Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Please note that the criterion on stable exchange rate includes the time from which the currency was pegged to the euro or the ecu through the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. This is clear from both article 140 in the Treaty on the Functioning on the European Union and from Protocol (no 13) attached to it. If two years in ERM II was really the criterion, Greece would not have fulfilled the criterion back in 2000. However, it is clear from that time that it is the total time in ERM/ERM II that counts, not just ERM II (which would not make any sense at all). See [1]. --Nablicus (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nablicus: This official website explaining the “Convergence criteria for joining” clearly states that the criterion to measure “Exchange rate stability” is “Participation in ERM II for at least 2 years without severe tensions, in particular without devaluing against the euro”. The official source I provided in the edit summary makes clear that only Bulgaria and Denmark currently meet that criterion, since “The Bulgarian lev joined ERM II on 10 July 2020” and “The Danish kroner joined ERM II on 1 January 1999”, without referring to the time spent in the original Exchange Rate Mechanism.

You are right that, when determining whether Greece fulfilled the convergence criteria back in 2000, the European Commission took into account “the total time in ERM/ERM II”. The convergence report you linked says as much. However, the 2002 Convergence Report on Sweden, the first report since the physical introduction of the euro, makes clear (several times) that the assessment of this criterion changed after the euro was introduced. It reads:

“However, the assessment of some of the convergence criteria has to take into account the introduction of the euro. This is particularly the case for the exchange rate criterion, where, with the establishing of the euro in place of the ECU and the replacement of the original exchange rate mechanism by the new ERM II at the beginning of 1999, there is a changed frame of reference.”

”The relevant period for assessing exchange rate stability in this report extends over two years of Stage 3 of EMU. This implies that the application of the exchange rate criterion must reflect the situation after the introduction of the euro and the establishment of the ERM II. Accordingly, the assessment of exchange rate stability in this examination will be based on the Treaty provisions, as elaborated by the relevant protocol, and by the Council Resolution establishing the ERM II with effect from 1 January 1999.”

So yes, Greece joined the eurozone before spending two years in ERM II, but the convergence criteria has since changed and the time spent in ERM I is no longer relevant. Brainiac242 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the time spent in ERM I is no longer relevant for evaluating the convergence criteria. Neither is any time spent in ERM II more than 2 years ago. However, as you can read both in the convergence report from 2000 and in the treaties themselves, the actual convergence criterion does not refer to ERM II specifically, therefore it looks a bit ridiculous to just mention the time that Denmark has spent in ERM II in the Wikipedia table. Once again, how could Greece fulfill the convergence criteria in year 2000 if two years in ERM II was one of them? The convergence criteria have certainly not changed since then. --Nablicus (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nablicus: The convergence criteria haven’t changed, but the 2002 Convergence Report makes clear that way the European Commission interprets them has.

“[…] wherever possible, the Treaty provisions on the convergence criteria should be interpreted and applied in the same way as in 1998 and in 2000. However, the assessment of some of the convergence criteria has to take into account the introduction of the euro. This is particularly the case for the exchange rate criterion […]”

So, once again, when Greece fulfilled the criteria in 2000 they took into account “the total time in ERM/ERM II”. They don’t anymore. Brainiac242 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the 2002 ECB convergence report it clearly says that "The Treaty refers to the criterion of participation in the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM until December 1998; superseded by ERM II as of January 1999)." Of course membership in ERM I is no longer mentioned in latter convergence reports because (1) no other member states than Denmark - who is not subject to evaluation - has ever participated in ERM I and (2) membership of ERM I is irrelevant in order to asssess the convergence criterion with respect to the required two-year period. That said, it is clear from both the 2000 and 2002 convergence reports as well as the treaty provisions, that the convergence criterion does not refer specifically to ERM II. It refers to ERM in general; that's why the original member states could join the euro to begin with, and Greece could do likewise in 2001. --Nablicus (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nablicus: I don’t know what to tell you that I haven’t told you already. No, the treaty didn’t refer specifically to ERM II because ERM II didn’t exist at time, but the way the European Commission interprets the convergence criteria has changed since then. It now considers that the exchange rate mechanism referred to in the convergence criteria is ERM II, not ERM I. Which is why, in the ECB report you cited, the line immediately after the one you included says “First, the ECB assesses whether the country has participated in ERM II “for at least the last two years before the examination”, as stated in the Treaty”.

So, please, unless you find an official source that indicates in any way that Denmark has fulfilled this criterion for over 40 years, or other editors comment in this discussion and agree with you, don’t change again the date that has been used in this template since its creation. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I won't insist on changing the date, if you want it to be wrong, so let it be. But it basically implies that Denmark did not fulfill the criterion on stable exchange rate before 1 January 2001, which is obviously wrong. And yes, the institutions are often refering to ERM II, when they mean the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Today, ERM is rarely used, except in the treaty text. Note that the treaty text was not changed during the last revisions, when ERM II already existed. --Nablicus (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't see why Denmark is in the table at all. The table reflects the evaluation in the 2022 ECB convergence report. Denmark is not subject to such an evaluation due to it's opt out. There are no references for the numbers for Denmark. --Nablicus (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nablicus: The table reflects the current situation, not just the data from the 2022 report. The time each country has participated in ERM II, for example, is calculated until today, not until June 2022. The table also includes every member state that hasn’t adopted the euro, Denmark is one of them. Its opt-out doesn’t prevent it from joining the eurozone, it just means it isn’t obligated to do so. And if the European Commission includes Denmark when explaining the convergence criteria in its official website, for example making clear it fulfils the exchange rate stability criterion, why wouldn’t we? There should be references for its data though. I’ll look for them and include them. Brainiac242 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great if references for Denmark can be added Thanks! --Nablicus (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, so the table is basically mixing up things from different time instances? If the aim of the table is to show compliance with the convergence criteria in 2022, all data should be retrieved from 2022. If the aim is instead to show the current compliance, the convergence criteria also need to reflect today's numbers (which however would probably amount to original research). The current table seems to mix numbers from different times. --Nablicus (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the data for Denmark is already referenced, as it is sourced from the relevant datasets linked in the column headers.

All of the data is consistently as of the 2022 compliance report as of date, I just went back to the underlying datasets to source the data for Denmark, as it wasn't included in the compliance report. TDL (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Most references are dead.

And no, all of the data is NOT consistently as of the 2022 compliance report. The time of the ERM II membership is counted till today's date. --Nablicus (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for which the links have died remain valid references for content. See WP:ROT. Of course if someone wants to update the links to reflect the latest Eurostat website then that would be great, but it's not fair to say that there are no references. There are.

And the current date is not "data".

If your objection boils down to simply the length of time listed for Denmark's & Bulgaria's ERM membership, then what you are looking for is the results of the compliance snapshot as of the June 2022 report, which is summarized in the separate template here: Template:Euro convergence criteria (2022).

This template used to serve as a redirect to the latest compliance results (ie see [2]) so that various articles transcluding it did not need to be updated after each report gets published. However, now it summarizes the compliance today based on statistical data from the last compliance report as of date. This was a result of the conversation here: Template_talk:Euro_convergence_criteria_(2022). If that's not the desired approach, then it would just require that this edit to be reverted to force the template to use the 2022 reference date: [3]. I don't really have a strong view on this, as I think that there's value reporting current compliance for things like ERM membership where we objectively can, while other metrics which are driven by statistical data will always be stale to a certain degree. So there's a trade-off between consistency and timeliness. TDL (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the clarification regarding the references and the link to the other template. I'll see if I can get time to update the references in the next few days. However, I still think it is somewhat misleading to show data for different times (ERM II dates are indeed also a kind of data). For instance, a situation could arise, where all cells are marked green for a country without all convergence criteria actually being fulfilled at the same time. --Nablicus (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]