Talk:European Union/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

EU ranking

I believe that area, population, GDP and HDI rankings should be added for comparison reasons. Nicksss93 (talk) 14:12, 02 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the "List of supranational, quasi-confederations by nominal GDP" would probably be a fairly short list. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it will be quite useful to know where the EU ranks in terms of GDP and Human Development Index compared to the US for example. And with the latest developments about the fiscal policy of the union and its ability to interfere the member states' fiscal policies to a certain extent, it acts more or less like a single entity. And, given the fact that it's not clear whether the EU should or shouldn't be considered as a single entity, I believe adding such rankings to compare it with the other countries isn't that bad at all. - Nicksss93 (talk) 17:04, 04 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't include ranking in the infobox as the EU is not a country and is included but not ranked in country lists, like List of countries by GDP (nominal). It wouldn't make sense to give the EU an hypothetical ranking based on lists where is is not ranked. It would also ignore other groups of countries which might be listed together like NAFTA and ASEAN. We do include ranks in the article text for comparative purposes but these are prefixed with in the mode of considered-as-a-single-entity. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
NAFTA and ASEAN actually have rankings in their infoboxes - NAFTA has its total and per capita GDP ranked and ASEAN - its Human Development Index. - Nicksss93 (talk) 20:09, 04 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the basis that NAFTA have it. Connolly15 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That other articles have it wrong does not make it right here. The point I was trying to make is that If NAFTA were counted as a country it is would be 14th in the would GPD (PPP) per capita. If the EU were counted as a country it is would be 16th in the would GPD (PPP) per capita. But if both were counted as countries, NAFTA would be the 9th and the EU would be the 14th. The reality is that (according to the IMF) Canada is the 14th in the world by GPD (PPP) per capita, Iceland is 16th and the Netherlands is 9th. These are the only reliable sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The point of such rankings is not to change the world GDP rankings but just to point where the EU would be if considered as a single entity. Maybe such notification with this information could be added near the rankings to avoid misunderstandings - like it's done in the ASEAN article. - Nicksss93 (talk) 12:41, 06 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. I guess this one has been resolved. Nicksss93 (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

EU Criticism

What do people think about including a Criticism section?

I know there are many notable outspoken critics of the EU, doesn't this deserve inclusion into the main article?46.208.162.143 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRITICISM. Criticism is integrated into the article, rather than have its own section. Similarly, there's no "Praise" section. CMD (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Also see the FAQ for this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Military

Is the military section outdated? It says that the EU "battlegroups" can only deploy up to 1,500 personnel but I'd guess there are more than 1,500 personnel on the EU fleet off the Horn of Africa fighting piracy at the moment? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18069685) 109.153.12.64 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why this was reverted as unconstructive, but anyway it is c. 1,500 (http://www.eunavfor.eu/about-us/mission/) Connolly15 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

State or Country? (Changes on 29-June-2012)

Should we be comapring the size of the EU economy with other states or other countries. Although these two words are often synonymous, there are a number of exceptions - the United States of America is a country comprising 50 states. Texas for example is a state, but not a county. Brazil and AUstralia are similar example. According to the Wikipedia, Germany consists of 16 states. It was on tis basis that I reinstated the word "country". Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I originally undid your change because your edit summary did not explain your change adequately. The impression I got was that you were ridiculing the use of that word in this context, implying that it was incorrectly used. However, you now appear to be arguing that although "state" is correct, "country" is possibly less ambiguous. I can live with that. Cobulator (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Note too that in contrast with the countries that comprise of a number of states that the United Kingdom is a state comprising 4 countries. Cobulator (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO Country is better in this context. Europe is considerably larger than, for instance, Rhode Island. Britmax (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that country is better in this context.
The word state should be regarded as having two distinct meanings:
1 a (sovereign) state that is a subject of international law, such as the states that are members of the United Nations.
A state in this sense can be a unitary state like the United Kingdom of France, or a federal state such as Germany or the United States.
2 a constituent of a federal state.
Strictly speaking, this constituent state is called a federated state (though often - confusingly - the term federal state is used by the layman). Examples are Texas and Bavaria.
The word country can also mean several things, though the meaning is usually obvious from context.
For instance, Scotland is a country. It is not a state because the United Kingdom does not (yet?) have a federal constitution. However, in an international context, the United Kingdom is also a country. Even in passport application forms, the word "country" is used for the applicant's country of residence, and you can chooose "United Kingdom" but not "Scotland".
In the context we are talking about, I think country is more appropriate. In the context it is unambiguous. The word state would also be correct, in the sense of "sovereign state", but it is - strictly speaking - ambiguous, and it is unusual in this context.
--Boson (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oficially, Germany, Poland, France etc is a member state (not member country). So this discussion is meaningless. For the EU should use the word of state. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The source used phrases it as country or groups of countries. Murry1975 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
...small number of sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

EU Olympic Team

EU if considered a single entity in the Olympic games, would be #1 in terms of overall gold medals and medals total. It should be considered as an addition to this list of rankings, the medal rankings of an unified EU olympic team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.12.160 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Change to American English

This article should be changed to American English, because no one in the European Union likes the Britons, and they don't want to be in the European Union either. Also, American English is the lingua franca. --80.187.107.161 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

American English is the lingua france in the United States of America, it is not that clear outside the US. And of course, liking the Britons has nothing to do with it, but even if we do not like the Britons (which I doubt) do we dislike the Americans less? .... Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if "no one in the European Union likes the Britons", that is not a reason to change to AmE. If it were a good reason the next logical veriety to use would be Irish English, not American, per WP:TIES (the very reason why BrE is used in the first place). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ireland is still an English speaking member of the EU. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that is what Alphaton means, it is now in UK English (which is fine as the UK has ties with the EU), the first alternative would be Irish English since Ireland has (at least) equally strong ties to the EU as the UK (ie is a member state). Arnoutf (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of table/bar chart comparing EU with other economies

I have reverted Cobulator's removal of teh table showing comparitive economies. They are are hightly comaprable since they come from the same database. Martinvl (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again. It was a very recent addition to this article, and not a beneficial one. It doesn't help the reader understand what makes up the EU economy, which is what this article is for. CMD (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that this table has a place in the article. Maybe the caption should be changed. Maybe the figures for Germany, United Kingdom and France could be added to give some perspective, but I don't think that blanket removal is the answer. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? What does it tell you about the way the EU economy function? The stats seem to be just how the sum of the members add up. The text however, goes into the way the EU aids the Economy of its states, through regulations and policies etc. Also, it's odd to call it blanket removal, since its just a reversion of a previous edit. CMD (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the stats don't tell you how the economy functions, they do however tell you the size of the economy in relation to other world economies. Were the financial markets bothered when the Zimbabwean dollar fell through the floor? Not really - the knock-on effects were small. Are the financial markets bothered about the current Euro crisis? Yes, the knock-on effects are large. That is wjhat this table is showing. Martinvl (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how similar Euro figures are to the EU as a whole, but the table doesn't really show that. It just gives a few figures. The text, on the other hand, in the first paragraph, says "In 2011 the EU had a combined GDP of 17.57 trillion international dollars, a 20% share of the global gross domestic product ". That, especially the 20%, shows the size/relative size of the EU economy far better than any list of figures could. Now that you've mentioned the Euro crisis though, we seem to just have "The monetary union has been shaken by the European sovereign-debt crisis since 2009" on the topic. While we should avoid news/recentism, that is somewhat underwhelming. CMD (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I, personally, think the chart has some merit. However, since it was boldly added and is contentious, I think it should be removed until a consensus has been established. I think WP:BRD, rather than edit warring, is the way to go. --Boson (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The EU is the largest market on the globe. The IMF recognizes the fact. I can hardly see an improvement of the article by deleting the chart, quite the contrary. Whoever created the table probably intended to mirror the introduction sentences about the size of the economy. Marthainky (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That IMF reference does not compare the combined total of the economies of all the EU nations with those of single individual nations. If we are to do that, we first need to find a reference that does that. Cobulator (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The IMF does estimate the size of the EU economy. The removal of the table does not improve the article. Quite the opposite. Marthainky (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They may estimate its size, but that doesn't mean we should use a direct comparison. The EU isn't a state; there is enough contention about describing it as a confederation. Even if it was, a table of "Large economies" is a very odd thing to see in an article about any specific economy. We have a text saying it's the largest, and wikilinks that can point to articles where the table is far more appropriate. (As an aside, I can't access the source it seems the way other editors here have, either by clicking or copypasting. Is a more direct link possible?) CMD (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The IMF may estimate the size of the EU economy, but it doesn't compare it with that of individual countries or states. WP:NOR does not allow us to combine data from different tables to arrive at a conclusion or imply comparability. The IMF do not put the EU in the "Countries" category, but in the "Country Groups" category, along with other multi-nation groupings such as: Advanced economies, Major advanced economies (G7) and Emerging and developing economies (each of which has a bigger total economy than the EU). Cobulator (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sui Generis

The EU has elements of federation, confederation, and international organization. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it a 'sui generis entity' (as the majority of the sources refer to it) instead of an explicit 'confederation'? FonsScientiae (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That was the phrase used in the past. For a review of some of the past discussions, search for sui generis using the archive search box above. --Boson (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I went through the archive. And as I see it there was no clear consensus to remove the term from the text (but from the infobox in association with the government).
I had a university course about the EU last year and we most often described it as a sui generis entity, and never as a confederation. I am pretty sure that most of the reliable sources refer to the EU as a sui generis entity, and not as a confederation.
To counter previous arguments that the term is very rarely used I must say that it is used not only in academical texts related to international organizations but also in news, in relation to sports, technology, entertainment etc. (Observer, Sports, Guardian, Technology, Guardian, Sports, BBC, Music, CNN, Entertainment) FonsScientiae (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
At present, is good. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not an argument. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone provide a link to a discussion that shows that consensus has changed. I remember we had a long-standing consensus to use sui generis and not use (con)federation. This consensus was defended in multiple discussions. However, this was a few years ago. I could not find the point where this position was change. Would be nice to have it linked here. Thanks. Tomeasy T C 22:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I was always for sui generis (given that it is the correct and widely used term) but the argument that certain editors used was that people would not understand what the term sui generis meant. Personally I always thought that was a very poor argument against using sui generis and would happily see it put back in - its the sort of thing that you'll always have one or two people complain about. To use "confederation" instead is misleading if you ask me. --Simonski (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for describing the nature of the EU

Since the designation "confederation" is obviously contentious, though it can be (and sometimes is) argued that the EU is a type of confederation (especially: a new type of confederation) and since there is some concern that (the) hoi polloi will be put off by academic Latin terms like sui generis in the first sentence, I would suggest that we restore the first sentence to the long-standing consensus

" The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

but add a sub-section to the Governance section, in which we

  • introduce the concept of a sui generis organization
  • discuss different views on the fundamental nature of the EU (including the concepts of a "confederation", a "federation", "federal Europe", a "monetary union", a "fiscal union, etc.) There might be some overlap with the History section but there might be an increased need for a broader discussion of these issues anyway, in view of recent developments in Europe.
  • later, possibly discuss views of whether the term sui generis still applies and wider issues of governance.

