Misplaced Pages

Talk:European Union: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:25, 14 July 2010 editSuperluminary (talk | contribs)21 edits Better map← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:04, 1 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:European Union/Archive 31) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|European Union}}
{{Talk header}}
{| class="messagebox" style="padding:8px; font-size:110%; border:3px solid #C91240;text-align:center;"
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
| '''Please consider reading the ] for'''
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
'''this article before asking any questions on this talk page.'''
{{Article history
|}
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=01:17, 8 May 2004 |action1date=01:17, 8 May 2004
Line 11: Line 9:
|action1result=promoted |action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=3506511 |action1oldid=3506511

|action2=FAR |action2=FAR
|action2date=07:33, 21 April 2006 |action2date=07:33, 21 April 2006
Line 16: Line 15:
|action2result=demoted |action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=49391717 |action2oldid=49391717

|action3=FAC |action3=FAC
|action3date=03:07, 16 May 2006 |action3date=03:07, 16 May 2006
Line 21: Line 21:
|action3result=not promoted |action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=53379469 |action3oldid=53379469

|action4=GAN |action4=GAN
|action4date=09:22, 9 September 2006 |action4date=09:22, 9 September 2006
|action4link=Talk:European Union/GA1
|action4result=listed |action4result=listed
|action4oldid=74688346 |action4oldid=74688346

|action5=GAR |action5=GAR
|action5date=4 February 2007 |action5date=4 February 2007
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/European Union/1
|action5result=delisted |action5result=delisted
|action5oldid=105614102 |action5oldid=105614102

|action6=GAN |action6=GAN
|action6date=08:04, 23 June 2007 |action6date=08:04, 23 June 2007
|action6link=Talk:European Union/GA2
|action6result=failed |action6result=failed
|action6oldid=140066914 |action6oldid=140066914

|action7=GAN |action7=GAN
|action7date=16:48, 16 October 2007 |action7date=16:48, 16 October 2007
|action7link=Talk:European Union/GA3
|action7result=listed |action7result=listed
|action7oldid=164982527 |action7oldid=164982527

|action8=PR |action8=PR
|action8date=13:23, 30 October 2007 |action8date=13:23, 30 October 2007
Line 42: Line 51:
|action8result=reviewed |action8result=reviewed
|action8oldid=168059727 |action8oldid=168059727

|action9=FAC |action9=FAC
|action9date=00:25, 16 March 2008 |action9date=00:25, 16 March 2008
Line 47: Line 57:
|action9result=not promoted |action9result=not promoted
|action9oldid=198456045 |action9oldid=198456045

|action10=PR
|action10date=17:39, 8 November 2010
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/European Union/archive2
|action10result=reviewed
|action10oldid=395545385

|action11=FAC
|action11date=22:06, 26 November 2010
|action11link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/European Union/archive4
|action11result=not promoted
|action11oldid=399010980

|action12=GAR
|action12date=12:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/European Union/2
|action12result=delisted
|action12oldid=756168775

|topic=Socsci |topic=Socsci
|maindate=May 9, 2004 |maindate=May 9, 2004
|currentstatus=FFA/GA |currentstatus=FFA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
{{WikiProject European Union|class=GA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Europe|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=GA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject European Union|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=GA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|class=GA|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=GA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Trade|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{British English}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(14d)
<br/>
| archive = Talk:European Union/Archive %(counter)d
{{Notice|<big><big>'''Put new text under old text.''' .</big></big>}}
| counter = 31
<inputbox>
| maxarchivesize = 150K
bgcolor=transparent
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
type=fulltext
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
prefix=Talk:European Union
| minthreadsleft = 4
break=yes
}}
width=60
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 19 2016|Jun 26 2016|Jan 26 2020}}
searchbuttonlabel=Search European Union talk archives
</inputbox>
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:European Union/Archive index |target=Talk:European Union/Archive index
Line 75: Line 104:
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}} |indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 25
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:European Union/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=45 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}}
{{archive box collapsible|box-width=238px|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
----
'''Topical'''
* ]}}
__TOC__

