Talk:Euro convergence criteria/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External link does not work any more

The link should be renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.173.233 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC-7)

Slovenia?

I did not see Slovenia on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.113.195.75 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Obviously countries using the euro as currency aren't mentioned. Slovenia got the euro on 2007-01-01. (58.188.97.134 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Montenegro

This page states that Montenegro unilaterally adopted ERM II. This is wrong; Montenegro unilaterally adopted the euro currency, not the euro exchange rate mechanism. Montenegro doesn't have a currency that is part of ERM II, so the ERM II criterion isn't fullfilled. (58.188.97.134 09:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Revised

I think the page should be revised and updated every so often. Right now, Cyprus and Malta are asking to become the new members of the eurozone. According to this table, that would be impossible. If the countries know that they do not fulfill the criteria, they wouldn't be asking for merbership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinboricua (talk) 18 April 2007 (UTC-7)

The latest data from the Maltese Statistics Office show that in 2006 (the year it will be examined on) Malta had a government budget deficit of 2.6%, ie below the Maastricht deficit criterion, and gross government debt going down to 66% from 72%, ie satisfying the Maastricht debt criterion. The latest inflation data also show the 12-month moving average at 2.1%, ie below the reference level for the inflation criterion. Furthermore, on 2 May 2007, Malta would have been in the ERM II for two years, thus satisfying the exchange rate criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.180.239 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC-7)

I have updated the table with the values from the convergence report published on 2007-05-16. Unfortunately, only reference values and values for Malta and Cyprus were included in that report; all other values remain unedited. (Stefan2 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

No date or methodology

The table does not indicate for which date (year) the relevant data is presented. Also, there is no explanation on methodology. For example, does inflation figure mean inflation at the end of the year (which year?) or the average for the period (which period?). Similarly, is govt. debt just internal or both external and internal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.35 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC-7)

The inflation criterion is incorrect. There is no requirement the three "best performing" member states' inflation rates need to be positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.78.192 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Non EU Countries

Figures for non-EU countries have not been approved by the European Central Bank so are invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.23.32 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Convergence critera are assessed by the European Central Bank who only certify Member States. The figures that were listed here for some arbitrary non-member states were unverifiable speculation Zeth (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo and Montenegro???

What are these countries looking in the table? They are not even the members of any ERM. Are they of any relevance to convergence criteria??? turezky (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)turezky

Hmmm. They're both on the path to membership of the EU. I agree that Poland, say, and Monetnegro are completely different cases. The table seems to include both EU members, EU candidates, EU "potential candidates" and others. May make sense to at least separate the tables. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Euro Convergence criteria?

I think it might be useful to change the name of this article to Euro Convergence criteria, since the title by itself doesn't make much sense. Anyone agree or disagree? Cheers--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and was about to suggest that myself. Given that you've already suggested it and no-one has argued otherwise, I'll make the change. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Messed up numbers

I noticed that a lot of interest rates were messed up. The interest rates are supposed to be 10-year government bonds, but some of the numbers in this list referred to short-term interests instead. I fixed all EU countries by using official numbers from the ECB, but all non-EU countries also need to be fixed, and I don't know where to find the correct numbers. At least the Icelandic interest rate is a short-term interest rate. The reference value is from the latest report (from 2008), which is not ideal. I didn't fix green/not green in the interest rate column.

