t: 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"In 1998, Cuba announced that it would replace the U.S. dollar with the euro as its official currency for the purposes of international trading.[30] On 1 December 2002, North Korea did the same. Syria followed suit in 2006.[31]" Did these countries just announce their plan to switch their international currency, or did they do it? And if so, did they do it in the same year as they announced it?Sijo Ripa (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't ambiguous, just out of date. Anyone have up to date information on this? Trouble getting the right dates in the news archives.- J.Logan`t: 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayotte is in the EU[edit]

The article states: "...Mayotte in the Indian Ocean are outside the EU...". Mayotte officially became a "departement" (state) of France in April this year (2011), which makes it part of the EU. (Just like its fellow French island in the Indian Ocean, the island of Reunion, which also uses the €.) It would therefore no longer be necessary to note Mayotte as out of the ordinary in this regard. Best, Niklas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.20.50 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still an OCT - a decision to convert it to OMR isn't taken yet (but obviously it will come sooner or later). If you have a link to such decision (or draft/proposal) - let's add it. Japinderum (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Saint Barthélemy[edit]

SB is outside the EU from 1 January 2012 onwards, but will continue to use the euro per http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:189:0003:0004:EN:PDF . —Nightstallion 13:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I added it (treaty between EU and France as St.B. representative about the usage of the euro)[5], but it was reverted with the following explanation: "Barts is an OCT which means it is within the EU. This will only chance in 2012". This explanation is incorrect. Currently St.Barts is an OMR (EU law applies there). In 2012 it will become an OCT (EU law wouldn't apply there anymore; this decision for status change starts to apply on 1.1.2012, but will be retroactively effectuated from 1.1.2010).[6] That's why France and EU signed a treaty about the usage of the euro (the link Nightstallion provided) - just as they did for Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Mayotte. On a side note - Mayotte will go in the other direction (now it's an OCT outside of the EU and with monetary agreement, later it will most probably become an OMR where EU law applies).
So, yes, until 1.1.2012 St.B can still be considered OMR (thus no need to list it), but as everything is already set for its status and euro usage change - EU Council decision to make it OCT, France-EU monetary agreement - why not list it? If you want we can add a note "from 1.1.2012" or similar. In any case this new monetary agreement should be mentioned in the article. Japinderum (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

TRNC[edit]

see Talk:Currencies of the European Union

[7] was made with the explanatin "TRNC is not recognised by the EU or any state except Turkey - hence official currency is euro". This is incorrect for the following reasons:

  • According to the TRNC laws the official currency in its territory is the lira.
  • According to the EU treaties the EU laws will not apply in the territory controlled by TRNC until it comes under the control of EU member Cyprus.

So you can say that "official currency in the territory currently controlled by TRNC may become the euro in the future, when this territory comes under control of Cyprus", but not that TRNC (as identified by the flag and wikilink in the table) official currency is the euro. It simply isn't (according to TRNC law) and it currently can't be (because as you say the EU doesn't recognize it - and EU law presently doesn't apply there). Japinderum (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the note "The territory of Northern Cyprus is considered part of the Republic of Cyprus and hence part of the EU and the only official circulating currency, from the perspective of international law, is the euro". The problems here are the following:

  • "and hence part of the EU" - the EU doesn't have parts. EU laws either apply in certain territories or not (e.g. in Gibraltar they apply, in Bermuda they don't apply). For "territories of Cyprus not under the control of the government of the Republic of Cyprus [the EU member]" the EU law application is suspended, e.g. EU laws don't apply there. They will start to apply only if/when these territories get controlled by EU member Cyprus.
  • "from the perspective of international law" - what is this law? The EU law? The TRNC law? The Turkey law? The Republic of Cyprus law? The Greek law? The UK law? (all those 6 are involved in this case) According to TRNC and Turkey law - the currency is the lira. According to EU law - it isn't applied there until the suspension is lifted. According to all laws other than TRNC and Turkey - TRNC doesn't exist.
  • So, you can say that "from the perspective of Republic of Cyprus law the territory of Northern Cyprus is considered part of the Republic of Cyprus and hence the official currency there is the euro" (if Cyprus law isn't suspended like EU law), but you can't say that about TRNC instead of "the territory of Northern Cyprus". And the table is about TRNC (flag and wikilink), not about the physical territory. And I don't think it's a good idea to list physical territories in the table/article - it deals with administrative entities (states and sub-state administrative divisions, dependent territories, etc.) - TRNC is an administrative entity - an independent state according to TRNC law and Turkey - but it isn't recognized by the EU and also even if it was recognized - it wouldn't get listed, because its official currency isn't the euro. And if "the territory of Northern Cyprus" was under the control of EU member Cyprus and EU law applied there (suspension lifted) and official currency was the euro - then it wouldn't get listed either - because it will simply be another physical part of Cyprus - like "the territory of southern Cyprus". Japinderum (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have to get into this again? From an international perspective (and there is such a thing as international law, despite you assetion) the TRNC does not exist and the ROC has full jurisdiction. The application of EU law is merely suspended, that is all. The legal position is that part of EU territory is under military occupation by a third state and that an unrecognised break away government (as Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Abkhazia etc.) circulates its own currency. Do you understand?- J.Logan`t: 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no "central repository of international law", international law has different sources and different content in different contexts, etc., but this is irrelevant for our discussion here. I don't question that for the majority of the international community (all besides TRNC and Turkey) TRNC doesn't exist.
The legal position of the EU is not about "military occupation" - the position of the EU is that the territory is outside of the control of the government of EU member Cyprus. It isn't specified under whose control it is. The legal position of Cyprus is that it's under "military occupation". The legal position of TRNC and Turkey is quite the opposite. But this is also irrelevant to our discussion.
Do you understand that you can't say "TRNC official currency is the euro"? Such is phrase is self-contradictory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic seems to be the following:
  1. TRNC is the administrative entity (independent state) that controls the physical territory in the north of Cyprus
  2. Regardless, TRNC doesn't exist according to the Republic of Cyprus and the EU
  3. That's why TRNC law doesn't matter - thus we ignore the fact that TRNC official currency is the lira
  4. Republic of Cyprus official currency is the euro according to RoCyprus and EU law
  5. Republic of Cyprus law applies to all of the territory RoCyprus claims, including in the physical territory in the north of Cyprus (e.g. RoCyprus law isn't suspended there - unlike EU law - or it's suspended, but you think that this doesn't matter)
  6. That's why official currency in the physical territory in the north of Cyprus is the official currency of RoCyprus - the euro
  7. So, we list TRNC (the independent state) in a list of euro users - [8]see the flag of TRNC and the wikilink to "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" in the section "other users" (e.g. the section about independent states using the euro without having agreement with the EU)
I could agree with all of those without the last one. It mixes two separately correct statements (depending which law you agree with) into one self-contradictory phrase (supported neither by RoCyprus law, nor by TRNC law):
  • Official currency of the TRNC (independent state) is the lira
  • Official currency in the north of Cyprus (physical territory) is the euro
Basically you want to include TRNC among Andorra and Montenegro, but at the same time argue that the justification for including it is because it doesn't exist. You can't include something which doesn't exist.
Your phrase is the following:
  • Official currency of the TRNC (independent state) is the euro
This contradicts both RoCyprus law (TRNC doesn't exist) and TRNC law (official currency is the lira). Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't start edit wars. In a dispute, it is up to the person changing the status quo to justify their position and then for a consensus on change to emerge. Second, it is the difference between legal situation and political reality which is at the root of the dichotomy here whereby Northern Cyprus may appear to the casual observer to be both within and outside the EU at the same time. While such a situation may be hard to understand, it is of course possible and indeed such conundrums are two-a-penny in international relations. The problem you appear to be highlighting is the presentation of these two points both within the different sections of this article and, to a more extreme case, between this article and others such as the EU currencies article. If you had made this clear earlier we may have gotten to the root faster but seeing this seems to be the element you're driving at we can concentrate on that now. Of course, we have these two definitions and they have arisen simultaneously in these articles given the particular technical focus of their respective authors over time who took into account the context of the information they were aiming to portray. This is of course common on WIkipedia but usually there is not such a complex legal situation involved, nor of course a subject so politically sensitive, thus they never come to light in the same way as this has. Now while the particular presentational focus of each section is legitimate in its own context, you have convinced me that a broader focus does need to be taken in respect to this article and its related articles, namely the aforementioned EU currencies article. Thus to this end we should take a simplified position that would benefit the more casual reader and endow a sense