== Goverment ==

What form of goverment can the EU be associated with? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:16, 25 April 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Depends on what you're talking about. In a word though, ''none''. As the debate is politically charged and there is no academic consensus, that is just what we can say. But if that is a question of curiosity then the following terms could be associated with aspects of the EU's governance: republican, federal, confederal, (developing) parliamentary, semi-presidential, Swiss, supranational, intergovernmental, Hanseatic, liberal, representative democracy, technocratic...- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

:The best word to describe the EU's form of government would be "dictatorship", since the Heads Of State (due to the byzantine structure, there are at least two "presidents" who qualify as such) are not elected, nor can be removed from office by the citizens- but since they are not hereditary, are not monarchs. The EU deliberately makes itself difficult to describe in conventional language by the strategy, unique in history, of being a country but denying that it is one. It may be worth offering a new term to the lexicon, something like, "Progressivist Dictatorship", since the EU is the realisation of the form of government favoured by those in the political spectrum who currently describe themselves as "Progressive", that is a government which is technocratic, bureaucratic, unrestrained, activist, and in a state of permanent growth, and is not based upon, nor acknowledges, the consent of those over whom it rules.] (]) 02:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:::So by that definition Switzerland is a dictatorship, because the Federal Council is not directly elected? Or, for that matter, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta and the Czech Republic? Didn't know there were so many dictatorships in Europe! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::It is also worth noting that the unveiling of the European Constitution was meant to be the moment when the EU would officially become a country, with a flag, national anthem, "regulations" renamed (correctly) as "laws", and so on. When it ran into difficulty, the elites realised they had come a bit early, and drew back from declaring nationhood, although the practical structures of nationhood- a president, foreign minister, embassies etc were put in place nonetheless. It is a pity, as, had nationhood had been declared, it would have made the EU much easier to describe in terms of governance structure for people writing articles such as this one.] (]) 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::This page is not a forum. If you do not have anything to say on how to improve this article, please refrain from posting. ]<sub>]]</sub> 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I was discussing the terminological problems the writers of this and similar articles encounter.] (]) 20:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "federation" or, even better, "confederation": as the matter of fact the way the EU works is very very similar to the way of operating of the ], e.g. only the executive arm can initiate a legislative proposal... It's strange, because Swiss people don't want to get in but basically the EU is a bigger replica of the smaller Switzerland <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

A despotic dictatorship? Theres no democracy and the police state has radically grown as the various sovereign states that have been swallowed up by this monster become extinct. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

some sort of federation. the european union makes laws, but those need to be rectified by all the countries. of course this means all those countries blame the eu for unpopular laws ('i don't want to install this law, the eu makes me do it. please keep voting for me in the next election'), while at the same time taking credit themselves for all the things the eu does good ('good thing we have that new trade-treaty. vote for me').
the european parliament is chosen in direct elections. the assignment of other political offices is a bit more fuzzy and depends largely on 'who you know'. those not-elected oficials are still answerable to elected officials, both from the european parliament and from the member states, making it the same kind of indirect democracy one sees in all functioning democracies. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== FA ==

This article has stabilised a lot since the last FA attempt. How do people rate the chances of success for a retry?- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

:I think there's a chance, but we should avoid the appearance of arguing with reviewers; perhaps we should refer specifically to the FAQ when submitting the article.
:We should also first do an unofficial review and make some changes here first, to take account of likely issues. --] (]) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

