Subject: Re: EU or not on the Euro<br/>
Date: Sep 20, 2002 @ 08:49<br/>
Author: Peter Smaardijk (&quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;smaardijk@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="7309.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7315.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic7218.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="7313.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7315.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1041519669">Kevin Meynell wrote:<br/>
&quot;(...)If they must have a map, then it should just be a generic <br/>
representation of Europe with no borders. (...)&quot;<br/>
<br/>
But Europe isn&#39;t an island, and there is always that off-chance of <br/>
Russia joining the EU. Can you imagine the problems? That city just <br/>
west of the Urals protesting because the map of Europe on the <br/>
banknote stops short of it? Or the Siberians moaning that they&#39;re not <br/>
included?<br/>
<br/>
Luckily (in this respect), we won&#39;t be seeing Russia joining the EU <br/>
before the need of a new banknote design arises ;-)<br/>
<br/>
Also Turkey is only partly in Europe, and what about Cyprus?<br/>
<br/>
And this DOM/TOM/rest distinction that France makes (and can be seen <br/>
on the banknote)?<br/>
<br/>
No, you&#39;re absolutely right: A map on a banknote is absurd.<br/>
<br/>
Peter S.</div>