I belive that some inflation numbers are equally messed up, using different ways of calculating them, but I didn't check. I guess using ECB numbers is the best solution. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

IMF suggested that countries should be allowed to "partially adopt" the euro

It is written very close to the beginning of the article that IMF floated a suggestion that countries should be allowed to "partially adopt" the euro. The IMF is an external organisation, not directly connected to the EU. Why should there be such a suggestion at such a prominent place, on top of that using a source with expired text (removed by the newspaper publishing it)? Can we write any suggestion on Wikipedia if a renowned newspaper published the suggestion? Can I remove it, or what shall we do with that? --BIL (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For a start, I have put the "IMF suggestion" into the correct context, by now also explaining in the lead the exact "EU policy" in regards of "partially euro adoption", being that only european microstates are allowed to "partially adopt". Given the correct context, I think it is okay to keep in the lead. However in regards of checking if the "IMF suggestion from 2009" is correct, I did so far not have time to check for that. One of us at some point of time also have to check if it was indeed an "official IMF suggestion" or just the "Authors opinion published in an IMF report". If the latter is the case (which I have found is commonly occuring), the formulation should be corrected so that it says that an "IMF report suggested..." instead of "IMF suggested". MOST IMF REPORTS have a subnote outlining, that the reports opinions/conclusions can only be attributed to the authors, and should not be mis-interpreted to be an official IMF opinion/conclusion. Danish Expert (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Today I had time to consider the IMF line and source more closely. The way the line in our Wikipedia article originally was formulated, did not represent the content of the provided reference, and caused creation of a high level of confusion. The reference mention that Financial Times had access to a confidential report written by IMF in 2009, but as the answer by the Lithuanian PM revealed this suggestion had not (at least not ahead of 7 April 2009) been converted into a European Council proposal or put on the Council's agenda. In other words, when they use the word confidential, I speculate the IMF might have written a "working report" either for the Council or the Commision, as part of constructing input and knowledge about the challenges and internal discussions arising in the turmoil of the Global Financial Crisis, not to be available in public -but only as a tool for politicians to map all sorts of possibilities and their pros and cons. My opinion is, that it is highly inappropriate for us to maintain the line without noting these uncertainties behind the story reported by the listed reference. Including, as I already mentioned in my reply above two months ago, that whenever IMF authors write a report their conclusions always as a rule of thumb shall never been referred to as "proposals by IMF" but as "opinions by the authors of the IMF report". Many journalists continue repeatedly to make this mistake not being carefull enough to make this distinction when they write their stories. If you search the IMF report database, it is even possible to find IMF reports that reaches different conclusions on the same subject, all depending on who were the authors behind the report and the methods/approach/assumptions being selected behind the reached conclusions.

Conclusion: The "IMF line" is definately not appropriate to keep in the lead. As Financial Times is a highly reliable source, and as their article generated notable PM replies in Latvia and Lithuania, it is however worthy enough to keep the info at a place further down in the article. So I support the initial proposal by BIL to move it, and have now done so, after I also did a needed careful reformulation to put it into the right context. The line is now placed as the last line in the Criteria chapter, and now mentions that: "The IMF proposal was limited only to consider the situation for EU members aspiring to comply with the 5 criteria - and not for countries in general; it was not an IMF proposal but only the opinion of IMF authors in a confidential report; it was subsequently never converted to a proposal for the EU council officially to consider.". Danish Expert (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Will the debt+deficit criteria change after the SGP (sixpack) reform in Dec.2011?

I am well aware the 60%-limit and 3%-limit has stayed the same both before and after the SGP reform in Dec.2011, and aware they are still identical to what was signed with the Maastricht Treaty back in February 1992. My question is however related to the fact, that the SGP (sixpack) reform in Dec.2011 introduced changes in regards of the interpretation of "when the debt-level sufficiently declines". According to the old interpretation it was sufficient if:

The debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding the 60% reference level, was found to decline in the last national account and the forecasts for the current and following year.

But according to the new interpretation (referred to as the so-called "debt brake rule") it is only sufficient if:

The debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding the 60% reference level, is found to have been reduced with an average rate of minimum one twentieth (5%) per year of the exceeded percentage points, where the calculated average period shall be either the 3-year period covering the "last fiscal year and forecasts for the current and next year" or the "three last fiscal years". In example, if the debt-to-GDP ratio was recorded to be 100.0% in the year preceding the last national account, it should then for the period covering the last national account and the subsequent two years decline minimum with the avereage of 2 percentage points per year - so that it three years later will be down at maximum 94.0%.

