Talk:European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name of page[edit]

Why not name the page "EU-Ukraine Association Agreement", as in other versions and recycle essentially? 212.2.129.253 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... This page is not about the "EU-Ukraine Association Agreement" but about a Plan of preparation of Ukraine for the signing of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement... Most admit that I don't like the current name too... Why not name it "EU-Ukraine Association Agreement preparations"? (As this term is used in English speaking press.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a separate article for this? Maybe the best thing to do is to WP:SPLIT all the details about the Association Agreement from Ukraine–European Union relations (which is getting WP:TOOLONG) to EU–Ukraine Association Agreement and merge this content to a section of that article called "Preparations". Thoughts? TDL (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me TDL! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map in this article show's Crimea as part of Ukraine and an independent Kosovo. If political borders are supposed to show universal consensus, then Kosovo should be part of Serbia or otherwise shown to be disputed; if political borders are supposed to show de facto control, then Crimea should either be independent or part of Russia. But we can't have both. Or we could just not have a map and trust readers to click on the appropriate links in the article if they have a geographical question about the places discussed here.91.153.250.70 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should be in a distinct color, defined as "contested". Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The article contained both the following:

  • a further tag demanding justification of why Ukraine and the EU would dare do such a thing as establish closer relations.

The answer is obvious to anyone who is not a neo-Stalinist or Russian chauvinist, and one only needs to look at articles on the history of Ukraine and the mission of the EU. Are we seriously expected to believe that Ukraine would prefer to cuddle up to a state which tried to exterminate its people with an artificially-created famine? Please give readers credit for a degree of sense. I would have no objections to citation of EU and Ukrainian official views in this article, but the above demand is several bridges too far Chrismorey (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Disagree. Our readers cannot assume that an agreement is beneficial automatically simply because it is an agreement with the European Union. It is our job to present why both sides considered the agreement mutually beneficial. Right now the article doesn't present that at all. It only says that both sides desired it but it doesn't say why. No one here is claiming that Ukraine "would cuddle up to another state" or whatever it is that you try to imply. An agreement, by itself, is not beneficial simply because. There must be a reason why Ukraine was seeking this. Be it political, economical, cultural or whatever. Same thing with the EU. But the article doesn't explain that all. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me give you an example: Crimea acceded to Russia recently but from reading that article's lead it's obvious that Crimea sought such accession after a referendum allegedly demonstrated such desire. So our readers don't have to assume anything. The facts are presented impartially. Did Ukraine hold a referendum that demonstrated that the Ukrainian people wanted closer ties to the EU? If so, just state that and be done with the issue. Another example: when you go to the Crimean referendum article you notice that the referendum was held due to the political uncertainty in the region. Once again, our readers don't assume anything: facts are presented "as is". This article must do the same: it must present why both the EU and Ukraine were seeking to ratify this agreement. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me give you another example: Viktor Yanukovych didn't sign the agreement because he allegedly didn't consider it fair to Ukraine. The ethnic Russians from Eastern Ukraine didn't want the government to sign the agreement either. So, even within Ukraine itself there are groups that don't consider this agreement as beneficial to Ukraine. Taking all this into consideration we must present both sides: why the national government considered it beneficial while other groups didn't. Same thing with the EU. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree about the NPOV leanings of the article, albeit in a different direction, for the following reasons:
  1. Every quote box shown expresses a pro-EU opinion by some EU bloke.
  2. The illustrative map shows Crimea and Sevastopol as being part of Ukraine, something which I believe is rather subject to dispute.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.32.183 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heavy tagging of the sentence is unnecessary. There is no single, simple, one-sentence reason as to why Ukraine and the EU consider the provisions desirable. The costs/benefits of the agreement do deserve discussion elsewhere in the article. But I think the simplest solution for the heavy tagging now is to simply remove the sentence.
I can reference the tag as to why the agreement was opposed by Russia by reference to a Moscow times article, which I'll do now. --Tóraí (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholeheartedly disagree. It is imperative that we explain concisely in the lead why the EU and why the Ukraine were seeking to ratify this agreement. Perhaps if you post here the reasons I can write a concise sentence for it. Bloomberg and Aljazeera reported on EU's reason. We would need source for Ukraine's. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisions[edit]