--Boson (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This description is hardly uncontroversial given that the EU is not a political union.[1][2] It would be better to describe the EU as an "association" and give economic union and political union a treatment similar to the one you suggest for confederation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be quite happy for the description to include the concepts of political union etc. I'm not too keen on "association" (though I could perhaps live with it) because the European Union is, and designates itself as a union, rather than an association or confederation. And when I read "association" I think more of something like the Commonwealth of Nations. I see minor problems with "economic and political union" but, in my view, this is mainly because editors (I'm not sure if this also applies to normal readers with no axe to grind) try to interpet this [using logical bracketing] as something like ((economic) and (politcial union)) - which is, of course, linguistic nonsense but is the only explanation I can think of for people linking to the concept of Political union, which is a quite different concept from a "union of an economic and political nature". We have, of course, discussed this many times before. We do, of course, need to avoid implying (as a matter of fact) that the EU is a political union in the sense of the compound noun (rather than the noun "union" qualified by two adjectives). That would be the equivalent of calling it a federation (since, presumably, no one would think of the EU as a unitary state). --Boson (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We could write "political and economic union" to deemphasize the term 'political union'. This definition is better than stating the EU is a 'confederation', but I still think that "sui generis" is the most descriptive term of the EU, which is often used to describe it. If somebody doesn't know what it means she can follow the link and read the definition in 10 seconds. I still haven't found and seen the archive where the long-term consensus of the usage of sui generis has been changed. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is well at present. I would add the term "federation" (with sources).

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union or confederation or federation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

or

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union or confederation / federation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Also, I support one of the ideas by user Boson: "add a sub-section to the Governance section, in which we introduce the concept of a sui generis organization, discuss different views on the fundamental nature of the EU (including the concepts of a "confederation", a "federation", "federal Europe", a "monetary union", a "fiscal union, etc.)", but intro - no changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any body of decent sources calls the EU a federation. CMD (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the EU is not a federation. Some want it to become one, but that certainly would not be accurate at present. I would support. "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe." I do not think the use of the term confederation is needed in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact, EU describes itself "partnership between 27 countries". On its official page, you can find the following sentence: "The EU is a unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries that together cover much of the continent." Anyway, it's not a federation or confederation; EU does not use such a term. I think the first sentence should be like:
"The European Union (EU) i/ˌjʊərrəˈpiːənˈjuːniən/ is an economic and political partnership of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe.[12]" Gabriel Stijena (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And what is a 'partnership' in international law? I don't think we should take this formulation on Europa.eu too seriously. --Glentamara (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't know exactly how to classify the EU in international law (so use of a term that does not do that might be an advantage). That is the reason for using the term sui generis. I am not toö keen, but I think I could live with "association" or "partnership". I do not think the introduction should have a list of things that various people think the EU is or might be - including "confederation". One possibility would be to use a word like "association" but add a footnote that refers specifically to the discussion (to be added) under Governance (and could itself include the term sui generis). --Boson (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the view that sui generis is the best choice. Calling the EU for a confederation or partnership, means that we put it in a group with other types of entities. I think this is bad, because EU is unique in its structure. If we don't want to use sui generis, then we should use just the term union I think, because that is what it is legally (see art. 1 TEU). I think we should use as general terms as possible. --Glentamara (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
" sui generis" does not help clarify the situation though. I think simply saying it is a political and economic union in the first sentence is enough. Nobody can deny it is a union, and it is certainly a political/economic one, something that is sourced. So we should stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What about this?

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is a sui generis entity, a unique political and economic union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

It includes the exact term often used to describe it, and gives clarification of the nature of the EU to the general people. FonsScientiae (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Slightly redundant, but if there is consensus to remove confederation and use sui generis instead, that seems like a good start point. I'd shorten the relevant part to "is a sui generis political and economic union". CMD (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well i agree it would be better than the current wording incorrectly calling it a confederation. However it still seems to be pointless. " sui generis entity, a unique...." surely that repeats itself? by saying its unique and suis generis? Just the EU is a suis generis political and economic union of 27 memberstates. " would be better. However i still think it would be best to leave out the "unique or suis generis and stick to the facts. It s a political and economic union. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think sui generis entity etc are unnecessary. Briefly, it would be better: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political confederation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe." Gabriel Stijena (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I would go with CMD's proposal that the "EU is a sui generis political and economic union". I believe it should contain sui generis, but if there's consensus to remove it, I can live without it. Calling the EU confederation is incorrect. FonsScientiae (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, sui generis is a bit unnecessary, but you know. No matter. Thanks. Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I support idea by user Gabriel Stijena: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political confederation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe". This is compromise. Subtropical-man (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is reasonable consensus above for a change to the introduction to avoid saying confederation. The difference of opinion seems to be over if suis generis should be used or not. Whilst id prefer the article simply to say " is a political and economic union", im prepared to support " is a sui generis political and economic union" if we can get consensus to resolve this matter. We can at least then correct something that is at present totally incorrect in the article, and there could be longer discussions on if "Suis generis" should remain or be removed at a later date (or continued over the coming days). Main thing is the article would be accurate. So if there are no objections, tomorrow ill change:

"The 'European Union ('EU) is an economic and political entity and confederation[10][11] of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

To

"The 'European Union ('EU) is a sui generis political and economic union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Whilst its not perfect at least it will not claim something many people clearly dispute and view as inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"The 'European Union ('EU) is an economic and political entity and confederation[10][11] of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe" is good proposition. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus to call it a confederation nor enough reliable sources. Its a very problematic term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a different opinion. Small problem would be with the term "federation", not confederation. Second: term "political union" is deficient and incomplete. Exist many political unions in the world, but only the European Union operates almost like a country. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As I mention above, I think to use "confederation" is particularly misleading. I think we should revert to the previous consensus. Personally I preferred sui generis (given that is the correct and widely used description in most respected sources) but I appreciate that there are always people who will complain about using sui generis. I would have to side overall with Boson here in any event. --Simonski (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the form proposed at the top is fine (without further changes) - there is no need to get into *sui generis* - simply note that the EU is a treaty organisation with its own legal order. It is also not accurate to describe the EU as *sui generis*, as the EEA shares many of its most salient features. Lawdroid (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


It is clear from the above there is consensus against use of the word confederation. This article needs fixing, yet the change to the reasonable proposal has been reverted. At present this article is inaccurate and misleading. If the introduction is reverted again to the factually inaccurate "confederation" claim, i shall be adding templates about POV and accuracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal has been open for 4 weeks, and I agree that there appears to be a consensus to remove "confederation"(with only 1 dissenter, as I see it). I propose that we close the discusion and re-instate the previous long-term consensus, as I suggested above, before addressing further issues. Since we have already had the "open" discussion, if there are then any further proposals, such as replacing "union" with something else (or re-inserting "confederation"), I suggest holding a more formal poll with !votes given as something like support or oppose with a brief reasons, and discussion kept separate, to keep things focussed.This should probably have been done earlier (before inserting "confederation"). --Boson (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Id support that. My change to the intro has been reverted again though by someone. Im close to putting the accuracy / POV templates on the article, but that will tarnish the whole article when it is sadly just one person refusing to accept there is no consensus to call it a confederation in the intro, seen as most sources in no way describe it as such. Will add the templates tomorrow morning if its not resolved. People are currently being misled by this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Second: two users (as yet). I maybe call several other users with the support of the "confederation", if you want. Wait for a real consensus. Intro of Eu article is big case, it takes patience. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I may have missed one possible supporter. It looks like we need a more structured discussion; and perhaps more people's input. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am baffled that the arguments in Federal Europe are not considered. There are many federal characteristics about the EU but opinions diverge whether they constitute the minimum set of "a federation". Having "confederation" in the first line clearly minifies some parts of reality IMO. Guidod (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No more light bulbs

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: In all countries of the European Union of today, 1 September 2012. was not allowed to produce or sell incandescent bulbs. According to the Croatian daily Vecernji list, recommended LEDs, which consume significantly less power. Historic day: evolution or revolution in every home? 78.2.117.95 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you suggest to add this, for example to the environment paragraph? Arnoutf (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:European Union borders

I am working on Poland–Russia border, and I think we should have a category for EU borders. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Arnoutf (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Because? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

European Union - Federation of States or eurodiktatura?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "I call for the creation of the federation of nation states. Not superstate but democratic federation of nation states that will solve our common problems through the sharing of sovereignty",said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at the European Parliament yesterday, 12 september 2012th year, which could become a significant date. According to Croatian daily Večernji list, the supranational Federation decided not only on economic issues, but also on foreign and defense policy, and Barroso explicitly mention that Europe must be able to send its military mission in crisis areas of the world, but did not say whether the European Union and its common to have an army, which is not to shut down. The first step is the creation of the European Banking Federation of the Union. All banks in the euro area rather than the national will be under a single supranational supervision, Barroso said that not only is it the most important, but also that the first steps have already been taken! First, and this negative reaction came from the Croatia. The president of the parliamentary party of the Croatian Party of Rights Dr. Ante Starcevic, Mrs. Ruza Tomasic believes that the federalization of Europe, "an easier way to manage the large small" for Croatia said: "We will be the colonies, we can do nothing." "States that could have lived well, and mentioned along with Croatia also Spain, Greece and Portugal, European bureaucrats want to conquer, they care about the islands, clear water and clean land," said Ruza Tomasic, and adds that "their goal all buy, "concluding that" believes that the European Union will fall apart as soon as desirable ". But opposition to federalization of Europe was before. The British public, for example, currently supports the return of the powers from Brussels to London, and not giving new powers to Brussels, the Irish referendum on the EU constitution already rejected in the form of the Treaty of Rome, etc. The mentality is that Europeans do not like that their lives are governed by someone who are not elected in the election. Because of this I believe, and this is my comment, that citizens have the right to the most democratic manner, and in a democracy we know today, it is a referendum, which should be implemented in every state, not just the eurozone declare whether they accept or reject them from Brussels offers. European federation as a promised land of prosperity for all people, nations, and states or eurodiktatura financial, banking and political elite - a dilemma that is already open! 78.2.114.254 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to consider adding this information to the article about Euroscepticism. Thanks though.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Barcelona 4.4 million inhabitants? Is this a joke? Not a chance

Barcelona has an in-city population of around 1 million habitants and up to 3 million with surrounding areas that do not constitute part of the population to be taken in. Who is adding false data? Please, source properly by non-separatist non-irredentist non-pro-Catalan sources that can be considered neutral and stop POV-pushing. Thank you. 90.163.209.102 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This data is correct, your data is irrational. Barcelona has a population of 1,621,537 - only within its administrative limits. The urban area of Barcelona has a population of 4,223,000 according to Demographia. The Larger Urban Zone of Barcelona has a population of 4,440,629 according to Eurostat (the European Union's statistical agency). Also, many sources writes about the 5-million metropolitan area of Barcelona, for example: United Nations, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Idescat, BlatantWorld.com or World Gazetteer. All this sources are independent, have nothing to do with Catalonia or pro-Catalan nationalism. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Unemployment Data - Please, keep them updated, vis-a-vis USA

Fx.: "Now, in 2012, unemployment in the EU stand, per August 2012, at 11.4%[1] and that we in Europe, by this, suffer a great deal while USA whines over its 8%, we are struck with this! Please also care for our unemployed in Spain, a part of the troubled PIIGS area. And that we wish that you keep your military complex a bit more passive, USA, please! We beg you!" - Thanks! --95.34.121.21 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Euro area and EU 27 unemployment up to 11.4%" (PDF). Eurostat EU. 1 October 2012. Retrieved 1 October 2012.