In the first published convergence criteria reports by EMI/ECB published in November 1996 and March 1998, they have directly referred to the criteria as being equal to whether or not the country had an open ongoing Exessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), which will be decided by the European Commission according to the rules stipulated by the SGP. So what happens now when the SGP has been reformed? Will the old criteria rules or the new criteria rules apply? My own opinion is, that for as long as we have no references to proof ECB have adopted the "new debt criteria definition", we have to assume they will still continue to use the "old original debt criteria definition"; as per the political argument that ECB should avoid changing the previous evaluation pracsis and making it harder for new states to enter the eurozone compared to the rules applying when the initial states founded the eurozone. Danish Expert (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As regulated by Article 140.1, the fiscal criterion compliance should be understood as a situation where the EU Member State is not part of an open and ongoing Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) - as defined by Article 126.6. Based on this, you can now disregard my status quo comment above, as we from these paragraphs can conclude with certainty, that all future ECB evaluations always will adhere to the SGP regulation (deciding when to open EDPs) applying at the time when the evaluation is conducted. In other words, the new SGP (sixpack) rules defining the needed size for yearly debt reductions, is 1:1 identical with the applied convergence criteria when evaluating the "government debt" situation. At the same time, it is also certain that the evaluation of the deficit convergence will not adopt or start to apply the new structural deficit limit at max. 0.5% or 1.0% of GDP defined by the Fiscal Compact, as this is not EU law but only an intergovernmental treaty. Only if/when the treaty will be adopted by EU law, and thus apply for all EU member states (after ratification of a yet to be written new amendment of the TFEU), this newly invented structural deficit limit only at this point of time will be capeable to enter as a new updated evaluation criteria for the government's deficit. Danish Expert (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Latvia criteria fulfillment?

Latvia appears to fulfill the convergence criteria for January. Can they introduce the euro in 2014, or did I misunderstand the rules, and Latvia had to specify one specific month of the first half of the year beforehand, and they would be judged on the data of only that month? Ambi Valent (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In principle Yes - but not quiet yet. The rules are, that ECB only conduct their ordinary convergence checks with 2-year intervals. The last ordinary check was conducted in April 2012 (and published in May 2012), meaning the next ordinary check will be conducted April 2014 (and published May 2014). However, all member states with a euro derogation also have the right to submit an application to ECB anytime during the year where they believe to have met the criteria, where they ask ECB to conduct an extraordinary convergence check. It is the "Application month" that will determine and fix the time intervals for the convergence check.

As Latvia have now officially applied for an extraordinary convergence check here on 4 March 2013, this will now predetermine they will be "convergence checked" based on the rolling assesment year 1 March 2012 - 28 February 2013 for compliance with the HICP inflation and Interest rate criterion, while the ERM2 criterion compliance will be checked for the rolling two-year period 1 March 2011 - 28 February 2013, and finally compliance with the two fiscal criterion will depend on the final published fiscal data for the full calendar year 2012 (which Eurostat will release its data for on 22 April 2013). ECB will await Eurostat's release of 2012 Fiscal data before making a final conclusion on Latvia's compliance, so their afirmative report will only be published shortly after 22 April 2013. We however already know by now, that Latvia are headed to comply with all 5 criteria. The final fiscal data are by no means expected to change significantly from the currently "forecast figures", so realisticly it will only be the HICP inflation + Interest rate statistics (as of 28 Feb 2013) that potentially can threat Latvia not to achieve a full compliance for euro adoption. These stats will be published by Eurostat on respectively 12 March and 16 March, and we already know by now (based on preliminary data) that Latvia will manage to comply with both of these two criterion. We however right now have to wait for these last official data to be published, before we can write that: "Latvia have managed officially to comply with all convergence criteria for euro adoption on 1 Jan 2014". Danish Expert (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

similar table on other article