I just created a new section called 'Provisions' so that we can cover the agreement's commitments in detail and with specifics. Please bare with the WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING in the meantime as we develop the section. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

The current content in the 'reactions' section is confusing the heck out of me, particularly the section pertaining to the Russian reaction...in which all of the statements and reports are pre-signing. I get that this is a reaction to closer EU-UK ties, but it's just that - a generalised reaction to closer ties that has nothing to do with the agreement itself. You can argue that it should be in some sort of background section, but it's most certainly not a reaction to the agreement proper. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:FIXIT. I just moved a bunch of stuff around. The section needs copyediting to ensure its preexisting content goes to where it belongs to in the new article structure. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement was initialled way back in March 2012. That was when the text was finalized. The signing last week was a purely ceremonial act. The reaction discussed in the article is the response to the initialling of the agreement. TDL (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should make that clear :). @Ahnoneemoos: sofixit is a great ideal, but I strongly suspect that the UKEUAA is potentially just a wee bit controversial at the moment and wanted to check in at the talkpage to make sure there wasn't a good reason to consider such a fix stupid (which Danlaycock has kindly provided). Please try not to assume laziness on the part of the commentator in future ;p. Ironholds (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification in France[edit]

The association agreement with Moldova has passed the French Senate. Considering that most countries seem to be ratifying the treaties concurrently, I suspect that the association agreement with Ukraine has likewise been passed by the French Senate. However, I am unable to effectively navigate their website. If someone could confirm either way, that would, of course, be quite useful.169.229.101.10 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too. I did some research, and apparently, they decided to ratify only Moldova's agreement. --93.73.13.209 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spain actually did the same thing, it ratified Ukraine's agreement without ratifying the other two. --93.73.13.209 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking.169.229.101.10 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Ratification[edit]

I am quite surprised by how quickly Britain ratified Ukraine's agreement. They didn't even need to use their parliament! But the ratification is no mistake, as the British embassy in Ukraine tweeted a confirmation of the ratification. Does anyone know if there was any kind of parliamentary vote? All I found was this. --93.73.13.209 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may not have been any parliamentary vote. If there's no change to domestic UK law, the government has the authority to conclude and ratify treaties without involving parliament.169.229.101.10 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very unusual way of doing it, maybe we should add some kind of note that says that so readers don't think it's a mistake? --93.73.13.209 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/ would be the source. But as far as I can see their is neither a bill under the letters A(association agreement), E (EU), U(Ukraine) nor under D (deep and comprehensive free trade agreement).2A02:908:DB25:EB00:2885:3819:5D40:54B9 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears that the traditional procedure really was followed, so thank you to the person who found the information --93.73.13.209 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Senate[edit]

The Belgian parliament is using a unicameral procedure. This means that the Senate is not involved. Please do not re-add it to the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5D80:8205:68F6:B86F:8F14:CA4B (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signifying Progress Towards Ratification[edit]

I would oppose the current compromise on coloring the table in Germany and Slovenia's rows, as I do not consider it to be evenly applied throughout the table. I would like to either revert to the system used by the other Association Agreement pages for consistency, or, if compromise is necessary, move to the system used on the Unified Patent Court Page. I would make the edits now, but given there has already been some back-and-forward editing, I feel that would not be productive before discussion here.Lambsbridge (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose if you want to revert to the status-quo version, it was just that the IP seemed determined to make those cells green so I was trying to find a compromise. Perhaps better than what I've done currently would be to break up each row for each state and colour them relative to their status, ie the Italian Chamber of Deputies row would be green but the other Italian rows red, with the Italian deposition cell red until the instrument of ratification is deposited, or something along those lines. Just an idea. TDL (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is how it is done on the Unified Patent Court page, with Portugal as a good example. It is a valid formatting system, so I'm not wholly opposed, and there seems to be a somewhat better consensus for that. I will switch the article to that format for now, and if there are any objections we can revert to a format more consistent with the other articles later.Lambsbridge (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Deposit[edit]

Germany's deposit is shown in one of the sources but not the other. I'm not sure if it's right to say that they completed their ratification.