of clarity in those who do not wish to delve into the legal technicalities of the Cyprus dispute (with its associated history, legal recognition and status within the EU). Of course the issue must of course be one that can be responded to with ease, namely in relation to challenges by other users who see the issue differently. Thus, while I'd agree that focusing on solution based upon the end presentational image conveyed by the EU currencies article the mere absence of any mention in this article would give rise to certain unjustified contrary edits in this one that would disrupt the end solution. To that end I propose a solution that would include some reference to the situation in the body of the text but also an element of some sort in the table. The exact nature of the latter element I leave to you to propose but it is something that would benefit all in the long run as many casual users will edit that which has the highest impact regardless of what the detail within the text it may contradict. I highlight as an example in this case your own edits as you have edited the table but have not touched the prose relating to Northern Cyprus. I hope you understand my point in this case and we can work together on an appropriate solution.- J.Logan`t: 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems like edit-war. I noticed that you don't reply on the talk page unless I do a change in the article (maybe it isn't in your watchlist) - OK, there are other ways to draw your attention, so sorry for that.
Yes, I didn't touch the text about TRNC. I'm not against explaining the situation - I'm only against the self-contradictory (or simply "wrong" if you prefer) arrangement in the table.
I'm not sure we should bend the article so that non-aware-editors-don't-mess-with-it, especially if this bending will make it worse or wrong. But if there is a way to have both a correct article and an article that don't attract wrong-edits-by-non-aware-editors - this is even better. Alas, you leave this to me - to come up with such perfect arrangement. Looking at Currencies of the European Union it seems that a) not having TRNC in the table + b) having a sub-section titled North Cyprus with the explanation - such arrangement works fine so far there. I think we can do the same here.
The problem with adding entry about the north of Cyprus in these euro tables is that it fits nowhere. It's not an independent state (the entity who is such - the TRNC - has another official currency). It's not a sub-state level administrative entity (see here). It's simply a group of districts and parts of Cyprus districts "occupied by Turkey" (according to RoCyprus) or "forming an independent state" (according to Turkey/TRNC itself). In other tables and lists we can easily put TRNC (and leave the recognition issue aside with a footnote), but inclusion in this one (euro official currency) is because of the "TRNC doesn't exist" viewpoint, so TRNC can't be listed...
So, I propose keeping TRNC out of the tables and moving the text about euro in the north into its own subsection (so that it gets increased visibility). Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it is simply the timing of me coming onto Wikipedia. I don't spend a lot of time on here anymore.
I believe that could work, if the section was placed one between 'Territories outside EU' 'Other users' and titled "usage by unrecognised entities". I've done a slight rewrite to the section to make the issues clear and why it is in a different section.
As for St. Barts, I hope it is clear why it shouldn't be on there until 2012. We can note that detail more in the text. On closer inspection though, Mayotte should now be removed - that was clearly missed earlier when it changed. Both ought to be noted in the text of course as to why they are no in there.- J.Logan`t: 10:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the sub-section name should be simply "Northern Cyprus". Having a section "usage by unrecognised entities" is problematic for various reasons: "recognition" depends on who you ask. In this case TRNC and Turkey disagree with others; TRNC can't be listed in this section, because it uses the lira (e.g. we can list Kosovo in such section, which uses the euro and is unrecognized according to some states). About text and location - I will give it a try - please check and see whether you like it.
St.Barts - the current text is outdated (should be rewritten) - all decisions and agreements are already set for it to withdraw from the EU becoming a OCT and having an euro usage agreement like the other french euro-using OCTs. The only reason to wait for 2012 is for all this to "come in force". Anyway, I don't object waiting for 2012.
Mayotte - it goes in the opposite direction of St.Barts. But it isn't there yet. Eventually it will become an EU OMR (e.g. EU law will apply there) - per referendum result - then it should be moved to some "historical" table/text/place (not deleted). But currently, it's still OCT with euro-usage agreement. Japinderum (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, again please don't edit until we have actually agreed. I edited the prose because it impacted on neither of our positions. Second, partly-recognised would do fine - simply on the basis of Turkey. TRNC's position on the issue really doesn't have any weight when it comes to judging it to be recognised or not, despite your unorthodox understanding of international law. Second, Wikipedia has to report the facts as they are now. Just because you can't wait two months doesn't mean we should change reality. In fact, do what you like. I don't have the time to waste debating such details. I'm leaving it in your hands.- J.Logan`t: 10:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't overreact. If you don't like what I've done - revert - that's why I said above "please check whether you like it". If you want to further stress on the 'TRNC is not recognized' and/or 'RoCyprus is the lawful government of the whole island according to almost everybody' issues - feel free to do so. I reworded some parts that didn't sound right (such as "EU control" - there is no such thing - there is EU members control and EU law application - by EU members authorities in some of the places that those EU members control).
I don't say we can't wait for 2012 - on the contrary - I said I don't object waiting (and as you see I haven't added St.Barts to the table).
I don't think it's useful to have separate sections for unrecognized, partly-recognized, recognized. That's not the point here. The issue is to distinguish between official and unofficial use of the euro. Otherwise we'll get (in addition to the two agreement-backed sections for states and sub-state entities) 3 additional sections: for universally recognized states where the euro is official currency (Andorra, Montenegro), for partly recognized states where the euro is official currency (Kosovo), for partly recognized states where the euro is not official currency (TRNC). We'll end up with too many sections - some of them with only 1 state... Japinderum (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Andorra agreement source[edit]