=== Unofficial "review" kickoff ===
Here are a few potential issues that I noticed:
*change "ensuring" to "intended to ensure", since the former implies success (which would probably be construed as POV).
*There are a number of faulty links (deadlinks, access denied, redirects, etc.)
* "area of freedom, security and justice" should probably be in inverted commas or italics; otherwise it sounds like meaningless PR.
*Do the images in the Geography section (particularly the coast of Crete) really illustrate the text?
*There are flags such as "citation-needed" and "who?".
*Words like "micromanage" are POV.
*I'm not sure if most people would understand the Legal section. For instance would a reader understand the specialist meaning of "regulation" in an EU context (e.g. that a so-called (Council) regulation is equivalent to a law).
*The "even" in "may even invalidate EU legislation" sounds a little "surprised" (of course fundamental rights take precedence over normal legislation!).
*Improve references to include more books to supplement or replace many of the europa.eu sources (europa.eu is OK for many things like legislation, official statements, policy and statistics but should be checked).
*I'm not sure if the text 'In negotiations on the Treaty of Lisbon, French President Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in removing the words "free and undistorted competition" from ''the treaties''. However, the requirement is maintained in an ''annex'' and it is unclear whether this will have any practical effect on EU policy.' is OK (i.e. supported by the reference and the treaties).
--] (]) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, thanks for going through that. Lets see;
:*I think you're over reacting on ''ensuring'', the usual use of the word in this contact doesn't imply success I think. Out of context it does but reading it it sounds perfectly natural in terms of what we need. Changing it all to ''intended to ensure'' all over the place would sound weird so I'd be against that unless it is raised as an issue by an FA reviewer.
:*Working on that, I'll flag up dead links I can't fix here.
:*Done
:*I agree, they're there like many for decoration but removal is bound to be opposed my the fairies.
:*Done (I think)
:*Where is micromanage?
:*Hard to judge what is understandable to average Joe. If there is anyone reading this who has no background on the EU, please read that section and tell us if you understand it.
:*Well it is a bit surprising, it isn't just a foregone conclusion in a lot of jurisdictions and hasn't always been the case here.
:*Not sure what you mean is the problem on that last one.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Sorry, I forgot the hyphen: ''The treaties '''micro-manage''' the EU's powers, indicating different ways of adopting legislation for different policy areas and for different areas within the same policy areas.'' I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean (apart from what is already stated); I would remove it.
::I think the phrase "free and undistorted competition" was removed from the preamble, but I don't think anything like it was added to an annex (possibly to a later protocol, but I didn't see anything in the reference at first glance). --] (]) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Sorted micromanage. Is the protocol they added number 27? If so I'm not sure it says anything at all!- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 08:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Ah, OK, I've found it now; it is on page 192 of the ToL PDF, so it is in the annex:
::::PROTOCOL ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND COMPETITION
::::THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
::::CONSIDERING that the internal market as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union
::::includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,
::::HAVE AGREED that:<br/>
::::to this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This protocol shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
::::Whatever that means. --] (]) 19:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's 27 in the consolidated treaties. I think is its basically someone underlining or putting in bold a section of the treaties in an effort to make it more important without explicitly doing so. So....where on earth does that leave us?- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Personally, I would delete the paragraph. I don't think it's important enough to belong in the EU article, especially since the whole affair probably doesn't change anything. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in the sub-article. --] (]) 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed. Limited impact.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 21:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::One further point that might be worth remembering is that there was a complaint from one FA reviewer (completely incorrectly in my view) that we used EU sources too often on this page. Is this not likely to come up again, even though it just shouldnt be a problem at all? ] (]) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this way:<br>
<<...The EU has legal personality, and guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...>> ? <br>
It's all right? It sounds good to me... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I don't think we can write that the EU "guarantees a European area of freedom, security and justice" (unless perhaps in inverted commas). It's PR-speak. Nobody can guarantee freedom, security and justice, so "European area of freedom, security and justice" is really just a name.--] (]) 06:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

::review in this way: ...The EU has legal personality and constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice by enacting legislation in judicial and home affairs...<br>
::According to what the T.F.E.U. declares:<br>
::''],<br>
::CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS<br>
::Article 67 (ex Article 61 TEC and ex Article 29 TEU)<br>
::1. The Union shall '''constitute an area of freedom, security and justice''' with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.'' --] (]) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (CET)

:::Constitute implies success even more strongly. Whether it guarantees or seeks to, I think the problem lies in whether FSJ is a description or just a name. I think putting it in speech marks is a good compromise as I can't think of any term to put in its place without being incredibly long winded. I think <<seeks to guarantee an "area of....>> is best.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

