Talk:United Kingdom and the euro

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

Where's the design from? 惑乱 分からん 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone's taken a two-euro coin and edited it, using an image from a UK pound coin. Although it's nice enthusiasm, I don't really think it deserves a place on wikipedia. NotMuchToSay 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, better places for such things. 惑乱 分からん 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I added a hypothetical Britannia 50c coin earlier today but on second thoughts I've taken it out as you're right, encyclopedias arent for speculation. Could whoever added the 2 Euro coin replace it with a link to their own website? --PRL1973 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mock-up of the British euro coin needs an explanation as to who produced it and what sort of status it has. If it has no status and was produced by someone playing with Photoshop then it should IMO be removed. I added a "citation needed" tag. Matt 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
The image comes from this site. Note that any and all publicly released images of British "Euro" coins are purely speculative and have no official status at all. This particular speculation appears to come from an Italian artist (Frizio). It's hardly the only such design - there are two on that site alone.
British Euro coin designs probably do exist in some back room in the Royal Mint. They have to plan for future demand, so if and when the call comes they can put coins into production very quickly (similarly there will be designs in place with images of Princes Charles and William, already designed, just in case the Queen and/or Prince Charles dies suddenly). But in general it is politically convenient not to make such plans public. They never have and probably never will until they have to.
Strikes me we've had five of us saying we should get rid of it and no-one defending it - seems a reasonable consensus to me, so I'll go ahead and remove it per WP:CRYSTAL. Pfainuk 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overstated?[edit]

Quoth the article:

...it is possible that the Royal Mint could continue to include the symbols of the home nations on the British designed coinage, although this would have to be included in place of the Queen's portrait.

Um, really? I know it isn't the biggest canvas, to work with, but several Euro coins manage to find room for both a person's portrait and some other recognizable icon on the national side. Particularly on the larger coins, the Queen's head could for instance be in the foreground and some distinctive icon or pattern could be in the background. It'd be tricky, but it could be pulled off. The current wording implies that somehow this is an impossibility. --Jfruh (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some coins in other countries are issued with a tiny silhouette of their monarch placed aside a more specific design. No reason why this could not be done on most denominations with the old bag in full on one of the larger coins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Balls[edit]

From the banner added today:

Please help improve this article or section by removing speculative content.

Any material on the possible designs of hypothetical British Euro coins is speculative per WP:CRYSTAL because none have ever been officially designed and made public. It is unknown whether the UK will even join the Eurozone. This article has been missing sources for 8 months and I don't believe that material on the subject at hand is verifiable. Thus I have been WP:BOLD and removed that information. Given that the remainder of this article is both:

  1. Not relevant to the article title
  2. Given in much more detail at Enlargement of the eurozone

I propose that this article be redirected there. Pfainuk talk 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! --Kildor (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every country in the union or that uses the euro as a currency has a similar page. We have the same problem with Andorra, Sweden, Denmark, Kosovo, ... etc. I think it is important that people easily know that UK does not use the euro and the reasons behind. The article definitely needs some work, but it will continue to be a stub, like the other articles previously mentioned. Moving the specifics of this article to a bigger place does not make sense to me. I absolutely agree, however, to remove everything of speculative character. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, surely we have a problem with an entire series of unverifiable articles instead of just one? Yes, it's perhaps worth having an article on why the UK (Denmark, Sweden, whoever) do not use the Euro, but this article is supposed to be about the coins that would be issued by the UK if they decided to join the Euro. The article title is inherently speculative and I fail to see how any information relevant to it could be verified.
Almost all of the articles that link to this one do so through the {{euro}} template, which would be easy to alter.
Looking through the other articles in this series, the ones that appear to be in a similar boat to this one (containing no relevant non-speculative material) are Poland, Kosovo and Montenegro. Andorra, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary Romania and Sweden each contain a very small amount of verifiable information relevant to their subjects - and this is likely, I think, to amount to all of the relevant information on the subjects.
Thus it seems to make sense to me that for all of those countries that are not currently in ERM II, plus Denmark with its opt-out and Andorra/Kosovo/Montenegro using the euro without minting their own coins, it would be worth either renaming to x and the Euro or merging the articles into Enlargement of the Eurozone. I will place notes on those talk pages noting this discussion. Pfainuk talk 12:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case we choose to keep all these articles - which in some cases will be quite, useful, as the coin designs are expected to be made and published in the near future, we should at least rename some of them. An article named UK euro coins is a little odd, especially when it says "there ain't any and there will never be any as long as matters don't change". I'd prefer names like "Denmark and the euro", "Sweden and the euro" etc. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Steinbach. Pfainuk: from the angle expressed in your first paragraph, all of the sudden you started to make a lot of sense to me ;) The articles in questions will be created at one point, not knowing for sure when now. So they have been focusing more on the when will that be instead of the coin designs. How about removing all the duplication and speculation in each article and instead put on the top of them a reference to the Enlargement of the Eurozone? Some articles, like Bulgaria, has very valid information that is not related to the Enlargement of the Eurozone but the future design of their coins. Information like this one I think is worth to keep. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, can I suggest this as a current plan:

  • Articles for the UK, Kosovo and Montenegro are either renamed to "The United Kingdom and the Euro", "Kosovo and the Euro", and "Montenegro and the Euro". These are the countries that are not compelled to use the Euro as currency and that have never (publicly) moved to design euro coins so articles solely on their euro coins are inherently unverifiable. This way, for the UK, we could switch the detail at Enlargement of the eurozone with the article we have here. Montenegro and Kosovo to start off with would not change. If another country gains a large amount of information regarding its potential entry, then we will have a precedent to start a new article. We could create articles for every relevant non-member's position regarding euro introduction, but I feel this would be excessive.
  • We could - and I think we should - add Sweden and Denmark to that list as well as they are not required to use the euro either (in practice in the case of Sweden) and this might make for more viable articles than articles on euro coins waiting for referendums that might never come. A detailed explanation of Denmark's opt-outs, Sweden's policy re: ERM II and both countries' referendums would be useful material, and hopefully easily referenced. Information on euro coins could then be made in proper context of the referendums that have already taken place.
  • We include at the top of every page of a Eurozone country whose coins have yet to be designed both:
    • The {{concept product}} tag
    • A message of the type:
      This article is about the coins that would/will be used if/when x-country joins the euro. For more information on the process of eurozone membership, see Enlargement of the eurozone
      Using would/if for Sweden/Denmark, will/when for the others and a unique formulation for Andorra. Information regarding future membership of the Eurozone is then kept at Enlargement of the eurozone unless a section becomes large enough to form its own article, and information on the x euro coins series is limited to information on the euro coins - however limited it is, with speculation and duplication removed.
  • In the case of Poland, we'll have to just have an article saying - for now - "Currently, there is no official information on the design process for the national sides of Polish euro coins, though it has been indicated that some kind of public vote will be used." - that's all that page has on the subject of Polish euro coins.

Does that sound generally acceptable? Should we go a bit further? Pfainuk talk 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through those articles again, I should say that before my edit this one was by far the worst offender for speculation. Still a bit of duplication of Enlargement of the eurozone around though. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that the articles should be renamed. The dablink message is also a good idea, but please leave out the disclaimer-tag. It looks rather silly to talk about euro coins as "conceptual products". And the message provided is just a disclaimer. The articles should be based on verifiable sources, and the text sohuld explain if there is some uncertainity (i.e. decisions yet to be made, pending referendum).

If there is no information available on the design of the polish euro coins, then there is really no need for such an article. "Poland and the Euro" is then a better name if the article should still exist. -Kildor (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pfainuk, your general idea makes a lot of sense to me, even renaming all articles for currently not designed countries is fine. It is important to remove, in all the articles, all duplication with regards to when will they join the eurozone and make the references to Enlargement of the Eurozone very clear. We should keep in these articles only any valid and referenced information about the coin design. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all these pages except Andorran euro coins have been moved to x and the euro. Andorra, I think, is a special case because that article is mostly on the coins since Andorra already uses the euro and there's little other detail to discuss. I've also done a superficial edit on the template which should (when it propagates through) change most of the links so they point here. I'd guess the most contentious of these moves is likely to be Bulgaria and the euro since that contains most coin-related info.
At this point, it seems to me that the pages that have been moved can be used for what they've always been used for - that is, information on the prospects of x-country joining the euro. Or if this is unnecessary duplication, they can be deleted. They can be renamed back or (more likely) a new page can be created when designs become known. They still all need a bit of work, which I'll see if I can get back to later (or, naturally, anyone else is welcome to do it!) Pfainuk talk 11:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland[edit]

Should there not be a mention of Scotland's desire for independance and, based upon that the wish to adopt the Euro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.148.200 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can easyly edit article and add this information and any other that you think is important. Just don't forget to put references. --Dima1 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. As Dima1 says, yes it's perfectly suitable material so by all means add it, but you'll need reliable sources, and this has been a bit of a stumbling block in the past when discussing what would happen regarding the EU if Scotland became independent. On this article, make sure that the information is primarily about the euro - we have Scottish independence which people could go to for background. Pfainuk talk 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Scotlands desire for independance" is a tad POV though Surely you mean "some peoples desire for Scottish independance" 86.45.223.115 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New look ≠ No euro.[edit]

Experts says that this decision is to reinforce that the euro will not be adopted in the UK for a long while


Not only does this seem grammatically wrong, its technically rubbish too. The mint makes minor design changes to UK coin designs ever single year.