I added a source about it[9], but it's repeatedly deleted without explanation. Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by currency pegged to euro?[edit]

And what's the benefit of this? It that mean this will increase the euro status in the world?125.82.248.88 (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of currencies pegged to euro does not impact/reflect the international status of the euro. It only reflects the common international commercial relations between the small territory/state and one of the EU member states. Small territories/states as a rule of thumb need to pegg their currency against a big stable currency, if they want to have a stable currency and establish the foundation for sustainable growth. To say it short, when you have pegged your small currency against a bigger currency, then your central bank will have pledged to intervene in the market with transactions (it either sell or buy) in order to make sure the currency's exchange rate remains within a stable and narrow band from a fixed central rate towards the currency being pegged against. Iceland is an example of a small state having decided not to pegg its currency against the EUR/GBP, instead having a floating currency, and suffering hugely from this reflected by some very high inflation rates and interest rates. An example of a 20 times bigger country having opted not to pegg its currency against the EUR, and being big enough not to suffer from this decision, is Sweden. When a country chooses to pegg its small currency against a bigger currency, this can either be done unilaterally (where only the central bank of the country in concern will intervene on the financial market) or on the basis of entering a "Valuta union". The ERM-II is an example of a valuta union, where both the Central Bank in the ERM-II member state and the European Central Bank (ECB) have signed a bilateral agreement about a potential financial intervention, in order to ensure the exchange rates on the markets are always kept within the narrow band from the agreed fixed central rate towards the euro. Danish Expert (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an article, Fixed exchange-rate system, about it. --BIL (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

EU dependent territories outside of EU[edit]

Whenever an EU dependent territoy outside of EU (reflected by a red background colour in the linked summary table), chooses to sign a monetary agreement for "partial" euro adoption, it become defacto a part of the eurozone, meaning the territory will be covered by the same EMU rules that apply to full eurozone member states. However with the notable exemptions, that the territory do not gain a seat in the ECB or Eurogroup, and that their money supply (and compliance with EMU rules) will always be controlled by one of the Central Banks located in one of the full Eurozone member states, and hence it is important to emphasize the territory only did a "partial euro adoption". This condition (about a central bank in another eurozone member state being the responsible entity for money supply) has so far been noted in all of the 5 signed monetary agreements, and has been tight to the fact that neither of the 5 territories adopting the euro previously had established their own central bank, because as a non-sovereign state they had decided to let their previous money supply be governated by a central bank located in one of the EU member states or in its dependent EU member state itself. The information about which Central Bank has been picked for money supply and EMU rules governance and compliance checks is of great interest. This is why I noted the French Central Bank is the responsible entity for the French territories, and that the Cypriot Central Bank is the responsibel entity for the UK dependent territory located on Cyprus. This is not trivia. It is important to know the responsible entity.

The case about the UK dependent territory on Cyprus being allowed to pick the Cypriot Central Bank for money supply could perhaps be a special exemption from the EU council's normal political procedure or legal practise. Or perhaps it was not an exemption, but instead just a result of some logical reasons? The fact that the UK dependent territory on Cyprus already had a monetary agreemet with the Cypriot Central Bank about supply of Cypriot punds to the territory, and that the territory had implemented law compliant with the Cypriot law on economic affairs, made it a natural reason why the Central Bank in Great Britain was not selected as the responsible entity. The decision makes even more sence, when recalling that Great Britain is not a part of the eurozone, and that the money to be supplied to the territory hence anyway should be the Cypriot version of the euro coins. As noted elsewhere, it was only possible for the "UK dependent territory on Cyprus" to partially adopt the euro as per the written Protocol 3 being attached to the 2003 accession treaty (where Cyprus entered EU as a new member state) in combination with the territories signed ordinance to adopt the euro along with Cyprus - subsequently signed in July 2007. When the 2003 accession treaty was ratified, it also meant the UK dependent territory on Cyprus, despite of a continued descision not to enter EU (i.e. as on OMR), still made the isolated decision to enter the EEA part (and a few other policy chapters) of the European Union. I admit not to be an expert in this field, but it appear to me that the "UK dependent territory on Cyprus" might be a special case, with the accession treaty also playing a part of the later option offered to partially adopt the euro. Hence we can not be sure, that i.e. the UK dependant territory in Spain (also known as Gibraltar) can do exactly the same as was done in the UK dependent territory on Cyprus. Or to rephrase my question:

  • Can Gibraltar (currently using the GIP currency pegged 1:1 with the GBP, with money supply delivered directly by the "Government of Gibraltar" that function in legal terms as the "Gibraltar central bank") just sign a monetary agreement with EU, where they despite of maintaining their status as a "UK dependent territory being legally a part of EU", now suddenly choose to adopt the euro ahead of UK, with the Spanish Central Bank selected as the responsible entity for EMU rule governance and money supply in the form of Spanish euro coins?

It would be great if any of you can look more into this complicated matter, so that we more clearly can state in our Wikipedia article how the options currently are for all "EU member state dependent territories - outside/inside of EU". If it is so, that all sorts of monetary agreements are possible in the eyes of EU (as long as the implied territories and states mutually agree), then this could also be an interesting info to note. For the moment, I think it is important our subchapter about the Territories outside EU, at least reflect which Central Bank has been selected for the money supply and EMU rule governance for the 5 territories so far having partially adopted the euro. This is why I have now reinstated this information. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just did a quick Google Search in the attempt to get my Gibraltar question above answered. So far I however only managed to find this article from Ocotber 2002, where it is explained the Gibraltar government had asked the UK treasury for permission to mint commemorative euro coins, and asked ECB to answer how their situation would be in case UK at a point of time should deside to adopt the euro. The article then continue to list its own conclusion on the question: "The legal position is that it would become part of the single currency area when the UK joins. Whether it would be able to mint its own coins or have to accept UK-made ones would have to be discussed with the European Central Bank.". Perhaps this partly answer my question? Or perhaps not? I will appreciate any input that can help to solve the question, both for Gibraltar as an example, and also in more general terms. If one of you also can manage to find a source that explain how the possibilities (or standard requirements) are for a "partial euro adoption" by some of the "EU member state dependent territories -while maintaining their current status of not being a legal part of EU", this is of course what we should be most eager to find. So far I have only started out to read the two signed "monetary agreements" by the two French territories ouside EU having adopted the euro, and the treaty protocol 3 + the territory ordinance explaining how the euro adoption shall happen for the UK dependent territory on Cyprus (likewise having decided not to be a legal part of EU). But I acknowledge and agree we should be carefull to use these 3 agreements as a proof that future "monetary agreements" will be 1:1 identical for how the euro adoption in more general terms will be implemented, for all other "EU member state dependent territories - oustide EU" making the same decision to partially adopt the euro without joining the EU. All inputs here at the talkpage that can help to clarify the situation (and how the euro adoption will happen in general terms for such territories), would be great. Thanks in advance, Danish Expert (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
When an OCT signs an agreement, they become part of the eurozone no different than the OMRs are. They don't partially adopt the euro, they fully adopt it. Yes they don't get a separate seat at the ECB, but neither do the OMRs or provinces or states or cities. Do you think that Guadeloupe or Paris have only "partially adopted the euro"?
"central bank in another eurozone member state being the responsible entity for money supply" - really? I just re-read the texts on Saint-Barthélemy and A&D and saw nothing of the sort mentioned. Perhaps you can point me to a specific article number or quote that you think supports this claim?
What I see the text actually saying is this (for Saint-Barthélemy):
  1. "will continue to grant exclusive legal tender status in the territory of Saint-Barthélemy to euro"
  2. "does not provide for the right to mint coinage"
  3. "Currency issues and banking and financial law fall within the field of competence of the French State."
  4. "In matters related to the proper functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union, the legislative and statutory provisions of French law apply automatically to Saint-Barthélemy by virtue of its status"
  5. "The euro shall remain the currency of Saint-Barthélemy."
  6. "The French Republic shall continue to grant legal tender status to euro-denominated banknotes and coins in Saint-Barthélemy."
  7. "The French Republic shall continue to apply in Saint-Barthélemy the European Union legal acts and rules necessary for the functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union"
As for A+D, as far as I can see the agreement doesn't state that the Bank of Cyprus supplies the base with currency. This is perhaps covered by a prior agreement that was only modified by this ordinance. However, I don't see anything in the current source that backs these claims.
On Gibraltar, agreed that's a quite interesting question, and one worth mentioning if you can find sources discussing it. Since they are legally a part of the EU via the UK, I doubt that they could sign an agreement to adopt the euro via Spain. However, that's just my speculation. I don't think your source addresses the issue. It just says that if the UK joins the eurozone, so will Gibralter by default. TDL (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful reply. Based on your reasoning in regards of the inappropriateness to call it a "partial adoption", I now agree with you that we should indeed refrain from that, and instead consequently plainly refer to it as "adoption". The reason why I think we should continue at a consequent level throughout the subchapter only to use the word "euro adoption" rather than "use euro", is because the word "adoption" (at least when translated to Danish in the given context) imply that it has been adopted on all legal levels and not just is a matter of being "physically used". This is why I have now resinstated the phrase "agreement to adopt the euro" in the first line of the chapter. In regards of your returned question about where the info about use of certain Central Banks for "money supply" and "EMU rule governance" is provided for in the French monetary agreement, it is as far as I understand a direct consequence of your above listed point 3+4+7 where the agreement refer to the regulation of "French Law" and the "French state". As far as I remember, the same sort of phrases where used by the A+D ordinance. It is correct that none of the sources use the exact word "money supply" by a certain State's Central Bank, but this is the logical end result when the signed agreements refer the legal responsibility for "currency issues" and "EMU functioning" as something to be regulated for by the French (or Cypriot) law and French (or Cypriot) State -which specifically appoint the money supply in France and Cyprus respectively to the French Central Bank and the Cypriot Central Bank. Personally I do not have any doubt about this is how it works, so I have reinstated the info again. To satisfy your request for adding a source for the more general observation, that only Central Banks in sovereign states are allowed to conduct money supply and governance of EMU rules, I have now rephrased this note and referred to the "ECB statute" with a CN tag (as far as I can remember this document regulates the matter - but I dont have time right now to search for the link). In regards of the situation for Gibraltar and their "euro adoption opportunities", I agree we need additional sources to merit a special comment for this in the chapter (and perhaps this will anyway remain only to be a theoretical question...time will tell). :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you're thinking about it backwards. These regions have "adopted on all legal levels" the euro as their currency. Being permitted to use the euro is one of the rights granted to eurozone member state. Other benefits include: being able to mint euros and getting a seat at the ECB. So while they've fully adopted the euro, they don't get these other rights since they're not eurozone members. The reason I prefer "use the euro" is because "adopt" suggests "To take or receive", ie it's the process of switching to the euro, while the agreement really regulates the ongoing usage of the euro.
As for the second point, it may well be a consequence of these points. But unless we find a source saying that, it's WP:OR. Why don't we just say what the sources say: "French laws governing the EMU also apply to SB" or something? TDL (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Along the lines of your question about Gibralter, I found this about possible paths for euro adoption in the Isle of Man. TDL (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Amercia works against EURO a s new reserve currency[edit]

German economic expert Dirk Müller believes, that forces from U.S. work against EURO as new reserve currency .

Contradiction with Eurozone[edit]

The Eurozone article says that, "Further unilateral adoption of the euro (euroisation), by both non-euro EU and non-EU members, is opposed by the ECB and EU.[1]" (based on a 2008 citation).

This article says, "The use of the euro in Montenegro and Kosovo has helped stabilise their economies, and for this reason the adoption of the euro by small states has been encouraged by former Finance Commissioner Joaquín Almunia. Former European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet has stated the ECB – which does not grant representation to those who unilaterally adopt the euro – neither supports nor deters those wishing to use the currency." (no citation given)

These contradict! Any suggestions...? Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Unilateral Euroization By Iceland Comes With Real Costs And Serious Risks". Lawofemu.info. 15 February 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2010.

Luhansk People's Republic[edit]

This is perhaps relevant for this article--Wester (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Euroization vs Euroisation[edit]

Hi,

Euroisation redirects to this page, while Euroization redirects to Currency substitution. One of them should probably be changed!

Cheers,

Chtit draco (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International status and usage of the euro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International status and usage of the euro. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International status and usage of the euro. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Big purchases[edit]

I remember when visiting Romania that the prices of expensive items, such as houses were expressed in euros rather than lei. I also saw Vodafone selling telephones quoted in dollars. I suppose that, in several countries, the euro is used for big prices (even if they are paid in the local currency at the day's rate), but this is not mentioned in the article. Could you elaborate on that? --Error (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)