::::I thought that the verb "guarantee" were sober, but I discovered that my view was not 100% shared... So I took the Treaty and I put the exact verb the Treaty uses, i.e. "constitute", which sounds unsmooth to me... But the Treaty uses this verb, thus "constitute" is appropriate at least, becase it is consistent with the Treaty. --] (]) 1:18, 16 June 2010 (CET)
:::::Just to be clear, I think the word "guarantee" by itself is perfectly sober. It just means something different and that alters the implied meaning of the rest of the sentence. My main concern was that the term "area of freedom, security and justice" is used in the treaty in a special meaning that is different from the normal meaning of the individual words in context. That is adequately addressed by putting it in quotation marks. Similarly the TEU talks of a Union "in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" but Misplaced Pages should not, using that as a reference, state that the EU is an area where tolerance, solidarity, and equality between men and women prevail. In both cases, the wording is (perhaps) appropriate for a treaty but not for an encyclopedia. --] (]) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boson, the "area" in the (Treaty) context is rather meant as an overarching aim or title. It is not a specific policy or institutions and tends, in the context of the EU introduction, to sound like propaganda, even if unintentionally. It does´nt help to raise the credibility. Sorry, it should stay outside the intro. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== The Bilderberg Group pushed through the idea of the EU in 1955 ==

This is going to be hard to source evidence for but I think it deserves a chance...

] as found on wikipedia, are known to have come to private decision on many matters that push general policy across US, UK and European since the group was formed in the 1950s.

I read alternative media sites (with a healthy pinch of salt) and came across the claim that Bilderberg was fundamental to the creation of the European Union.

In a report from Bilderberg held Sept 23-25 in 1955 held at the Grand Hotel Sonnenbihl in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany the following is quoted;

“Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.”

The document also outlines the plan, “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

Just two years later, in 1957, the first incarnation of the European Economic Community (EEC) was born, which comprised of a single market between Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The EEC gradually enlarged over the next few decades until it became the European Community, one of the three pillars of the European Union, which was officially created in 1993.


== Why are monetary amounts described in USD? ==
The 1955 Bilderberg summary outlines a consensus that, “It might be better to proceed through the development of a common market by treaty rather than by the creation of new high authorities.” The EEC was duly created via the Treaty of Rome, which was signed on 25 March 1957.


Shouldn't money be counted in Euros rather than USD, since the subject of the article is the EU and not the US? ] (]) 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Bilderberg 1955 report:
http://wikileaks.info/Bilderberg_meeting_report_Garmisch-Patenkirchen,_1955/index.html


:Probably because its conventional internationally to state major metrics like GDP in US dollars, to facilitate comparison between economies. Better sources also give the ] exchange rate because the market rate may be unrealistic for extraneous reasons (as with the Swiss Franc at times of international tension) or even "managed" (as in China, for example). ] (]) 14:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Excerpts lifted from PrisonPlanet.com
::Gotcha. Thanks ] (]) 15:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy.html<br/>
{{UnsignedIP| 84.9.165.244| 2010-06-08}}<br/>
Moved from article to talk.--] (]) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
: It is not at all surprising that European integration was discussed during the Bilderberg meetings; where political leaders attended. Note that it was timed between the treaties of Paris and Rome, at a time when the actual process of founding the EU was well underway, but also was the "talk of the day" in political circles.
: Hence the appearance of this topic in Bilderberg group files is liukely to be caused by this political dynamic, but on the other hand the influence of the Bilderberg group on the actual formation of the EU remains unshown. Therefor inclusions seems unwarrantee ] (]) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


== TEN-T map is outdated and needs to be updated ==
::Correlation does not equal causation - and hence does not equal relevance without evidence.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


The TEN-T map used here is now outdated and needs to be replaced. Here is the updated version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Trans-European_Transport_Network_(2024).png
:I don't see anything special about the Bilderberg consensus. What about the European Movement in 1953 or Winston Churchill in 1946?--] (]) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think given that the page has always bordered on exceeding the advised length of an article on Misplaced Pages that this information should probably just stay left out, otherwise it would seem only logical that we go into all the other influences. ] (]) 10:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
it's probably true that the bilderberg-group has talked about the creation of some kind of european union (since the goal of those meeting was to form informal alliances and exchange ideas). but because of the 'no-press-allowed' tradition (needed to keep it informal) it's probably difficult to find any kind of reliable source.
and including it seems unnecesarry anyway: of course there has been some negotiation behind closed doors, but it's not like the 'real' public conferences were just puppet-shows (as the conspiracy-theorists think).
i agree with simonclab that this is more something for a seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I am a bit surprised the anon ip reads "this information should probably just stay left out" as: there should be a "seperate list with all the historical influences leading to the founding of the eu". ] (]) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


:Done ] (]) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
== Infobox lacks major institutions, lists presidents instead ==


== Update Presidency of the Council in infobox ==
The infobox does mention European Council, Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers but links to their respective "leaders".