The stamps used to create coins break after a few months and new ones must be created, there is really no extra effort required in chaining the design on these stamps from which coins are produced. There is therefore no significance regarding new designs and possible Euro entry, as the stamps producing new designs today will be broken and discarded within a few months!

If they had physically changed the coins, for example made the 2p smaller or the pound coin bi-metallic, then this would have been costly and could probably be taken as a sign the Euro was at least 15 years off, but to change only the face design of a coin requires no significant effort or cost.

It also appears that the text as quoted above is not really an accurate reflection of the article to which it references - 86.111.162.127 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the source, it seems this change in the face design is not as simple and cheap as you believe. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read it again and it doesn't even make mention to a cost, nor imply significant effort in changing design. It seems the quote above is simply an adoption of a quote which itself does not make any reference as to why this design change has any impact on possible Euro entry. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls?[edit]

Have polls been made after 2005 ? Must have been. Please check and write about them. I found none at a quick googling. --BIL (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the complete redundant block of text which offers nothing in addition to the table below. Epanchin (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:New 50p 2008.jpg[edit]

The image Image:New 50p 2008.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Accession Map[edit]

The euro accession map needs to be updated. The latest map can be found at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euro_accession.svg> How do we incorporate it in the article? Michael Glass (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events[edit]

With parity between the euro and the pound imminent there has been a fair bit of talk in the media about the UK taking the euro. Probably the most notable would be the call by Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland calling for Scottish businesses to accept the euro in order to encourage tourism from the Eurozone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7809700.stm)

Another important bit of information that I think is important is that some shops in Northern Ireland have started accepting the euro at parity, causing a large influx of shoppers from south of the border, making some shops (e.g sainsbury's in Newry) the most successful in their company. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7670658.stm)

In balance though Caroline Flint, the Europe Secretary, and the Conservative Party say that the UK will not be taking the euro any time soon. Scroggie (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, do we have any issues adding this information to the article instead than here in the talk page? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just running it past everybody first Scroggie (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Pound, which was sinking fast is now rising against the euro at just as fast a rate. The volatility of the Pound Sterling is quite spectacular. Michael Glass (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think the UK should do about whether to include the Queen or the Home Nations on their euro coinage[edit]

They should make a compromise, e.g. keep a picture of the Queen on all their regular-issue coins, but for their "commemorative" €2 issues, rotate between Home Nations symbols each year like they do with the £1 coin. 60.234.139.39 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I've mentioned here before, chances are the Royal Mint already have a plan - maybe even have dies made up - for various contingencies (including the accession of Charles or William to the throne, or British accession to the euro). But discussion of such possibilities is beyond our remit here because it is not politically convenient to make such plans public, and so any comment in the article would be pure speculation. The purpose of talk pages is not to discuss potential accession of the UK to the eurozone, but to discuss the article United Kingdom and the euro. Pfainuk talk 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polls...[edit]

need an update! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.204.200 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Biased[edit]

This article is a load of non-sense. It gives the perception that it would be a possibility of the UK joining the Euro and the reality is no one in the UK is even remotely discussing the idea of joining the euro. Thankfully, it's obvious that the UK will never join the Euro. The article needs to make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezza1995 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias toward forgone conclusion[edit]

Regardless of U.K. Euro viability, the article seems to have taken the stand of explaining why the adoption will never happen, instead of exploring the outcome of either of the possibilities.

  • The table has a single column highlight, which is about the sheer number of folk who don't want the currency adopted. If this is to clarify the for/against columns in the chart, I would suggest highlighting the coulumn in favour also.
  • The article name does not use a capital letter for the currency name, in contrast to articles about other proper nouns. and other pages.

I intend to make some adjustments to these aspects in due course. If there are any suggestions or other opinions, please mention here or contact me via the talk link in my sig. Mongoosander (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mongoosander: In response to your specific points:
Thanks for the info about chart styles. Also, for the link from the EU style guide. I don't think the changes need to be made now your points have made things clear. Mongoosander (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom and 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom and 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.

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) 17:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_and_the_euro&oldid=1205832290"