Definition of the European Union

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus to define the European Union as a economic and political union. Armbrust The Homonculus 04:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What term(s) should be used in the introductory sentence to describe the type of organization of the European Union?

A previous version of the introductory sentence was

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Various changes have been made this year, including the use of the word "confederation". There have also been proposals to use other terms, such as "association", "federation", and sui generis. Please state in the following survey which terms you find preferable or acceptable in the introduction, giving a brief reason for your preference. Feel free to add more terms if you think they have a chance of gaining consensus. Any further discussion, including replies and longer explanations should be restricted to the sub-section headed Discussion.

For arguments already adduced by one editor or another, see Previous discussions below. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Association

  • Acceptable. If there is strong opposition to use of the word "union", I could accept "economic and political association" as a compromise. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very vague, never used in practice Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Never used in practice. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Diffuse term. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Never used.--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although this is atleast accurate, it is almost never used. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very vague, but not wrong. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - FAR FAR too weak - J.Logan`t: 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too vague, although not totally wrong. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - vague, not used in reality, no benefit over the accepted "union" term. Guidod (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: wrong term here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Confederation

  • Strongly oppose. The European Union does not normally describe itself as a confederation. It may sometimes be described as a "new type of confederation" or "more than a confederation" but these descriptions are hedged with qualifications and stated as a matter of opinion rather than fact; they need to be further explained in ways not suitable for the introduction. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Acceptable The EU fits most of the definition of a confederation, but the term is never used in practice. Arnoutf (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Good term for EU. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The Union is simply not a confederation - it is much more than a confederation. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support The EU fits most of the definition of a confederation.--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - The European Union is not a confederation and nor do major primary sources or the EU itself call itself such. it is a political and economic Union. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Incorrect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Technically correct, if not in the traditional manner. However it is politically charged and mob rule will not allow Wikipeia to settle on that term without wider public consensus.- J.Logan`t: 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - The EU fulfils hardly any of the criteria for a confederation: it has no common defence, no common foreign policy, only 17 of the 27 member states have a common currency, and, most importantly, it has no central government and no taxation. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - it would mask out existing federal characteristics of the EU. And given their own intent, the EU officials wouldn't use that term, so much that it is left as WP:OR. Guidod (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - we have a lot of reliable sources to support this variant. See Confederation#European_Union. Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That article section starts "Due to its unique nature, and the political sensitivities surrounding it, there is no common or legal classification for the European Union (EU). However, it does bear some resemblance to both a confederation and a federation. " - That is very different to saying without any qualification in the introduction of this article that the European Union is a confederation. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic and political union

  • Strongly support. This was the long-standing consensus, arrived at after lengthy discussions. The European Union describes itself as a union. It is mainly economic in nature, with political elements, so the attributes "economic" and "political" should be given in that order. It's not perfect, but better than the alternatives. Links to the different meaning of Political union should be avoided. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is how the EU desribes itself in daily practice. It also sets boundaries around what it does (economy and politics). Arnoutf (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. EU is much more than just economic/political union. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. For same reasons given by Boson Lawdroid (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A good description of the Union. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Acceptable--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - this was the long standing wording, it is accurate, neutral and clear. People can then read more in the article to learn the details of just how political and economic a union it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It's what it is. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Truth is you can describe it as many things because its development is unlike any other political entity and the conversation is so politically charged. Economic and political union is a good neutral ground that carries little baggae while being technically accurate. It would not be what I'd call it, but in the light of Wikipedian amature mob-rule, it is the safe bet for a lasting solution.- J.Logan`t: 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Although not perfect, it's a good description of the EU. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • weak support - it's just the traditional way to describe the EU but between Maastricht and Lisbon the characteristics have changed somewhat so it may well be worth it to choose another term. Guidod (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support: European Union is union. Ditto. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Federation

  • Very strongly oppose. A federation is a type of sovereign state, and the EU is not a state. It may be correct to state that the EU has elements of a federation or that there are movements to develop the EU into a federation, but the term does not belong in the introduction. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too much associations with a sovereign state, which the EU is not. Even if it would fall within the definition of federation, these associations with sovereignty would be very problematic at best. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strongly support. Very good term for EU. "Federation is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government" - perfectly fits to UE. Term of Economic and political union is incomplete and misleading. Exist a lot economic/political unions in the world, smaller and larger. However, in the world the only EU operate almost as a country - despite the fact that the federation does not have to be a country. Two big arguments for term "federation". Subtropical-man (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I know this vote is over, but I've only just read through (some of) it. And I cannot believe this comment about the EU as a federation... the EU is simply not a federation. Not in any sense. At all. A confederation maybe, in some sense of that term, but absolutely not a federation. David (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose. A federation, is pretty much by definition, a state in which the federated units lack total sovereignty, and are not able to recover it. Not only would this contradict the "Herren der vertraege" position of the member states, it implies a much stronger relationship of citizenship between the citizen and the EU than actually exists. Lawdroid (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The Union is simply not a federation, maybe it will be in the future, but it is not today. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - the European Union is not a federation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Incorrect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Technically correct, if not in the traditional manner. However it is politically charged and mob rule will not allow Wikipeia to settle on that term without wider public consensus.- J.Logan`t: 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose. As Lawdroid points out above, a federation is a state in which the federated units lack total sovereignty, and are not able to recover it. The EU has no common defence, no common foreign policy, only 17 of the 27 member states have a common currency, and, most importantly, it has no central government and no taxation. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • weak oppose - although there are quite some federal characteristics the term "federation" would simply be blunt neglecting the non-federal parts that continue to exist. Guidod (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - EC President Barroso called for a European Federation in his recent "State of the Union" speech. Why regard it as such if its most 'European' leader does not?--Laveol T 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: in such context the word "federation" is used to denote federal states, which EU is not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Partnership

  • Oppose. A partnership can be anything and nothing, though it is a term that has been used by the EU. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even vaguer than association. Most states have many bilateral and multilateral international partnerships; the EU 'partnership' goes much further than others, and makes this term unspecific. Arnoutf (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just like association, a diffuse term. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even vaguer than association.--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although this is atleast accurate, it is almost never used. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Incorrect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - FAR FAR too weak - J.Logan`t: 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too vague, although not totally wrong. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - plain incorrect. Atleast since Lisbon it is more that a bunch of multilateral agreements. Guidod (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: completely wrongheaded. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sui generis (possibly in addition to other terms)

  • Support. I would personally prefer to describe the EU system of governance as sui generis, but accept that some may find it inappopriate in an introductory sentence addressing the general public. Personally, I think a link to sui generis is a sufficient explanation, but would find it acceptable to avoid this word in the introduction, preferably adding it to the body of the text. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Acceptable Sui generis is not a term in common use, and is not frequently used in daily practice. Use of the term may complicate rather than clarify the issue; so there is little in favor of using the term. On the other hand, there seems to be little content issues that are against this term. Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Acceptable, but is it necessary? Subtropical-man (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this (a) conveys no substantive information about the EU (b) is arguably incorrect (in that the EU is a lot like its various precursors, is a lot like the EEA, and frankly there are likely to be now or in the near future further international organisations taking on similar characteristics). Lawdroid (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Sui generis is a common way to describe the Union. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As above--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This addition really is not needed and adds nothing to the introduction considering no union or anything similar would be identical in their nature. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It means nothing. That term could be applied to everything. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Used to support the term, but it says nothing in isolation. Tack it on to something else perhaps but it serves little purpose except to sow seeds of doubt (which, admittedly, are helpful given politically charged nature) - J.Logan`t: 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's such an extremely vague term that doesn't say anything. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's an academic term that does not help with comprehension. Guidod (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The EU is not really a confederation, so I would support Political and Economical Union sui generis or Multi-Level-Government sui generis -- Deeleres (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there are no two identical bodies, so this is implied. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic and political union and federation

  • Support. Good compromise. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tautological. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strongly Oppose. If true, it would be tautological, but the EU is most definitely not a federation, though it has some attributes of one. And it cannot be defined as both a federation and a confederation. --Boson (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The Union is simply not a federation. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - the European Union is not a federation, some want it to become one. But it is not at present a federation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Incorrect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - needless repetition.- J.Logan`t: 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose. The EU is a union, but definitely not a federation. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • weak oppose - although there are quite some federal characteristics the term "federation" would simply be blunt neglecting the non-federal parts that continue to exist. May need a weaker attribution like "with federal characteristics". Guidod (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not a federal state. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic and political union and confederation (current version)

  • Support. Good compromise. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tautological. Arnoutf (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. If true, it would be tautological, and the EU is not normally defined as a confederation. It is probably appropriate to include both views in the text, e.g. under governance, but not in the definition. --Boson (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. As above Lawdroid (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose The Union is simply not a confederation. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support The EU fits most of the definition of a confederation.--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: „Economic and political union and confederation de facto” --Mahetin (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - for reasons stated in previous answer. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Incorrect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - needless repetition.- J.Logan`t: 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The EU is a union, but not a confederation. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The EU is simply not a confederation - and the term "union" still points enough to the confederate characteristics that exist. So there is no benefit in lengthening the sentence while still trying to minify the federal characteristics that happen to exist as well. Guidod (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not confederation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Further details, explaining why the EU is sui generis or can be regarded in some ways as a confederation, federation, superstate, or whatever , can be added to the section on governance. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is not just union an alternative? I.e:

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is a union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Could that be a compromise? --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Its a compromise at too high a price, avoiding giving people important factually accurate information. There needs to be some context of what the EU is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus? It seems that "economic and political union" has drawn the most support by far. Lawdroid (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait a few days. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
These kind of discussions are the reasons I've given up on Wikipedia. The EU is a highly complicated and politically charged topic and you've more ignorant-but-opinionated "citizens" then qualified academics on staff. If people put half the amount of effort into creating new content as they did to bitching about the first sentence (which is usually the only one they've read)....- J.Logan`t: 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There was nothing wrong with "economic and political union". Adding the confederation nonsense is simply not necessary - the EU has never identified itself as such and doing so implies that it has. Perhaps this should be left to, oh I don't know, people who know even a little bit about EU law, rather than ignorant users who think they have something important to impart. Pft. Pascal (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If you've given up on wikipedia, why are you wasting your time here? Shouldn't you be creating your massively successful, enormous encyclopedia with your team of hand-picked experts? Lawdroid (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We have waited a couple of days, nothing has changed to the consensus that clearly exists against confederation and in favour of Economic and Political. I have made the change again to the article. If Subtropical-man reverts i would urge someone to please revert his revert, and if he continues then he will soon be in breach of 3RR and can be reported. This is blatantly inaccurate information that he seems intent on keeping in the article that lacks any consensus or even a significant minority of support. Over 250,000 people viewed this EU page in the last 30 days, we should not so obviously mislead people any longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

European Commission on the issue of federation: This seems to be fairly up-to-date (about 8:40 this morning). Barroso, speaking to the European Parliament is calling for a "federation of nation states" (an interesting concept, presumably different from a federation without qualification and implying that the individual states remain sovereign actors in international law).

  • "EU's Barroso calls for federation of nations". Chicago Tribune (from Reuters). 12 September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012. We will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is our political horizon . . .Creating this federation of nation states will ultimately require a new treaty

This seems to indicate that neither the President of the European Commission nor the European Parliament thinks the EU currently is a federation. The reaction of the audience would even suggest that some MEPs do not think much of the idea. --Boson (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is too much WP:OR for something with so many sources available. The solution is simple: gather official descriptions of the European Union by sources within European Union institutions themselves, as well as definitions from well-known and reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Choose the best among them, use the sentence (possibly with minor copyediting) and cite the source. No more "hey lets add this other word and completely change the meaning of the sentence" business, because a simple "{{cn}}" quickly followed by a revert (after they obviously can't support the edit with the source) will be in order. Problem solved. Permanently. Int21h (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is very valid, Int21h. If a country calls itself "democratic" when it's a totalitarian regime, we can't rely on official descriptions for a lead sentences. We must describe political entities as they are, and then complement with how they describe themselves. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Union describes the EU as a customs union, which is pretty straightforward.. Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU contains the following provisions: 1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy. 2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens. 3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. Which all seems to indicate a high level of political integration. Mmmm, sources. Pascal (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporary change to introduction?

I know that RFCs are meant to last 30 days, however it is clear from the above that the current wording in the introduction is strongly opposed by most editors because it is viewed as factually inaccurate. I believe it is unhelpful for wikipedia to incorrectly inform people about the EU in such a significant way in the introduction. Can we please put the option at present with the most support (which was the long standing wording before a recent change anyway) back into the introduction and reassess things in a couple of weeks time once the RFC has been completed? The views of people have already been displayed clearly, only a couple of editors support this inaccurate wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

10 people support or accept it saying "Economic and political union" with one person opposed. Meanwhile, 9 oppose (6 strongly) compared to just 2 supports (1 strong) for the current article wording. There is clearly reasonable consensus there. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions

To explain the need for a more structured discussion and help acquaint newcomers with the issues, here are some previous discussions (feel free to add more):


Result of survey

Numerical results of survey
Wording Strongly or very strongly oppose Oppose Weak oppose Acceptable Weak support Support Strong or very strong support
Association 2 8
Confederation 4 3 1 1 3
Economic and political union 1 1 1 4 5
Federation 5 5 1 1 1
Partnership 1 10
Sui generis 1 6 1 3 1
Economic and political union and federation 4 3 2 1
Economic and political union and confederation 6 3 1 1 1

Please check the figures. I think the numerical results and the comments show a clear consensus for the definition "economic and political union", without mention (in the lede) of "federation" or "confederation", and a slightly weaker consensus for omitting sui generis. Any objections to closing with that result and marking the discussion as closed.? --Boson (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Member states map

The member states map (Template:European Union Labelled Map (blue)) has errors. It depicts Yugoslavia as a single state until its dissolution in 1992 - except for Macedonia, which is depicted as a separate country. Now, I'm sure this is a perfectly honest mistake, but considering Macedonia is the center of a five-sided Balkans dispute, it might be a good idea to fix this. -- Director (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To fix that File:European Union enlargement.gif needs to be edited, if anyone can edit gifs. Which five sided dispute is this? CMD (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Should be ok now. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Governance section (ideas)

I have been collecting sources and ideas for a discussion of the issues in a new "governance" section, but am still evaluating them and I think it will take some time to get it right. It's difficult to be concise while doing justice to the complexity of the issue; so it might even make sense to write something longer, and then spin off a sub-article, retaining a summary here. I would welcome any ideas about what could be included in such an article. However, I thought some sources/ideas might also be relevant to the above poll, so I am adding some things below. --Boson (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

German Constitutional Court on the issue of federation/confederation

The German Constitutional Court makes it pretty clear that making the EU a federation would require changes to the German constitution. They refer to the European Union as a Staatenverbund but in their English translation of the press release commenting on their decision permitting Germany's accession to the Lisbon treaty seem to deliberately avoid the translation "confederation":

"Due to this structural democratic deficit, which cannot be resolved in an association of sovereign national states (Staatenverbund), further steps of integration that go beyond the status quo may undermine neither the States’ political power of action nor the principle of conferral. " [my bold type] [3]

--Boson (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical perspectives on the organization of the EU

Governance white paper and discussions of it

Though somewhat dated, I think it might be useful to look at previous debates by political scientists on the governance of the EU, particularly in the run up to the proposed constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, including the White Paper on governance.

Walter Hallstein et al.

As the first Commission president, Walter Hallstein thought a lot about the direction of EU governance. He called one of his books in German Der unvollendete Bundesstaat ("The Incomplete Federation"; the English translation was called "Europe in the Making") . Hallstein's Sachlogik, in particular (as well as others' ideas of "functional spill-over", "doctrine of ramification", la méthode Monnet, etc.), may be especially relevant at the moment. The idea was to set up structures in such a way that when the inevitable problems occurred they would be resolved by greater integration; so economic integration would lead to political integration, the democratic deficit would lead to direct representation, etc. - not automatically, but by virtue of objectively being the logically best solution to the problem (hence Sachlogik) . --Boson (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New sub-section on constitutional nature of the EU

As proposed, I have now added a sub-section discussing some of the issues that we have discussed here concering the definition of the EU in the lede.--Boson (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaders

High Representative for Foreign Affairs, is s/he a leader of the Union? --E4024 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, It's Not. You can delete this bug. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

EU Numbers

EU-25
= EU-15 and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Cyprus

EU-17/EFTA
= France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein

EU-15
= Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Great Britain, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and Spain

EU-8
= Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia

EU-2
= Bulgaria, Romania

http://www.bfm.admin.ch/content/bfm/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta/eu-efta_buerger_schweiz.html
http://www.vimentis.ch/d/lexikon/485/EU-15.html

It may be useful if this information was added. QuentinUK (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

EU 27 and EU 15 are well known and often used; to distinguish between the pre 2004 members and the more recent members'
EU 17 is almost exclusively used for the 17 Euro countries; hardly ever combined with the EFTA as here.
EU8 and EU2 are to my knowledge never used, and in any case not for these countries. Arnoutf (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion that Britain out of the European Union

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Former President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, a socialist, proposed today UK, which is opposed to the strengthening of European integration, to come out of the European Union and enter into a different kind of partnership with Europe, reports the Croatian news agency HINA. Delors as the possibility of partnership with Britain led the "European Economic Area" (EEA) or "free trade agreement". In the case of exit from the EU, Great Britain would remain a privileged partner, added Delors. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said last month that it supports British membership in the EU, but it can not accept the "status quo" and that he wants a "new deal" that would include the return of some powers from Brussels. Until now, however, has not offered a clear referendum "for or against" the EU despite strong pressure from his party. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy warned yesterday that Cameroon their positions could lead to collapse of the EU. However, despite Jacques Delors proposes that Britain out of the EU!93.137.54.210 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what happens before adding anything to the article, there is some discussion about UK's status but nothing decided yet. Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, let's wait and see what happens. Problems with the UK are be and will be, nothing new. If anything will be changed officially (supported by official sources), we add information to this article. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a canard. A UK in EEA would, like Norway, be subject to all the EU directives and regulations but with no ability to influence them. See The Economist, 14 December 2012 issue.

The international fight against cyber-crime

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: More than 500 million people worldwide each year are victims of cyber-crime, reports Croatian daily Večernji list. In recent years, the national police stepped up the fight against criminals. They are specifically looking for on the Internet - but until now the quest is only taking place in the territory of their own country. That finally changed in the Hague, the European Union has opened a new center for the international fight against cyber-crime.78.2.90.230 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is probably an idea to start the European Cybercrime Centre article to reflect that. I am not sure that at this stage in time it is important enough to include in the main article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done I have started a stub. I hope others will help flesh it out. --Boson (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Lower house, upper house?