As of 1st July 2024, the Presidency is held by Hungary
There should be a section added that links from the infobox directly to these and NOT to their leaders, especially when it comes to a thing like a parliament in general. And as for the European Parliament it can be only mandatory that it is properly linked in that infobox. The link as it is now misled me: It says "European Parliament" not "President of the European Parliament", thus I was very surprised about the latter.


This should be updated ASAP
I wanted to change that myself but I couldn't because that infobox is not directly accessible - why? That shouldn't be that way in a wiki (for example, US infobox does show up!). ] (]) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


https://hungarian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/presidency/hungarian-presidency/
Moved here by ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:The reason you couldn't edit it is because the article actually references ]. So you'd have to go there to edit it. I'm not a part of this project, nor do I know anything about it, so be sure any changes you make aren't controversial and/or discuss them first. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 11:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::Infoboxes don't list the institutions, but if you look at the blue politics box further down you will see a great deal of detailed links there.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


== Better map == == Picture Caption error ==


Surely this:
What happened to the better map which showed the borders between the different independent nations..? ] (]) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:It's because this is the article about the EU and not about "States of EU". ]<sub>]]</sub> 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::Well, EU is exactly that, a union built by different nations, just like the UN, WTO, NATO etc. Its not "one nation". ] (]) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:::That is not what Tomeasy said. He said that the article was about the EU as a whole, not about the member states.] (]) 09:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Indeed, nobody's trying to say that the EU were one nation or a sovereign state. The use of the locator map simply is to show where the EU is located, and NOT: which states it comprises, or where its major cities are, or what the largest river is, or the highest mountain. There are many things one could add have added, but the current map takes the minimalistic approach. ]<sub>]]</sub> 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Signing ceremony of the Treaty of Rome (1957), establishing the ECC
:The map showing the member states is under the heading "Member states".--] (]) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


should read:
:I have restored the prior locator map in the infobox, with internal borders. If memory serves, this was discussed some time ago, without compelling reason in support of the change. The locator is no less functional with the internal borders, and the fact that ONE colour is used to indicate the EU already signifies they are unified. Members are ''sine qua non'' of the EU. Importantly, it is ] to exhibit the EU sans borders of its constituent sovereign members amidst surrounding sovereign states, since it gives the impression that it is on par with them. There also appears to be no recent discussion on this or that page supporting the change. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Which change do you mean? I just see you changing the map today. After the discussion here has started! So, I propose that you content yourself until this discussion has come to a conclusion.
::I see a good argument on your side, i.e., the borders do not harm much the purpose of the map. This is worth discussing, I find. But then, wouldn't we have to provide borders as well on continent articles like ]? I do not entirely follow your argument that not showing borders is misleading. Can you explain this idea in more detail?
::And of course, for the time being, I reinstall the map as it was before this discussion started. ]<sub>]]</sub> 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Signing ceremony of the Treaty of Rome (1957), establishing the EEC ] (]) 10:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::And, of course, I am restoring the prior map. It was changed previously without any peep on the talk page (see that template), and then you have defenders that pipe in once an anon IP (not me) points out on this page and questions why, and then I change it. Why? So, I propose that you content yourself with discussing and garnering a consensus before changing it again.
:::To clarify: it is misleading to show a map of the EU without its constituent sovereign states, yet surrounded by them. There have apparently been issues on this page about the state-yet-not-state like nature of the EU, and so a map without internal borders implies that it is one. Like with like. As for the map at Europe, I would be fine with country borders on that map (c.f. Africa, North America). Which, begs the question, why ''is'' the map at Europe devoid of country borders? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::That is probably something for that page. But I guess adding borders would make Russia a problem, as after adding borders you imply that you shows countries on the continent, but Russia is on Asia for a large part; so you can't have your cake (borders and colors identifying countries) and eat it (limit yourself to Europe).
::::In any case the relevant question by Tomeasy "why is it misleading to omit country borders" has not been answered. ] (]) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


