Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union High‑importance

	European Union portal This 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First and Second Stages

Untitled

Where on earth are the descriptions of the first and second stages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.65.42 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, this article is in bad shape. Spamdingel (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence very like a school essay

The opening sentence of the entire article should not be a definition of what an economic and monetary union is. It is supposed to introduce what the EU's EMU is.

70.105.210.97 (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the lede has been rewritten, I will delete the not-encyclpedic tag. --Red King (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism NPOV

I think this section needs a complete rewrite. It is terribly phrased, uses atrocious Wikiformatting and just bad English in general e.g the "Eu Four Freedoms" (did EU become a proper noun). It is also very POV in a sceptical manner, with little counter arguments for most of the points, and there are plenty of easily identifiable ones. - ^Рэд _хот 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this section used to be quite biased, and unobjective, but it has since been edited, and now presents a reasonable critique of the issues involved in EMU. Is there any need for the neutrality-mark to remain there?? (RM21 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with the initial criticism also, it seems to be mandatory that every article on the EU has a section dealing with eurosceptic arguments even when the subject is ill suited to it. We wouldn't have, for instance, every article on the governing institutions of the United States' including a criticism section so I'm not sure why this standard is applied to the EU.
"but these aims are proving difficult to implement in the real world" - This is poorly disguised "You are just dreamers"-sophistry. The whole criticism section needs a rewrite. It should not include anything except issues related directly to monetary policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.187.106 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. The section consisted entirely of unsourced assertions, much of it about the principle of Optimum Currency Area theory rather than about its relevance to the EU in particular. I've deleted it pending some text that is supported by credible sources (at least the FT) and not just British tabloid polemic. See policy Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Red King (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

There was some confusion about the meaning of EMU in the introductory text.

EMU has three stages, as correctly explained later in the article, of which only the last one means the adoption of the euro by a country. For details, see http://europa.eu.int/pol/emu/index_en.htm.

Currently, Denmark and the UK are using an opt-out clause from the third stage negociated for the Maastricht Treaty. Sweden voluntarily avoids to meet some of the criteria to join, but is theoretically obliged to do so, as are the 10 new members. Leparrain 20:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article to be renamed

this article (Economic and Monetary Union - capital letters) deals with the EMU of the European Union. It is different than the general article on economic and monetary unions (Economic and monetary union - small letters). This is very confusing and also hampers links in other articles - they point to the wrong page. So the EMU of the EU should be renamed to something like "Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union". Then the current capital-letters page should be made a redirect to the general-EMU-page (small letters). The problem is that if we copy the current content (and discussion pages) of EMU (capital) to "EMU of EU" and then we make EMU (capital) to redirect to EMU (general, small letters) - then all articles have links to the current EMU (capital) has to be re-linked to "EMU of EU"... Is there any way to do this automaticaly somehow? bots, whatever?

Done much of the re-linking... Alinor 10:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I find the new name kind of clumsy. Maybe something like "European Economic and Monetary Union" would sound better, no? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article was with that name a long time ago (see redirect European Economic and Monetary Union). I don't know what the discussion was, but most probably the majority of people don't liked this name, becouse this EMU is not for ALL EUROPEAN states, so it looks somewhat inappropriate... Maybe you should look into the history of the page (or the redirect) for details... 212.36.8.100 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, that's a good enough answer for me. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://api.ithenticate.com/ithenticate_dv?lang=en_us&o=18621063. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mongelli's comment on this article

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

The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)[1] is an umbrella term for the group of policies aimed at converging the economies of member states of the European Union at three stages. --> The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)[1] refers to a set of convergence criteria, principles and requirements to guide the convergence process of European Union economies toward the launch of the euro: the new shared single currency. EMU's completion was articulated along three stages securing monetary integration at the end. Hence, countries adopting the euro would forsake direct control over the national exchange rate and domestic monetary policies. Countries would do so in expectation that benefits would outweigh the costs of losing monetary independence as an adjustment tool.

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

We believe Dr. Mongelli has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference 1: Ignazio Angeloni & Michael Flad & Francesco Paolo Mongelli, 2005. "Economic and monetary integration of the new Member States - helping to chart the route," Occasional Paper Series 36, European Central Bank.

Reference 2: De Grauwe, Paul & Mongelli, Francesco Paolo, 2005. "Endogeneities of optimum currency areas: what brings countries sharing a single currency closer together?," Working Paper Series 0468, European Central Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nguena's comment on this article

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

It could be good to update this contribution with recent brexit (significance in terms of union and perspectives) by for example adding a section on it.

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

We believe Dr. Nguena has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Christian Lambert Nguena, 2013. "Heterogeneity of Saving-Investment Causality and Fiscal Coordination Implication: The Case of an African Monetary Union," AAYE Policy Research Working Paper Series 13_009, Association of African Young Economists, revised Nov 2013.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kempf's comment on this article

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

Very good and correct article. However it lacks some coverage of the institutions of the EMU, in particular the ECB. It also lacks some summary report on the achievement of the EMU from its creation on.

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

We believe Dr. Kempf has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference 1: Russell Cooper & Hubert Kempf & Dan Peled, 2010. "Insulation Impossible : Fiscal Spillovers in a Monetary Union," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10045, Universite Pantheon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

Reference 2: Cooper, R. & Kempf, H. & Peled, D., 2009. "Monetary rules and the spillover of regional fiscal policies in a federation," Working papers 233, Banque de France.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Greek capital controls?

Why does this article not mention the (technically illegal) Greek capital controls, which constitute a clear break with the EMU vision of Euros flowing freely across the borders of all the countries in the Eurozone? And for that matter the (technically illegal) Crypus capital controls, now abolished.--greenrd (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is still interested in this question, the answer may be at Greek government-debt crisis. --Red King (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Section on European Semester

Hello, While reading the article, i discovered that there is just a brief mention of the European Semester which is a framework for coordinating member states' economic policies. I would therefore like to either introduce a section on the European Semester or write a new article on the European Semester. Do you think it is a notable topic on its own or it will not be of importance in relation to the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union? Do you have any suggestions on how to go forward? Everine Akello (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Everine Akello:, a superficial scan of the consillium.eu site suggests to me that it would belong better at Stability and growth pact. I think it would best to start it as a new section: if it gets too big, it can be split off. You would be wise to read WP:Primary sources first: although the Consillium site would be ok to cite for two or three sentences, anything more needs a third party Reliable source, so that you don't just relay the official version. (You can't give your own opinion on it). When it is done, you can create a WP:Redirect article that points to your new section. Best wishes! --Red King (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Markets Union

Hello, we have a project to write an article on the "Capital Markets Union" of the European Union. It turns out that when we search for it, it redirects to the page entitled Economy of the European Union. Given the fact that there is an already existing article on the EMU and one on the Banking Union, we find it relevant to create one separate article about the CMU project and for that we need to create consensus in talk page of the Talk:Economy of the European Union/Archive 2#Capital Markets Union. The link to the draft is here: Draft:Capital Markets Union if you wanna check that out. If you can go to the talk page of the Economy of the European Union and express your views, I would be very grateful. Thank you a lot.--JoaoPillon (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difference with" Eurozone" and "History of the Euro" ? Merge?

This article is very rich but how does it differ with Eurozone and History_of_the_euro ? Those are very overlapping articles which duplicates the amount of work needed to maintain those. A quick statistics comparison shows Eurozone is the most widely visited entry, so it would make more sense to concentrate efforts there. Stanjourdan (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications Mrsahed (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Mrsahed (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WMDE_Technical_Wishes&action=history#/notifications Mrsahed (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]