Hi, the EP is referred to as a lower house in brackets in the article, and the Council as an upper house. I don't know, that sounds a bit strange. I agree that they can analogously in a way be described like that, but more often than not I would assume the distinction between an upper and a lower house would presume a more traditional and less sui generis parliamentary system. Or what do other people think, have I missed something here? Thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Though the European Parliament can be compared to a lower house, it should not be described as one. In a bicameral parliamentary system, there is one parliament with two chambers, not a parliament and other legislative bodies. The division of powers between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union is not typical of that between a lower house and an upper house. EU legislation involves a number of bodies, including the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Arguably, one should perhaps also include the European Council (as well as the Council of the European Union); see the recent discussion on the budget. No to mention the various committees and "scrutiny" by national parliaments. As a result of the complicated combination of national, supranational, and intergovernmental elements, the EU legislative process can not simply be described as bicameral, with an upper and a lower house. --Boson (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Defensive Alliance

It doesn't seem clear in this article, is the EU a defensive alliance? By that I mean, does the invasion of one member mean that all members states are required to provide military aid? 188.200.194.26 (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No its not, most members of the EU are also member of NATO though, which takes this role. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
If it is of interest, Article 222 TFEU provides for mutual solidartiy in the case of a terrorist attack. Some EU member states have a policy of neutrality, which would normally preclude a mutual defence treaty. In Austria, for instance, the constitutional provision of perpetual neutrality was a condition for Soviet military withdrawal. --Boson (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The EU does have a defensive alliance in all but name. As it has a 'mutual defense clause'. Read http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/mutual_defence_en.htm
This doesn't just include a terrorist attack, but also 'if a Member State is the victim of 'armed aggression on its territory'. In reality, if any member state is invaded by military force, the member states will be obliged to help. --Erzan (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Idea for infrastructure section

Hi all! Is it worth mentioning the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link in the infrastructure section? The tunnel will be a direct connection between Scandinavia and continental Europe, especially Denmark (and the rest of Scandinavia) will have better access to Eastern Europe. Here is the Official website and [[4]] <<--- economy. QuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If it links in to a paneuropean network of highways and high speed trains, I would say yes. If (for the time being) it links to local highway networks and train systems, I think it's relevance is limited to Germany-Denmark (at least for now). Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unifying introductory paragraphs on EU member state articles

I would like to propose that all articles pertaining to the 27 member states of the EU share a uniform introductory paragraph introducing all countries as, first and foremost, states of the European Union. Post Lisbon Treaty, the concept of fully independent and sovereign nation states in Europe is outdated when such major areas of public policy are now agreed upon at the European level, with much deeper integration due to arrive in the imminent future. The wikipedia definition of a sovereign state is as follows:

"A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state"

It is, therefore, not only misleading but inaccurate to introduce the various countries as 'sovereign' or 'independent' as if they are not dependent upon or subject to the powers of the EU, considering the fact that should their national parliaments fail to incorporate EU law they face prosecution by the European Court of Justice. Wikipedia would do well to reflect this fact in the introductory paragraphs, preferably within the first few sentences. This would of course merely involve minor corrections to the intro paragraphs of 27 countries. Please discuss... Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that you made a lot of changes to articles about the members of the EU which reflected your own opinion about this without prior discussion, and when challenged, said you would post a message here for discussion. As one of the people who advised you to revert your previous changes, I pointed out that what you argued for was your own interpretation and not "facts" as you claim. Thus, given your explanation, above, what you write is WP:OR since you have not yet given any direct reliable sources that state what you have concluded yourself here. Additionally, I note that you have not placed any notices on the relevant country articles' talk pages that would allow people who edit or are interested in those countries to contribute to this discussion. It seems to be a mistake that could be interpreted as being a failure of WP:NPOV because you have (unwittingly) failed to alert a large number of editors or relevant wikiprojects about the changes you are proposing. I therefore think that this proposal should just be swiftly rejected unless some serious effort is made to get a rounded set of opinions and reliable sources to back up what seems to be an opinion claimed to be "The Truth".  DDStretch  (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to quote you: It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. I would like to point to you that EU has only the authority and powers which the countries decided to give to it, or to use a better word, to lend to it. Any country may simply decide to withdraw. See Withdrawal from the European Union. Imagine you yourself enter a club, and by entering it you agree to adhere to a certain terms and conditions. When you yourself decide not to perform something or you let someone else perform it for you, you are still free as long as you can simply change your opinion and start acting independently.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
To follow on from that quote It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state... so every country which has signed any binding international treaty is no longer a state (eg the charter of UN or WTO or WHO/FAO etc) as it is subject to the rulings within these treaties.... So we have no states on this planet, which makes the whole issue irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It is quite clear that the countries of the EU, all members of UNO, are internationally recognized as sovereign states. There is not likely to be any consensus to change the wording to suggest otherwise. So please desist. --Boson (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed exactly what I meant with my post. We know that countries and states do recognise higher powers, without stopping to be a state. Thus the EU countries remain sovereign states, until treaties making this explicitly different come into action. Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but "Richie wright1980" doesn't understand the nature of membership of the European Union. It's an organisation with members, who happen to be sovereign states. It may well be heading (or at least the Eurozone "core" is) towards the situation whereby the EU is the chief entity and the member states (which could no longer be termed "members" as such) are merely subunits, but we're not there yet and as far as I'm aware, even the most pro-federalist Europeans acknowledge that. Well, it seems all apart from Richie! David (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion about sovereign states recognising higher entities - I'd like to chip in the thought that this is nothing new to the modern world - Europe (particularly medieval Europe) has a long history of sovereign states being members of/adhering to "higher entities". However these higher entities (be they religious, political, military, trade...) were usually only powerful in that certain states gave them that power (or at least acquiesced). The EU is something more, but - even with the Lisbon Treaty - still maintains the sovereignty of the member states.
Until a Treaty comes about in which the signatories explicitly state that they are surrendering their sovereignty to a new sovereign entity (and therefore themselves cease as sovereign states and cannot sign any further treaties) - a bit like the Treaty of Union (1707), then the situation remains that the EU is merely a pooling of powers given to it (in perpetuity, though redeemable) by its members, who are sovereign. David (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I belive that the countries are sovereign states as all the laws passed by the European Union are only required to be obliged by if the countries want to keep membership to the Union. If a country does not comply with any law (or any punishment due to not complying with a law) then the European Union can only withdraw membership from the country and cannot thereafter punish the country once there membership has been withdrawn. This therefore means the countries governments still have supreme independent authority over the European Union in relation to the country itself and therefore meets the criteria of a sovereign state. If the European Union was a sovereign state and therefore had supreme independent authority over the countries then the laws that the countries governments had control over would be specifically granted by the European Union and not vise versa.
Furthermore the majority of laws are still passed by the independent governments and therefore although are recognised as 'member states of the European Union' should not be first recognised by this title when a more common and more appropriate titles exist such as 'country' or 'sovereign state'. Personally i would advise the use of sovereign state as it is more specific then country but also well understood. Thanks, Rob04 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Rob04 your belief is legally incorrect and it has been demonstrated to be so. EU law and policy decisions take supremacy over member states law, that has been confirmed through various European Court of Justice Rulings. It's a fact. In laws which the EU institutions, such as Parliament or Council, passes the member states parliaments cannot overrule it least they face legal trouble, let alone political turmoil. The EU has several mechanisms for punishing a member state, such as financial fines or suspending voting rights and so on. Of course each member state has the ability to withdraw from the EU, but so too has many regions around the world. Quebec could in Canada or Scotland could in the UK. This is nothing special. In areas where the EU has full control, known as 'competences' for example the Single Market, or the Euro. The Laws are made by the EU, not the member state and they are 'top dog'. Erzan (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.204.28 (talk)

Maps in relations articles.

The maps in the EU relations articles seem very inconsistent, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_United_States_Locator.svg has no internal EU borders, whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_Morocco_Locator.svg does have internal EU borders. Also, different projections are used in both of those maps. There should really be some consistency between similar maps. This applies to all EU bilateral relations maps, not just those two. And also the Sudan-South Sudan border needs adding on a lot of maps. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor but it would be nice if someone who is cleared up the inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.201.140 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new EU introduction

The European Union (or E.U.) is a union of 27 member states located primarily in the European continent. With over 500 million inhabitants it represents 7.3% of the world population, making it the second most populous democracy and first supranational union in the world. The EU is the seventh largest territory by area, extending clockwise direction lies the North, Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Sharing a common land border with Norway to the north and Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova to the East. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Albania to the South.

Research demonstrates the area has been inhabited since 40,000 BC. Although modern day Europe can trace a common heritage to ancient Greece and Rome. The present demographic is multicultural and multilingual with a diverse history of independent states. In the 20th century most European states participated in the World War I, World War II (WWII) and Cold War. After the devastation of the WWII, European leaders called for varying visions of European integration as a means to secure peace and prosperity on the continent.

The efforts to achieve this began with the 1951 Treaty of Brussels between the founding inner six states, forming the European Coal and Steel Community. The subsequent signing of each European treaty and accession of new member states saw the powers and territory of the EU expand, culminating in the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon. Today, as an economic and political union, supranational and intergovernmental decision making is used to implement common policies. EU law has legal supremacy over member states law and some institutions can act independently of member state governments in certain policy areas. In addition, the population share a common citizenship guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the right to exercise the four freedoms.

As the largest economy in the world, the European Union generated in 2012 a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 16.584 trillion US dollars. Hypothetically, the combined member states military has the second largest military budget. Two member states possess nuclear weapons and have permanent membership on the UN Security Council. The majority of member states are members of NATO and among the highest developed in the world. The EU is represented at the United Nations, WTO, G8 and G20.

Erzan (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose to do with this, why is it necessary, where is it different from the current intro??? Just putting up a new text, without explanation is not very convincing (and demands a huge effort of editors to check for relevance) Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have exactly the same questions. In addition this same passage has been added and removed, by the OP and an IP, multiple times into and from the main article. Also I don't see the relevance of the mention of the nukes, the palaeolithic info and the military statistics. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not explaining the proposal, I hope to not have offended editors who have worked on it. The edits on the article page was made by me by accident.
I lightly divided the proposed EU introduction so:
Section 1 - Geography, Section 2 - History, Section 3 - Constitution (treaties & institution) and Section 4 - Politics and Economics.
Because the EU is more than a simple organisation like the UN or IMF. When comparing the present introduction to say featured articles like Japan, Canada or India. The present introduction lacked a coherent theme and context. For example the EU's birth is a theme of trying to foster peace, prosperity and security on the European continent, in the context a long history of war. Nothing in the introduction mentions this, readers are unaware that many ideas of EU were in response to the World War I and II. Or that the member states were military rivals but now haven't taken up arms against one another and more or less peacefully coexist. Which gives a bit of contextual background to the recent Nobel Peace prize, among it's other achievements.
The reasons for mentioning palaeolithic info like you see in the featured Japan, Canada or India articles. Was to provide the reader valuable information on how rich the area is in history. Although the EU is only 60 years old, Canada for example has an introduction explaining the land has been inhabited long before the modern day state of Canada. Plus it has an added bonus of making it a bit more interesting and varied. As well as giving a chance to explain the present day diversity of the Union in terms of language, ethnicity and so on. Which is a major point that was left out of the present introduction. The EU protects member state languages, even so far as giving money (regional funds I believe) to them to do so. The EU motto is 'diversity in unity' and the member states are of course proud of their national languages and unique heritage. I thought, it was important to have this mentioned too.
When you read the old introduction, I noticed the mentioning of EU institutions a lot, especially at the start. I study politics and for a politics student the introduction reads great! But what about geography, history, military and economics? The EU is more than what is being mentioned in the introduction, it matters historically, geographically, linguistically and so on. But even in terms of politics, the fact that is it the world's first and only supranational democracy was left out. That seems like a major omission, because it would seem good to have the milestones of the EU in a global perspective. It's also the world's second largest democracy, India being the first. The EU having member states with nuclear weapons is as important as mentioning it's the largest economy, because it's providing the reader information on the political and military relevance (and influence) the Union and it's members has. As I stated on this page, the EU is a security alliance. It's stated in the EU treaty that each member state has a responsibility to assist one another in times of armed aggression. The EU has joint military and police operations too. Obviously it's tiny in number, but nevertheless.
I have numerous sources ready to back up my introduction, from reputable news sources to academic too. So I'd be happy to include this. Again, I mean't no disrespect to editors of the introduction. It is good, and my main goal is to help and improve this article. One way I thought to do this, was to provide a lead introduction that was more varied, interesting and less focused on EU constitution (treaties, institutions and so on) Thanks for reading! Erzan (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The EU article deals with the EU - which is an organisation, not a nation or country or whatever. Geography, history, etc, generally for the area it covers is better suited to the Europe article, or the articles of the member states. 86.154.20.82 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The EU is more than an organisation, it is a political entity that shares increasingly more elements of a nation-state. The use of the word nation or country is semantics and ignores the legal and political reality of what the EU is and can do. Viewing the EU as a mere organisation, like the North American Free Trade Agreement or World Trade organisation is outdated. Decision-making on many issues, like interest rates or budget setting, are taken without member-states ability to reject them. EU laws are superior to member states law, in the same vein as USA federal laws are superior to state laws. Erzan (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This has been debated frequently before (dig through the archives). In that context, a reliable, neutral, high quality source is needed before we can even discuss this further. Arnoutf (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Erzan, no it's you who ignores the reality - the EU is not anything like a nation or a country. Stop pretending the EU is something it isn't. And regarding setting interest rates and budgets etc - that's the Eurozone only. 81.154.186.94 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting this information from. But the EU budget is set by the European Parliament, Council of Ministers and the Council. It requires all three to be in agreement. The Euro is part of the EU, much the same as the US dollar is part of the USA. The ability for a state to set it's on interest rates is one of the many hallmarks of economic and political sovereignty. Regarding nation and country, these terms are highly emotionally charged political concepts which detract from the discussion. Nations can be stateless (Palestine) and some states have many or one nations (UK/USA). Erzan (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"The Euro is part of the EU, much the same as the US dollar is part of the USA. The ability for a state to set it's on interest rates is one of the many hallmarks of economic and political sovereignty." -- sources please. Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
My bowling league's budget is set by the officers club and leadership council, does my bowling league count as a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a legal person; but not a natural person. Where does this go? Arnoutf (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Arnouft I apologise, you've edited this page so assumed you'd know the Euro is to the EU as the US dollar is to the USA. The EU is very similar to a federated union and just like other political entities, like the USA or Canada, it has it's own currency and monetary policy that is not decided by the sub-division states, such as Florida in USA or Quebec in Canada, but by a central and higher authority that has sole decision-making in that territory such as the European Central Bank. Which is aspect of state sovereignty, known as monetary sovereigntyErzan (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RESET INDENT. Let me begin to state that the source seems a solid piece of academic reasoning, based in good universities. As such the source passes the criterium of being reliable easily in my opinion.
However the source is clear in stating the the EU is a somewhat hybrid mix of a federation (federal state) and a confederation of independent states (you could argue other supranational agreements like NATO or UN also have confederate type properties). So the conclusion of the paper is that "the institutional status of the European Union remains ambiguous and uneasy to define." - from the abstract. In other words, at this moment the Union is clearly not a country/state on its own.
Secondly (and of less importance in my view), while a reliable source, the current analysis is a primary analysis by the authors of the paper. This means that it is not possible to decide based on this paper alone, whether this analysis represents a scientific majority or minority position in the field. This will mean that this single paper is not going to decide this discussion on Wikipedia though.
My own opinion (for what its worth as very primary, personal and unsourced), is that the EU is currently in a transition from a loose economic confederation to a federal state. The outcome is, however, very unsure as the increasing powers for "Brussels" may result in such a backlash that it tears apart the union. (The move from a confederation of states to more centralised federation has a history of problems, for example the conversion of the republic of the 7 united Netherlands to the Batavian repulbic was close to a civil war, and the abolishment of slavery by the federal government, against the wishes of the states resulted in the American civil war). I don't know where we are in the process, and where it will go, and I would be conservative/cautious rather than optimistic forward looking in the current way to describe the union. Arnoutf (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The way I see it is that the EU cannot simply be categorised as just another international organisation. The fact is that it does quite a lot of governing, legislating, border and law enforcement etc. for that reason, it makes sense to modify the intro somewhat, but I think that removing the I stitutional section is a mistake. they are the foundation of EU workings and should be prominently mentioned. Having said all this, an intro, at the end of the day should be a reflection of a well written article. U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this is going, the question of naming the EU a confederation or federation has no real consequence on the proposed introduction. As the proposed introduction relies on current linked pages to agreed terms of the Union, such as supranational and intergovernmental.
Secondly, I take on board the EU institutions are important. However they are not the foundation of the EU, that's the Lisbon Treaty. Without the Treaty the EU institutions do not come into existence and have no legal force. Like the USA institutions are reliant on it's Constitution. Erzan (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that the US is clearly a country, while this is far less obvious for the EU (as your source shows). As I said above, the EU is somewhere between a union (like the UN) and a federal state (like the US). The exact postion between these extremes is not straightforward, and we should avoid to take a position as that would be original research. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this going off topic? Please, my proposed introduction has nothing to do with the question of whether the EU is a country or not. I made reference to the Euro and Lisbon treaty earlier, because they function exactly like the USA dollar and constitution. That the decision-making in those areas is federated along with the EU law. Even the borders of the EU have central officers that patrol it so on. But this is not the same as declaring the EU is a country or nation-state. But again, my proposed introduction isn't reliant on the semantic choice of words, a country or nation. It's irrelevant.
I have suggested changes that emphasise mentioning the reason the EU came into being and putting it into historical context. Because, the EU isn't just the institutions. It geopolitically and historically matters but no one would think so in the original introduction. This is my point and my suggestion, to rebalance the introduction and mention these things. I'm genuinely not bothered if people think the EU is a country, nation or neither and I'm not trying to convince people of this. Erzan (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Record unemployment in the European Union

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Unemployment in the 17 member euro area in April the highest since World War II, and 12.2 percent. Troughout the European Union without a job, according Eurostat, a record 26.6 million people. 85.114.62.130 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose we do with this fact? Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"United Europe" redirects here but not mentioned within the text

I've just spotted that United Europe redirects to this page, which seems a bit odd as the term "United Europe" is totally absent from this article. It is standard Wikipedia practice to at least mention redirects (and bold them) in the article they redirect to, and preferably to properly explain the redirected term. Otherwise, the redirect ought to be nominated for deletion, turned in to a proper article (a stub would do for starters; probably the best option) or else redirected to another more suitable article. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with this observation, but I think I think the problem is with the redirect, not this article. So I would say this redirect ought to be nominated for deletion, turned in to a proper article (a stub would do for starters; probably the best option) or else redirected to another more suitable article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No preferences then? --Mais oui! (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
My preference is not to change this article; and do something (whatever) with the redirect page. I have no preferences what to do to that indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that the project for a united europe is most realistically associated with the EU, I think it's a fitting redirect. It's not specifically an EU concept, and not a phrase used by the EU (any more?), but that doesn't mean that this is a bad place to redirect to. Lawdroid (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Area of the EU

The quoted area of the EU is unsourced; more distressingly, it has been obsolete for several hours. Given recent activity here, I assume that every hour that passes without this information being updated causes much pain and suffering.

Could any of those keen editors that so desperately want this article precise please help find some reliable geographic information. I've spent some time on the European Commission's own website (www.europa.eu), but haven't found anything precise. The best I could find is a map published by the European Commission (http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/the-european-union-pbIK3111290/) which states the area of EU27 as 4,234,000 km² and that of Croatia as 56,000 km², which gives an EU28 area of 4,290,000 km². This figure does not agree with the unsourced figures of 4,381,376 km² and 4,423,147 km² that are both currently in the article. The map quotes Eurostat (the European Commission statistic department) (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/) as a source, but the website is too arcane for me to find simple geographic information. Maybe someone else would have some luck.

So, let's try and put all this recent editing activity to some useful purpose. Cheers, Travelpleb (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Subsection on environment under economy

According to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2007/aug/17/biofuelsmenacerainforests, biofuels menace rainforests. This should replace the last sentence of the subsection. Sarcelles (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

official languages

sorry but if irish is listed, then so should welsh and scots gaelic as official languages of the uk, and all the localised official languages in spain etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.102.161 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because none of these languages was put forward as an official EU language by their national government. Arnoutf (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but Welsh and Scots are only regional languages, the UK hasnt presented them forward as offical languages of the state, and on a linked point the UK also has Irish as a regional language (in Northern Ireland). Irish is actually the first offical language of Ireland and English the second language Article 8 of the Irish Constitution
1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.
2. The English language is recognised as a second official language. .Murry1975 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK. The status of Irish as an official language of the EU has nothing to do with the UK.  —Sowlos  10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
In other words, we all agree, Irish is the (main) national language of an independent EU member state and as such a language of the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as I was pointing out, and showing detail for a language that is a regional language of the UK yet might cause confussion (and has in this case) because it is an offical language of th EU, because it is an offical language of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we lock this article?

Can we lock the article, or at least the lede? We still have people trying to change the article to refer to a federation (contra the poll here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union/Archive_27#Result_of_survey). We have repeated vandalism. It just seems like the situation locking is designed for Lawdroid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the last 3 days of over-eager updating to include Croatia are why we should lock this article Lawdroid (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In about 10 minutes Croatia will actually become member state. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/30/croatia-joins-eu-celebrations-uncertainty .--Triglav 2000 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Croatia became a member state 47 minutes ago. The map of the Union should be changed to include it. --94.253.169.191 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to do it. Lawdroid (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Well whoever included Croatia should do it properly as there are still some parts of the article that are exuding Croatia, even though it is a full member. Like official languages for etc.

Whoever you are, feel free to correct it. Lawdroid (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A subsequent edit request

It looks to me like this article has now been locked. Can someone who has access consider the following amendments: .....the European Commission refers only to "Kosovo*"".... should have only one quote at the end there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.174 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done —Sowlos  16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

EU acronym

Given that EU is a popular acronym for "Estados Unidos" or "United States" In Spanish speaking countries. I suggest changing it for UA for "United Europe". --Dagofloreswi (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I think this an extremely bad idea (1) UA (or UE if the A was misspelling) is never ever used anywhere in any official or even casual situation for EU in English as far as I know, (2) This is not Spanish Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't make a habit of inventing content at Wikipedia. We depend on reliable sources for what we can and can't say about any topic. Everyone abbreviates "European Union" to "EU"; the sources reflect this. It's not our place to create a new acronym because it may inconvenience other groups. —Sowlos  17:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I guess as well as acronym are like words, they mean whatever the majority chooses.--Dagofloreswi (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really a majority thing. Just like we cannot replace an established acronym with something else, we cannot replace a word like for example Country with some nonword like "Flubberplup" (or even País for that matter) by majority vote. We would need substantial evidence the word is actually in at least as frequently as country in the context.
So for your proposal to have any chance (regardless of majority) you would have to show that the acronym UE is used in the English language for the EU, that this usage is about as frequent as the usage of EU (in English), and even then you would need consensus to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, is Brussels the capital of EU?

Currently the article infobox states that Brussels is the EU capital. The controversy of such claim has been discussed a couple of times (e. g., on the template talk page, on this page: at least once and before), but my attempts to remove the nonconsensual edit faced some resistance. I still consider the issue rather sensitive to keep in the article even if it'd be added that Brussels is de facto capital as proposed by some. —Volgar (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Brussels is de facto capital of European Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/policy_advisers/archives/publications/docs/brussels_capital.pdf nice Murry1975 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully support listing Brussels as capital. How do we initiate a formal voting process on this? Lawdroid (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Voting only shows which majority favour something, not if its correct or not. And if you read my link above you would know its not. Murry1975 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy consensus is the argument for inclusion, not a majority. In any case, the status of Brussels as capital is confused at the moment. Does the EU have a capital at all? Is it Brussels alone or should Strassbourg and Luxembourg share the title? I would not recommend adding Brussels at this time (although the situation may change in the future). Arnoutf (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
In most cases/topics about EU, Brussels is treated as capital of the European Union. Brussels is de facto capital of the European Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
To some extent true, but should we list it for being "de facto" capital or do we need a clearer reference it is the actual capital? Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? We all agree that it is the de facto capital, and it is possible to support that with multiple references. Saying it is the de facto capital requires only supporting references that it is the de facto capital. Lawdroid (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, who's "we?" Britmax (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all countries have de jure capitals, but we still list their de facto capitals (ie Nauru). For other countries, their de facto capital differs from their de jure capital, and we list both (ie Bolivia). It can be well sourced that Brussels is the de facto capital of the EU, and this is notable to the topic so should be mentioned. However, we should be careful to make clear that it isn't the de jure capital. TDL (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
simply the term "de facto" speaks for itself, do not need descriptions of term of "de jure". Subtropical-man (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny how so many years pass, yet the same arguments / debates remain on this page. I think people still need to separate what they may wish to be true with what is factually true. Brussels has not been officially designated as the "capital" of the EU as far as I am aware, and certainly the argument that it is, is subject to some debate. The ECJ being in Luxembourg and one of the parliament buildings being in Strasbourg would at the very least show that the matter is not so clear cut. Can we really state with certainty that if one of the parliament buildings were to be scrapped, it wouldn't actually be the one in Brussels? I think it highly likely that the one in Strasbourg would be retained for political reasons, while the Commission / Council might remain in Brussels. I think the reference to "de facto" capital serves no purpose other than to please those who edit this page who for some reason still fanatically want to treat the EU as though it is a country. What planet these people are living on is beyond me. Simonski (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It's called "Planet WP:Reliable Sources". If you would take an interplanetary journey and visit this planet you would find many reliable sources from across the globe, such as:
which describe Brussels as either the "de facto capital of the EU" or the unqualified "capital of the EU".
Yes, "Brussels has not been officially designated as the "capital" of the EU", but if you re-read the discussion you will see that no one has argued that so all of your opinions on this, and which parliament buildings would hypothetically be closed, really aren't relevant to the discussion. This has everything to do with accurately reflecting usage in reliable sources.
While you may "fanatically" wish this wasn't the case, that doesn't change that it is "factually true" that Brussels, as the main administrative center of the EU, is commonly described as the capital. Your ad hominem attacks aren't a very convincing argument. TDL (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not whether Brussels is named the EU capital in colloquial use. I think all of us agree, and the newspapers are good sources for that.
The issue us however, whether widespread colloquial use is enough support to add Brussels as capital to the infobox.
Other supranational organisations do not use the term capital in general (e.g. United Nations does not list New York as its capital; NATO does not list Brussels; the Commonwealth of Independent States does not list Minsk -- to name but a few). So why should the EU do so (it would be easy to provide newspaper articles that mention any of the examples as a capital).
So the issue is basically back to the very old discussion - is the EU similar enough to a state to assign it institutions typically reserved to states, or is it more of a supranational organization. With the EU in transition, I would discuss the status of Brussels only when including all nuances in immediate proximity to the claim. This is impossible in the infobox, so I would say NO to inclusion of Brussels as capital there. I would support if Brussels' status as de facto capital would be discussed somewhere lower on the page. Arnoutf (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, it should have nothing to do with how similar the EU is to a state. Ignoring RS because of some arbitrary rule is not a good idea. If New York was commonly described as the "capital" of the UN by RS, then that is how we should present the information, regardless of how similar the UN is to a "state". However, in all the examples you listed, the administrative center is not commonly referred to as the capital. All of the following phrases get 0 (relevant) hits since 2000: "Capital of the United Nations", "Capital of the UN", "Capital of the Commonwealth of Independent States", "Capital of the CIS", "Capital of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization", "Capital of NATO". Meanwhile, "capital of the European Union" gets numerous hits referring to Brussels so the situations really aren't comparable.
One option, to address the concerns about the complexity of the situation, would be to wikilink Brussels and the European Union, where all the details can be found, from the infobox. TDL (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You would find hits with somewhat more specific search terms [5] [6] but that is not the matter here.
The question remains: Does the EU have a capital - even is one city is often mentioned as such. At least there is disagreement on that count, so while you can find reliable sources that use the term colloquially to make the claim based on more than "hearsay" we probably need sources that actually provide a full chain of argumentation that (1) The EU has a capital that fits mainstream definition of capitals (de facto or de jure does not matter) (2) If (1) is the case, that this is Brussels. The evidence so far seems promising for the 2nd part of the evidence, but the first, crucial link is missing so far. Arnoutf (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The the 2001 report put out by the EC (linked to by Murry1975 at the start of this debate) answers the question. In the first paragraph of page seven, it states "At the Nice Summit of December 2000, it was decided that the role of Brussels as capital of Europe should be strengthened. Brussels will become, after 2002, the main seat for European Council meetings and this will give more institutional stability to the role of Brussels as capital of Europe."

While it is technically not the de jure capital (i.e. it was not made so by treaty), it is at the very least the de facto capital. However, it can be argued more than just de facto as it is a matter of policy. The fact that some EU institutions are seated outside of Brussels does not detract from this. Not even all nations-states seat their governmental institutions in their capitals (de facto or de jure), but this is irrelevant. What matters is that the sources clearly and regularly refer to Brussels as the capital (qualified and otherwise).
As a capital, Brussels is sui generis. The cited document bears this out. It will "...not follow the example of national capitals", but is clearly recognized as the "capital of Europe".  —Sowlos  09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your reference to the 2000 Nice summit, is that it predicts a future state(post 2002) at the time everyone assumed that the EU constitution would be signed. The latter was rejected; or at least not ratified (in 2004) meaning that much of the strong intentions/ambitions in the early 00's never materialised.
If you are referring to this source [7] be aware of the opening disclaimer
In May and September 2001 the President of the Commission, Romano

Prodi, and the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt invited a group of intellectuals to discuss the needs and functions of a European capital and how Brussels could best express them.This report presents the main ideas and proposals resulting from those meetings. They are intended as a contribution to an ongoing debate.

So the report clearly states everything reported are ideas and proposal part of an ongoing debate. Which means that this document can never fully cover the topic (as it was never intended to do so). If you read the document, it becomes clear that much of the discussion is about what a capital is, and whether Brussels is a classical capital or some kind of new entity. Whether the de facto role of Brussels as capital should be legitimized is one of the topics under discussion.
In its conclusions it states " the European capital should not follow the example of national capitals." - so that statement alone would argue that it should not be added to the infobox here (as that would be following the example of national capitals).
My problems with this whole discussion here is that in the absence of clear primary sources (legal text), directly relevant secondary or tertiary sources (analyses on the capitalnes of Brussels that do not bring in original ideas) any conclusion is likely going to be original research or synthesis to some extent (if only by handpicking and over-interpretation of sources).
As I stated before, the only way to prevent this is to make sure all nuance is mentioned in close proximity to any reference to the existence of any EU capital. Arnoutf (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You make good points. My intention was to highlight that:
  1. The EC report shows Brussels was already considered a capital by EU officials and the discussion was about how that role should be strengthened.
  2. The capitals of nation-states (what I assume you are comparing Brussels' worth as a capital to) are far from homogeneous. Therefore, Brussels' uniqueness shouldn't count against it.

...that statement alone would argue that it should not be added to the infobox here (as that would be following the example of national capitals).

I don't see why Brussels should be removed. The section is titled "Political centres" and Brussels is most definitely a political centre and definitely more politically central than the other two cities included with it.

My problems with this whole discussion here is that in the absence of clear primary sources (legal text), directly relevant secondary or tertiary sources (analyses on the capitalnes of Brussels that do not bring in original ideas)...

Brussels is listed in the infobox with a parenthetical "de facto capital". That does not require legal text. If there was, it would be de jure. As for analysis, what about the CIA World Factbook?  —Sowlos  17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 —Sowlos  17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with the current version (which shows enough nuance), however I would object if the political centres caption would be replaced with capital: Brussels as only entry. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Simply referring to how the media covers / reports on the EU does not change the fact that it is not factually (or indeed legally) correct to say that Brussels is the capital of the EU (referring to EU literature pre-dating the failure of the constitutional treaty does not assist here either). Rather it is (incorrectly) commonly referred to by some media sources as the capital. Again, I am not sure what planet you inhabit TDL where it is the media that creates the facts. I personally would still argue against using such strong words as "de facto" capital for Brussels (being "something that is such in fact", which it is not, or at the very least it is subject to dispute) but obviously I appreciate that when one is dealing with fanaticism that it is quite difficult to enter into any meaningful discussion on the issue. Is there an actual consensus on this point then or are we just being driven here by one or two editors shouting louder than others (who would otherwise hold a view that the previous format, i.e. no reference to "de facto capital", was fine?) --Simonski (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As a side note, the two sources currently referred to on the page in support of the de facto point are questionable - I am a huge supporter of Euractiv as a source but the article notes that the research into the Brussels as capital point "argues" that Brussels is the de facto capital. Questionable whether you can "argue" something that is by definition, a fact. Secondly, the Commission paper was prepared (as Arnoutf alludes to above) pre-Constitution defeat and comes from the Commission itself (headed by none other than Mr Prodi, one of the most ardent federalists in recent history) - this is something which we were warned against by objective reviewers back when this page last went for FA status. The point remains that it is far from something which is agreed "in fact" in my view. If necessary, the common colloquial usage of "capital of the EU" in respect of Brussels could be covered off within the article, but the infobox as it stands is contestable. --Simonski (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. Please don't restate already hashed points or rebuttals just to be heard. Doing so creates a circular debate where the same issue are constantly re-raised and re-rebutted ad nauseam with no actual conclusion. If you want to indicate your support for something above, just refer to it without posting a wall of text. If you have new/original elements you wish to introduce, focus those.
  2. ... such strong words as "de facto" capital for Brussels (being "something that is such in fact", which it is not, or at the very least it is subject to dispute) ... Questionable whether you can "argue" something that is by definition, a fact.
    Perhaps you are confused by how de facto is used in English (especially in legal contexts). In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law". That is to say it is not de jure ("from law"). The phase "de facto" is not strong, it is merely an indicator of how something is treated in practice. It is precisely for this reason that a status which is only de facto may be open to debate.
 —Sowlos  07:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, many thanks for your patronising advice there on how to contribute to this debate, which will of course be ignored. I find it interesting that you would take such an approach with a good faith contributor who takes the time to set out an opposing view, as opposed to following the route that many other editors on this page have done in the past, i.e. take advantage of Wikipedia's consensus rules and initiate some sort of edit war until the other side grows so tired of them that they just agree for the sake of consensus.
That said, to address your points - 1) I would strongly dispute that my arguments are simply "rehashed" - while there may be a degree of overlap with the views of certain editors above (i.e. Arnoutf), if there is an alternative way I feel certain points can be put across, I am entitled to make them - in my view my contribution above is just as valid as referring to the dreaded CIA factbook as if it is gospel. 2) While I am hesitant to play the "native speaker" card, your patronising response does not leave me much choice I feel - I am very well versed in how de facto should be used *correctly* in UK English (the language of this article) - the colloquial use of de facto which you refer to does not concern me. The phrase de facto does imply a basis in fact and a degree of strength - my point as noted above is that the use of de facto here is contentious and in terms of an article such as the EU, is potentially misleading. My view (and I am sorry again if you feel this is "rehashed") is that if there is any doubt as to the matter, the wording should be removed (and restored to the version under the previous consensus). We have all worked so hard to keep the article free of contentious matters, why should this be any different? If it will put an end to this discussion, I would be open to a vote on the matter. If I then stand alone, then so be it. Simonski (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Good faith contributor? You seem to be unable to engage in an adult conversation without insulting and calling those that disagree with you names. If you want to be taken seriously, please focus on the content, rather than the contributors. I understand that you "hate" European Federalists, so naturally you will lash out at anyone who does not share this hatred, but this behaviour does not help the discussion reach a consensus. I'm neither a European Federalists nor a euroskeptic, a fanatic nor a hater. I could care less whether the EU has a capital or not. I simply think that the article should accurately reflect what reliable sources say about the matter, rather than simply relying upon unsourced opinions. Clearly you disagree with me on this, but please keep the discussion to policy based arguments rather than ad hominem and straw man attacks. TDL (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That is your take on matters - I would argue that your response above (as with Sowlos most recent response to my comments) was more inflammatory than any initial statement I made on the matter (and only hardened my resolve to put across the other side of the argument which was being ignored to appease those who wished to include "de facto").
However, if you want to waste your own time in digging out an edit of my user page from 2008 as some sort of basis for ignoring the valid comments I make above (and hilariously, building your own straw man to attack my views with) then that is your prerogative. I hate to tell you however that it does not change the position that the statement that Brussels is the de facto capital of the EU is a contentious one. I note that my comments for example about the two sources which are currently relied upon as references for the inclusion of "de facto" has just been ignored amongst Sowlos (and your subsequent) attempts to shout me down. As I mentioned, even the Euractiv source notes that the research group "argued" that Brussels is the de facto capital. I still see no reason for the inclusion of this watered down use of "de facto", *regardless* of whatever political views you believe I currently hold. My view is a sufficient paragraph could be put in the article to note that it is suggested by some that Brussels is the de facto capital, without it being in the infobox. But please, do feel free to patronise me some more as I am sure we will reach a consensus that way. --Simonski (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage link

Any chance of adding a link to Wikivoyage to the sister projects template? 46.7.249.24 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't see why not. The template only displays Wikivoyage links by default for geographical, not political, entities, but the link seems "likely to be useful to our readers" so I'm adding it per the guideline. Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Religion in the EU

The first sentence under the heading 'Religion' reads as follows; "The EU is a secular body with no formal connection to any religion". I would argue that the EU as a whole cannot be claimed to be secular, as all member states of the EU are not completely secular. Additionally, what type of secularism is this person implying? Passive, assertive? It seems to be a blanket statement that could be edited out. I propose it to change it to be simply "The EU has no formal connection to any religion."

Muufasah (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Muufasah

criticisms section ?

Seems there should be a criticisms section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

read Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions first please. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox languages and currencies

Listing the name of the EU in all official language is pointless and only serves to bloat the size of the infobox. We already list the official languages themselves. We don't include 20 translation of the motto!

The same goes including lots of currencies which have very little to do with the institutions of the EU. Listing these currencies is akin to listing languages which are official in a member state but are not official EU languages. I vaguely remember a discussion over whether to include the Swiss franc (legal tender in Campione d'Italia[8]) and the US dollar (some Caribbean islands). As it is we list the Gibraltar pound!!?? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see much harm in the way it currently is, as this information is hidden by default.
In most similar articles we do list the name in English followed by the official local name. The problem with the EU is that there are many official local names, and none of those has preference over any other. This is different from e.g. India where English and Hindi are the official languages of the country and the other languages are not. The comparison with the local languages in India would therefore be more comparable to regional languages in the EU (Frisian, Basque etc).
Similarly, when multiple legal currencies exist they tend to be all listed. (see e.g. Netherlands)
In summary, I don't see the problem which would be solved by removal of the text. So in my view it should stay (but if consensus goes towards removal I can live with that). Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The information is only hidden by default for readers who used the desktop version and have javascript enabled. It not hidden on the mobile version. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case we should either make hidden boxes available for non-java and mobile devices -- or get rid of them altogether throughout Wikipedia; but having a tool and not using it is plain odd. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Re your edit summary "the euro is the only official currency in the EU - other currencies are akin to the languages of EU members which are not official languages of the EU". This is a fallacy. If we follow the language analogy: All national languages are official languages in the EU -> All national currencies are official currencies in the EU. Or starting from the assumption that the Euro is the only official EU currency; and that other currencies are akin to recognised but not national official languages: Recognised non-official languages may be official in some region, but the national language will also be official in that region -> A recognised non-Euro currency maybe official in some region or country, but the official; Euro; will also be official in that region. Either way the argument collapses. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Too many names
The EU does have fewer working languages. Perhaps we could focus stringently only on those. I'm leaning away from this though. Three languages is easier, but everything in the EU is officially known in 24 languages. Also, comparing this article to other national articles such as that of India is probably not very helpful. The EU with all its integration is still a supranational organization with a focus on multilingualism. If the issue is that mobile and non-JS users see the whole list by default, anything which uses CSS to hide content by default should fix that. Most mobile browsers would be fine with that and non-JS clients simply wouldn't be able to expand the list.
Currencies
Non-Euro currencies aren't simply currencies used by nations within the EU. A (perhaps the) core feature of the EU is its common market. All national currencies within the EU are part of that. Also, many national currencies are actively being managed within machinery intended to ease their incorporation into the Euro. —Sowlos  07:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
re currencies: true (except perhaps for the UK pound). But some of these have bargained for an exception (even if pegged to the Euro like the Danish crown), some are still far off. Are they close enough to the Euro to limit the list to Euro? Not really in my view, but I agree this is more of a gray area than the languages (so I would not mind much either way on this topic). Arnoutf (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
From our own Euro article: "The 1992 Maastricht Treaty obliges most EU member states to adopt the euro upon meeting certain monetary and budgetary convergence criteria, although not all states have done so." Seems to me that the other currencies are simply transitionally used, when the country in question reaches the convergence criteria it is expected to switch (barring those with previously negotiated opt outs). As for the question of whether to list all of these currencies and names in the infobox, why not list "Currency: Euro (but see [link to relevant section of article])" and "Official name: European Union (see [link to relevant section of article] for non-English names)"? --Khajidha (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Macedonia coloured in Purple and not greyed out on the GDP per inhabitant map they are not a member of the EU

Macedonia is coloured in a shade of purple on the gdp per inhabitant map suggesting its a member of the eu which its not. for example switzerland is grey as its not a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.57.137 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mayotte

It's not green in the map. --Pavlovič (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Has it been officially included in the EU? CMD (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Found a source [9]. CMD (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It should be there, --79.9.118.108 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion

A Gallup poll, published on Wednesday, showed what a devastating impact the eurozone's crisis has had on popular attitudes to the European Union. 86.179.38.188 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Largest population centres of European Union

The largest population centre in Poland is Warschau (Warsaw), not Kattowitz (Katowice).

Grüße. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.180.136 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is the GDP on this article in Dollar and not in Euro?

Why is the GDP on this article in Dollar and not in Euro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.23.213 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the global sources are in dollar, not euro. Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

White House warns European Community against possible terrorist threats.BlueBonet (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

EU GDPs must be updated

EU GDPs must be updated according to the new 2014 estimates by IMF as for "USA" article and others.89.97.225.68 (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_27&oldid=1147985908"