:Fixed, thanks. ] (]) 11:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I for one favour the non-border version. As has been argued above, this is about the EU as a whole and indeed we have a large map right below with the member state borders shown and the names linked. There certainly isn't a need to show member states in the above box and you can barely make out the borders anyway; it simply makes it look a bit more messy that's all. So that's one map with borders, one without. No harm in that, it looks a lot better.- <font size="1" style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">]]</font>: 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Of course, A., you can have your cake and eat it too. Well, the ]ns seem to not have similar issues as the Europeans, at least as far as maps with country borders are concerned.
::::::And, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too re: this issue. Not answered? I'm unsure I need to further explain the need for ]. The map exhibits the EU surrounded by sovereign states; ergo, someone may think that the EU is one, or at the same level. Members are the ''sine qua non'' of the EU, hence it being a union. Thus, it is misleading. I actually may not have too much of an issue if the EU was exhibited with the borders of regional/continental blocs surrounding it, but that isn't the case and it would not be useful. Accordingly, none of you have satisfactorily explained why the EU's intranational borders should be omitted, or pointed out the clear consensus for the change. So ...
::::::J., it is perhaps unsurprising that you support a non-border map -- after all, YOU changed the template without any comment or discussion to begin with. And, messy? Are you kidding? ] is far messier than what is a simple map. ] (]) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Indeed the shape of Russia looks extremely weird on the Asia map. They should remove the borders as they now falsely imply that a country exists that is only the Asian part of Russia (and Turkey, although Turkeys European bit is rather small).
:::::::You do have a point that it is weird to have borders for sovereign states outside the EU, but none withing. However my solution would be to propose a map without any borders (even less messy ;-); but I can see your objection about having no internal borders, but having other borders there.
:::::::The argument "it was there in the past, hence consensus forever" is not at all helpful as this would block all progress. ] (]) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Perhaps because Russia is so big and the map projection. But, otherwise, the locator map for Asia is no different than for many other maps, online and in print, which exhibit the continent and split Russia in the usual way. There's nothing unusual there, and lack of borders may prompt the question: what is where?
::::::::Thanks for acknowledging my concerns about balance re: borders. My argument is not at all about the perpetuity of consensus, though there is some validity to that, but about the rationale and validity of change. Is this a change for the better? No, IMO. Was it discussed and consistent with process? No, as pointed out. So ... ] (]) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
] Can the map to the right be accepted by everybody as a solution to our issue? ]<sub>]]</sub> 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:I hate the map which has just been proposed. It shows the EU as too small and I hate showing maps on a globe. A map should be 2D and make no attempt to be 3D.--] (]) 23:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:Some may prefer maps without borders, and they are certainly advantageous in some instances, but in the current instance we are dealing with political entities that have borders, internal and external. The EU is a political entity, comprised of others ''sine qua non'' and surrounded by them. So, I do not see the utility of the borderless map: this is, after all, not the ]. I think the use of orthographic maps, as opposed to planar ones, is another issue and the topic of wider discussion. ] (]) 06:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
::I think it would be good to treat Lucy's opinion in another talk section, if at all. Otherwise this discussion here gets messy. Both objections are completely independent.
::To the IP (why not register?), now I understand that your previous point was not really your point. So your concern is not that showing the EU without national border while showing countries outside the EU with national border would mislead readers thinking that the EU itself was a nation.
::Rather you want to add details to a map that we try to keep as simple as possible. And the detail that you want to add shall prove a ] (i.e., EU is not USE) that you want to make. Here, I disagree. I do not think that this point needs to be proven in the locator map already. As pointed out before, the article does not hide this point at all.
::''Nota bene'': If you feel that others do not understand your Latin phrase (why do you repeat it three times?), you might use the English language to make yourself understood or provide a translation. ]<sub>]]</sub> 07:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
:::{{xt|...or provide a translation}} - Wiktionary is good for this. You can link words and phrases like this: <tt><nowiki>]</nowiki></tt> renders as "]". ] 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Firstly, my concerns are ''both'' of balance and the point of not implying that the EU is not a state amidst others -- both are related. I frankly do not know WHY there is resistance to exhibiting borders on the locator map, particularly a political locator map. I frankly don't know how or if to deal with criticism that adding (actually, restoring) borders to the map nonsensically complicates it. The map also harks of others used in Misplaced Pages (e.g., continents, EU countries and others). One could just as easily argue that not rendering borders seeks to render the EU as something that it is not. Can you point out another map for an international organisation that does not render the borders of its constituents parts? If presented with the option of a map with all national borders, and one without, I choose the former. I reject attempts to insinuate a map of the EU without intranational borders, while exhibiting those of surrounding states.
:::Thirdly, re: Latin, but it was intentional: without the EU's members states, ]. The locator map can just as easily exhibit th. As may editors seem to want to use 'sui generis' to describe the EU. Anyhow, the map was changed before (i.e., recently) without any comment or discussion. So, I was justified in reverting that change.
:::Lastly, I choose not to register as yet, nor do I need to. But, I may reconsider. ] (]) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tomeasy. I like the borderless map. <br>Re projection This was chosen as people argued before that] (the green patch on the lower left side), which is part of France should be pictured. Alternative projections made EU even smaller. ] (]) 08:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
:I ''knew'' there was a reason I preferred the map ''sans'' borders, but couldn't remember the previous discussion. Thanks, Arnoutf! OK, casting my !vote for the borderless map, mostly per Arnoutf, partly per Tomeasy. (Disclaimer: I seem to recall being an agitator for orthographic maps across various blocs, continents, etc) ] 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:04, 1 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution? A1: The symbols were not abandoned with the constitution, but they are no longer mentioned in the text of the new Treaty of Lisbon. The failed European Constitution would have enshrined them and given them legal status, whereas the replacement Treaty of Lisbon does not. However, they still exist and are still used without this status. The European flag was adopted in 1986 and will continue to be used even without constitutional status. The other symbols were also adopted in a similar manner.