Same with Slovenia now. I presume it's just sloppiness by the depositary, but technically if they haven't ratified the full agreement then we should make note of that. TDL (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If different dates eventually appear then we can show two dates, but for now I think we can keep it like this. --195.24.243.40 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has been corrected now. TDL (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium Ratification[edit]

Why does Belgium need 8(!!!) parliaments to ratify this agreement? --193.110.106.130 (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, to which I have several cynical answers. The formal answer however is that Belgium is a federal state, with treaty making power vested in (language) communities and (geographic) regions; and that this agreement is an agreement with competence for all those. (see Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium to get an idea.... L.tak (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So they ratify all agreements like this? --193.110.106.130 (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that depends on the issue involved. the Unified Patent Court Agreement for example concerned patents, for which only the federal government has competence (so no devolved parliaments involved); other treaties may involve only the communities, only the regions etcetc.... L.tak (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your research! --195.24.243.40 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Presidential Assent[edit]

The Czech President has not yet signed the agreement. There will be a press release like this one when he has. Please note that he did not sign the Association Agreement with Moldova until May 19th, although it was delivered to him April 16th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambsbridge (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum in the Netherlands[edit]

A referendum in the Netherlands regarding approval of this Agreement seems likely, as the number of requests seems to surmount the required 300 000. As the groups supporting the referendum have announced this, and this announcement has received wide media coverage, I have added it to the "ratification notes" below the ratification table. I believe it is not suitable info to add to the table, as that only reports official numbers (and those are not available until ca 10 Oct, as all votes have to be counted + part of them checked with databases). Therefore I have reverted those insertions twice now (by different IPs) L.tak (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem With The Table[edit]

Something seems to have broken the outer edges of the table around the entry for Ireland. Can't figure out how to fix it. Lambsbridge (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 14:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Map needs to be updated. Crimea seceded after the violent US backed coup in Kiev. Current Ukraine state has neither authority nor lawful legitimacy over Crimea.

-G

(The above was added at the top of the page by IP address 70.31.59.63, and I'm moving it to the bottom as well as replying.)

There's a bit of a problem. I changed your edit which called Yanukovych's ouster a "US-backed coup." As with the map, edits should be backed by references to sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of the agreement[edit]

What are the contents of the agreement? I think the contents/provisions section should be expanded a bit more. In the referendum in the Netherlands about the agreement there was extensive discussion and confusion about the military paragraph of the agreement. Btw after the referendum Dutch journalists stated that they were unable to explain the contents of the agreement to the public, because the subject was unusual and complicated for them. Andries (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation[edit]

This comparison suggests that there has been relatively little material added to the article about how implementation has progressed since 1 September 2017. I suggest that it would be useful if the article contained details about how trade between the EU and Ukraine is conducted, what customs and regulatory checks take place etc. This would enable a reader to compare [trade across the EU's border with Ukraine] with [trade across the EU's border with the United Kingdom/with Great Britain, in light of the Northern Ireland protocol].Alekksandr (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how 1 other trade partner (UK) and 2 agreeements (TCA and withdrawal agreeement) is extremely relevant (there are dozens of free trade agreements with the EU), but indeed effects would be helpful to be added. Feel free Alekksandr to make a start ... L.tak (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the significance is that Ukraine has a land border with the EU, and that the trade issues which it faces are more akin to the Irish Sea border than those faced by e.g. Canada or Brazil. Alekksandr (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union–Ukraine_Association_Agreement&oldid=1207150669"