The EU is not unique in this respect, many countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and only has its position de facto. Another example is the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E pluribus unum being commonly used as such.

Q2: Why isn't there a criticism section? A2: A separate criticism section would focus on overall criticism of the whole idea of the European Union. After much discussion it was decided that this is not a good idea. Note that there is no "support section" either; this is an encyclopedia article, not a pamphlet meant to persuade people whether the EU is a good or bad thing. When it is important to discuss the positives and negatives of certain European Union issues, these are mentioned in the paragraph dealing with that issue. Thus the style of the article is to deal with criticism on a topic by topic basis rather than in a separate section at a very abstract level. Q3: So, is there nothing wrong with the EU at all? A3: Of course many things are "wrong"; but a neutral point of view on overall conceptual criticism does not work. Instead the editors involved do their best to write as neutrally and objectively as possible, neither taking a supportive or a critical point of view. An example where both positive and negative consequences are discussed is given here as an example (from the Common Agricultural Policies (CAP) section – the most important policy is that of subsidised minimum prices for agricultural products):

This system has been criticised for under-cutting farmers in the developing world. The overproduction has also been criticised on environmental grounds in that it encourages environmentally unfriendly intensive farming methods. Supporters of CAP say that the economic support which it gives to farmers provides them with a reasonable standard of living, in what would otherwise be an economically unviable way of life.

Q4: But is there no criticism about the whole idea of the EU? A4: While in its implementation there can be, and is, much criticism of the European Union, it is simply impossible to address every possible area of criticism. Criticism of the EU is often subjective, depending on personal and political views; some may criticise the economic model advanced by the EU, whilst others may criticise the transfer of certain powers from a national to a European level, fearing loss of sovereignty. Some may simply criticise the institutional structure of the EU, the role of the European Court or even the EU's human rights policy. The number of possible criticisms are almost endless and it is impossible to address them all fully, in a balanced manner. Furthermore, there are already articles on issues such as Euroscepticism which cover many of the points which individuals may wish to add to the main EU article. Because of the multi-faceted and subjective nature of this criticism it has been decided that the inclusion of a criticism section is neither necessary or wise. Q5: Is the EU a country, a federation, or an international organisation? A5: The European Union is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or international organisation difficult. It is probably most closely related to a confederation.

The EU has developed from an international trade organisation aimed at improving the economy and thereby fostering peace in Western Europe. Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity, like an anthem, a flag, a common currency, but also representation among other countries in international organisations like the G8. However, other properties of countries, like a fully-fledged defence force, are not part of the EU's mandate.

This means the EU can neither be described as a federation or country, nor as a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as any of these, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. Nevertheless, to promote consistency within Misplaced Pages, we borrow ideas from both the international organisation structure and the country articles. Q6: Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy? A6: No, this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the European Union between them.

Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Misplaced Pages country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when writing about this, as it is basically speculation.

This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being treated as a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors. Q7: Why is there a sports section? A7: In brief, the issue shares many elements with the previous question – whether to treat the European Union more as an international organisation or more as a country. Some editors believe that a country article ought to have a section discussing sport as an important aspect of national culture, and that the EU should be treated as a country and have such a section. Others believe that the EU as an organisation has a negligible impact on sport and that sporting culture varies widely from state to state, so the topic should not be mentioned in a summarising article such as this. Q8: Why is there such limited information on culture in the EU? A8: Again, this issue shares many elements with the question whether the European Union should be considered more like a country or more like an international organisation.

There is, however, another issue here: a lot of the culture of Europe (literature, painting, music; or even Roman/Greek antiquity) originated long before the EU was founded. While this culture is undeniably part of the cultural heritage of the EU countries, it is just as much part of the culture of non-EU European countries: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the mini-states (Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City), the republics of former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Montenegro), and the eastern European Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Hence, discussing the culture of EU would at best mean duplication of the Culture of Europe article, which would be unwanted for reasons of maintainability of a consistent content of Misplaced Pages. At worst this may imply that the EU claims some rights to the shared culture of the whole of Europe, thereby denying this right to non-EU countries. Therefore it was decided to limit the culture section very much. Q9: Why don't the city sizes fit with my idea? A9: Comparison of city sizes by number of inhabitants sounds easy. It is not. Different countries in the European Union have dealt differently with subdividing large cities. For example, many of the suburbs of Paris are independent, making Paris proper a relatively small city. Berlin has many fewer independent suburbs making it relatively much larger. This makes comparison of cities on inhabitants irrelevant. Eurostat has realised this and in 2004 created the larger urban zone as an alternative metric which was developed to be comparable across the different countries. We use larger urban zone numbers to compare city populations across EU countries. Q10: What is the legislature of the EU? A10: The European Union is not a state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure.

The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise.

It does not have a conventional legislature, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into a conventional model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is to police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio.
The role of the Parliament in this is to give (or deny) political approval, or to require amendments.

The EU does not have a Government with a capital G but it certainly does have government: see Institutions of the European Union. Thus there are some activities that are aspects of a legislature but it is just wrong to suppose any direct equivalence with such things as the US House of Representatives, Senate and Administration (Office of the President). Q11: Who is the President of the European Union? A11: The official title President of the European Union (or President of Europe) does not exist, but there are a number of presidents of European Union institutions, including:

Alongside these the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers or simply "the Council") containing 27 national ministers, one of each nation, rotates its presidency by country. This presidency is held by a country, not a person; meetings are chaired by the minister from the country holding the presidency (depending on the topic, or "configuration"), except for the Foreign Affairs Council (one so-called "configuration" of the Council of the EU), which is usually chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleEuropean Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
May 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 4, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 8, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 22, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEurope Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean Union Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTrade Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:


Why are monetary amounts described in USD?

Shouldn't money be counted in Euros rather than USD, since the subject of the article is the EU and not the US? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably because its conventional internationally to state major metrics like GDP in US dollars, to facilitate comparison between economies. Better sources also give the purchasing power parity exchange rate because the market rate may be unrealistic for extraneous reasons (as with the Swiss Franc at times of international tension) or even "managed" (as in China, for example). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

TEN-T map is outdated and needs to be updated

The TEN-T map used here is now outdated and needs to be replaced. Here is the updated version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Trans-European_Transport_Network_(2024).png

Zestrayswede (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Done Auguel (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Update Presidency of the Council in infobox

As of 1st July 2024, the Presidency is held by Hungary

This should be updated ASAP

https://hungarian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/presidency/hungarian-presidency/

(source archive retrieved 25 June 2024) Metaprost (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Picture Caption error

Surely this:

Signing ceremony of the Treaty of Rome (1957), establishing the ECC

should read:

Signing ceremony of the Treaty of Rome (1957), establishing the EEC 2A00:23C5:C8C9:5301:64FD:A7DF:DA19:6C3B (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. CMD (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: