Talk:European Union/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

BBC thing

Hmm.. no idea where the rest of the discussion went (it wasn't all archived apparently), but anyway, just a brief point - Lear nobody was disputing the fact that the EU is an important actor on the international stage. Like I keep saying, if you used the BBC site often you'd see the EU average is often given on polls/graphs etc to highlight the average opinion in Europe. Not quite sure whats hard to understand about that. Anyway, this sort of thing is off topic and doesn't belong on the talk page so in future please keep these sorts of articles to user talk pages! --Simonski (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

no anthem

There is no official EU anthem. It was removed from the Lisbon Treaty in a token attempt to appease the Dutch votors who voted strongly against the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.178.58 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The anthem was adopted as the official anthem by the Heads of States in 1985. The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force, so it is still the anthem. Lwxrm (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the Lisbon treaty will not even change that. It will not formalise the Anthem in a treaty, but neither does it (explicitly) discontinue the current Anthem (note this discussion has been debated extensively before, also with reference to the flag. The consensus, backed by reliable sources was to keep both). Arnoutf (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GDP issue

Right, I've come to the conclusion that the reference to the GDP thing in the intro, at least as it is currently worded, is grossly misleading. I was reading today that the EU, the organisation itself, spends less than 1% of the overall European GDP. The source I read also stated that less than 1.3% of the European gross social product is directly available to organisation. - see this, at p. 119, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FI0v_hCKcFAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=ecj+still+constitutionalising+the+treaties&source=web&ots=EECnXvldI2&sig=ovUyfx7elnviUYeTX95A0bcSey0&hl=en#PPA119,M1 The sentence surely has to be clarified then to state that the figure comes from taking Member State GDPs all together, or removed. --Simonski (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU is not one organisation. I'm not saying that it is a nation or a federation (not that debate), but the internal market is one market that encompasses every member state. "GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a given period of time". The spending of the institutions in Brussels has little to do with the total GDP of the block. I'm not an economist, but I know that it is commonly emphesised that the EU is acting supratationally in trade (WTO membership), and is one single market in trade. And as you know, the EU has a common citizenship. If there is one area of policy I'll argue the EU is one supranational thing, trade and the single market must be it. Remember the main objective of the Commission? - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

GDP isn't really related to what the government can spend. You wouldn't put the budget of the Houses of Parliament in the UK infobox under GDP. The one thing the EU is if anything is an economic community, it doesn't matter that only 1.3% is used in institutions. 86.151.168.38 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: it is quite normal to speak of the GDP of the EU as a whole. The term "European Union", or "EU", can occasionally refer to the organization, but it can also (and in my experience very often does) refer to the collection of countries as a whole. This usage is different from that applying specifically to organizations — which often have the word "organization" in their name, e.g. United Nations Organization (UNO), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The organization of the EU (as opposed to the Union) may have a budget, but it cannot have a GDP.

Examples of GDP applying to the union as a whole (collection of sovereign states that are members of the UN):

"Public expenditure by the Member States amounts on average to 47% of the GDP of the European Union, while the budget allocated to cohesion policy is less than 0.4%." http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24006.htm

". . .the tourist industry produces goods and provides services estimated to represent 5.5% of the GDP of the European Union." http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pv2/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&TPV=DEF&FILE=960213&TXTLST=1&POS=1&LASTCHAP=5&SDOCTA=3&Type_Doc=FIRST&LANGUE=EN

"In fact, promotion of cross-border careers for European researchers is a crucial factor if public and private investments in research are to reach three percent of the GDP of the European Union by 2010." http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_search_en.cfm?videoref=&StartRow=41&keyword=gdp&witch=video&src=1

"This bias is relatively stable and represents, each year, from 4 to 6% of the total amount of exports, i.e. approximately 0.8% of the GDP of the European Union." http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/44/2670588.pdf

"Therefore, the Commission forecasts growth in GDP of the European Union to be close to 2.8 % and 2.9 % in 2001 and 2002." http://www.imf.org/external/spring/2001/imfc/eu.htm

Personally, I would normally add the word "combined". --Boson (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good proposal. It might also be worth noting that the single market in many respects is far from complete - its still far too early to generalise and just assume that the EU's GDP can be measured as a whole without reference to the fact that "EU GDP" is nothing more than the sum of the Member State's GDPs themselves. It does need clarified otherwise we run a risk of misleading people as to how thing stand. --Simonski (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The single market is complete for all practical puposes. Yes, it's not a 100% perfect single market, but even large countries like the US don't have a perfect single market - income tax differs considerably from state to state, for instance. Cambrasa confab 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an opinion rather than fact though, albeit a fair one to have. At the same time, you can see with EU Citizenship for example that the free movement of persons in general has remained far from fully complete. I think it could be argued either way, though I'd still say its not quite complete. I got the impression thats what I was getting taught this year as well. --Simonski (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU's GDP PPP and Nominal needs to be adjusted to 2008. Please can someone do this when possiblePryde 01 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Why does it say "16 trillion (first)"? First? Is the EU a country? It's been agreed that the European Union should remain in every GDP list, but not occupying the "first" place of anything. It's pretty much like saying that the world occupies the "first place" in the list of countries by GDP. Andres07 (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree (I followed the GDP list debate). Non countries are only listed for comparison and should not get an (arbitrary) rank number. I removed the ranknumbers. Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If listed among entities with traditional nation state status.[2] This note is perfectly clear. It's pretty much like saying that the world occupies the "first place" in the list of countries by GDP. Eu is a special entity and deserves a special comparison in each kind of ranking; that's it. The clearer for the reader the better. This debate is useless. 62.202.118.30 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Irony at its best

I see somebody added a link to the fact that this article has been cited as a source. I don't think its necessary to have the link personally as the journalist quite clearly shouldn't be in a job if she's relying on wikipedia to tell her about the EU. Its laughable, particularly when the website is called "accuracy in media". I'm going to remove it in the meantime I think just because it seems so pointless to have it, I don't think Accuracy in Media is a particularly noteworthy source (perhaps to American readers it is), nor should it be by the looks of their work. Plus it was from 2005, the page being completely different now than it was then, and the phrase she quotes not even forming part of the article anymore. --Simonski (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...ok. (NovaTabula (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

New city template

{{European Union cities}}

I made a new city template that matches the others used in the PRC and Russia (to name a few). — NuclearVacuum 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's too big. The current city table in the article works. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd probably be fine if it more like the table in this article now. Removing the width in the template and allowing text to go around it too. Just my opinion though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Display combined GDP

The 'GDP' section has to be removed, its completely misleading, otherwise you could list continents as having a huge GDP and list them as such as opposed to the reality that entirely seperate nation-states are involved. The EU is not a country and the article should reflect that.Twobells (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I suggest that the term 'not applicable' be applied without further reference, the body of the article informs the reader of the reality and there should be no confusion.Twobells (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is common place to list the combined GDP of the EU member states as the EU GDP; the IMF, World Bank, and CIA are reputable references and they are doing so. You are free to argue on the NAFTA article that it's combined GDP should be stated (if that is not yet the case). I would even support you, since I think it makes perfectly sense to report this value for trade organizations, not only for comparison purpose. This way I want to suggest to decouple the debate on whether to report the GDP for the EU from the very difficult question of whether the EU is one country or not. If the latter issue is the true motivation of your comment than I would like to refer to the abundant respective discussion that can be found in the archives of this talk page. Tomeasy (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The GDP information doesn't hurt. It will be useful to some readers. The EU is not a country, but it is a single market, so the GDP figure isn't completely meaningless. Who said that only country articles can quote the GDP? The "domestic" term in GDP can be interpreted flexibly. You'll notice that articles such as North American Free Trade Agreement and Association of Southeast Asian Nations also have the GDP listed in the fact box. Also, entities such as Hong Kong, Scotland, and United Arab Emirates are not technically countries so according to your stringent rules the GDP figure should be deleted there too. As for "non applicable", the GDP is applicable - it can and has been measured for the EU by highly notable organisations such as the IMF. You seem to be confusing "non applicable" with "not important". Cambrasa confab 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cambrasa. I fully agree with your argumentation. Just two small things. It made me laugh, when you mentioned that Scotland is technically not a country, because people on the Scotland talk page are currently discussing this and have already filled pages with that matter. So, I just found it funny, without criticizing. The second thing: Why are the UAE technically not a country. It's a federal monarchy. There are many federal states and many monarchies around, so why should a federal monarchy not be a state? Tomeasy (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the EU is a nation state or a country and whether GDP information should be included are two different issues. Is anyone claiming that the EU is a country? If we talk about "combined GDP" it is obvious that we are not talking about a country, since a country does not usually have a combined GDP. As stated above, many official sources give the combined GDP of the EU.--Boson (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland IS a country damnit! And anybody who says otherwise deserves a Glasgow kiss. --Simonski (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there must be a word for expressions like Glasgow kiss and Birmingham screwdriver. I suppose it ends in -nym. If one knew the word it might make a useful Wikipedia category.--Boson (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Euphemism?? Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to find something more specific like topometonym, or something with exo- or xeno- but I suppose nobody has got round to inventing anything more specific. --Boson (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a good compromise on this issue just three entries above. The word 'combined' implies that the EU isn't a perfect single unit, and in reality, the economic harmonisation of the EU isn't complete. But the EU acts entirely as a single unit in the WTO and trade talks etc. The word 'member states' is already mentioned six times in the intro, and that's enough in my opinion. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

can conceal your IP address and be provided with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.177.224 (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image map of the EU

File:LocationEuropeanUnion.png

Robinson projection with PNG (proposed)

Mercator projection with SVG (current)

I made this map a while back. It was deleted because it didn't have "all" the territory (i.e. French Guiana). I fixed it and it was still removed, all because it isn't in scalable vector graphics (SVG). Why is this? When I look at the current image, all I get is a long time for it to download, and it still is smaller for me to see. What is wrong with my image? It's big, it shows all the territory, and it in very simple to use portable network graphics (PNG). — NuclearVacuum 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SVGs are preferred for their edit-ability. Besides that and with respect to the case at hand, all your arguments are valid and I think you did a good job with your map. Comparing the two options simply as they are displayed yours certainly does the better job. Unfortunately, your png does not offer other users to edit the image as a vector. Tomeasy (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure editability is an essential quality of an image, only if it still requires further amendmends. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the Robinson projection is good for countries around the Equator, but it distorts Europe (too far up in the Northern hemisphere). The Mercator projection (my SVG) is more appropriate for the European Union. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 12:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now the difference in projections is indeed an argument for the lower map. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

@Solberg: Both projections are perfect at the equator and both have their problems up north. Your implication that the difference between the two projects lies in that Mercator handles an offset from the equator to the north better is just wrong. True is that, while Mercator stretches distances (hence surface areas become larger), Robinson distorts angles increasingly when approaching one of the poles. Tomeasy (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see much difference from my larger map and the currently small map. If you can't use mine, is there a way to make the current image any bigger then it is. I can barely see Switzerland's border withing this extremely small map (let alone any external territories witch was my first argument for it's removal). To me, it just seems stupid for you to say that SVG is better then PNG, or that Mercator projection is better suited then a Robinson projection, when you can't even enlarge the image to see it's details. That's why I am proposing this map, size and accuracy, not design and graphics. — NuclearVacuum 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scalable Vector Graphics are, well, scalable. You can get any size of this map, see Image talk:Location European Union.svg. It might be that you're pointing out that the default view at the Image: page is small, and that can probably be fixed. -- Jao (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That should certainly be done! The way it is implemented now shows up much too small. Not even can you tell from this map that there is a sizable territory in Sauth America that is part of the union. As long as the mercator map isn't scaled User:NuclearVacuum's map aapears better to me. Tomeasy (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the differences in the Nordic countries (norway, sweden) which are almost in an east-west orientation, and heavily distorted on the Robinson, compared to the Mercator one where these countries are more or less in the (true) North-South orientation. This is easy to see. Hence the Mercator projection is more accurate for use in Europe. So for accuracy alone Mercator is to be preferred over Robinson. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously different approaches for planar mappings of spherical surfaces, and none is perfect (see also my above reply to Solberg). You might know, and it can easily be observed, that the Mercator projection has its inherent problems, too: Finland shows up larger than Spain and Portugal! Is that appropriate for the EU? Tomeasy (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Robinson projection distorts Europe as a whole even more (Finland looks almost as small as the Baltic region). No other continent is as far up/down in one of the two hemispheres as Europe is. For that reason, the robinson projection will always make Europe look much smaller than it really is, e.g. compared to Africa which is in the equator belt. To me it seems like the decisive thing should be which (mainstream) map projection gives the most detailed image of the area the article is about. And in this case, it's the mercator projection. Re-scaled renditions of PNGs are always slightly blurry in Wikipedia. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite is true. Mercator makes the northern countries far too large. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland looks almost as small as the Baltic region. Please, do not insinuate things that are simply wrong. It is the Mercator projection that distorts sizes at a maximum. So, while Mercator makes Finland appear too large compared to the more southern Baltic region, Robinson is more correct in this respect. I am not saying that we have to use Robinson, I am just not happy with the false argumentation that is exposed here. There are valid arguments for using the Mercator projections. I think we should stick to them.

Valid arguments are the true angles of the Mercator map and that it just shows Europe bigger than it is (which might be desired, since this article is on the European Union). People should just decide, whether these arguments are more important than the counter argument of extremely wrong surface areas, i.e. Finland larger than Spain or Greenland larger than Africa (while it is more than 10 times smaller in reality)!

As I said, I am indifferent to the choice, but would wish to see less skewed argumentation. Tomeasy (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is nothing better than a vector for an illustration. Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Mercator SVG. —Nightstallion 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a larger SVG. Whether it is Mercator or Robinson does not matter, because they both do have their issues. Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the image of the Robinson projection much more. The other uses scaling that makes Greenland look twenty times larger than India, even though it's only half the size of India. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, you've picked up the most disturbing point about the Mercator projection. Surface areas, and their distortions, are internationally extremely delicate.Tomeasy_talk 22:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The distortion of the relative sizes in the Mercator (Skandinavia alone almost as large as all of the rest of the EU, and Europe as a whole far too large compared with Africa) is a far more serious problem than the distortion of the orientation in the Robinson. Relative size is something that really affects perception. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is your perception of the issue; in my opinion the shape distortion is worse especially for Europe the mercator projection has become more or less an iconic of the continent; allowing for fast recognition and interpretation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Arnoutf to also disgree with you on this topic, but in my perception the use of the Mercator is getting less and less. The reason for this is indeed the wrong representation of surface areas, which rendered it politically incorrect to many observes since it appears to marginalize primarily areas that feel already marginalized in many other respects. It's use is often discouraged by societies that professionally deal with the subject. Actually the use of any cylindrical projection (of which Mercator is just the most prominent) is discouraged. That's why, in my perception, the trend goes more to make it out of fashion.

When thinking of Europe, you anyways think of a very different projection, because a mental picture of Europe will probably not refer to a world map, but a Europe map only, which is much more likely a conical than a cylindrical projection. Tomeasy_talk 20:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the two proposed maps, I would like to emphasize again that what we are currently using shows up much too small. The alternative proposition would also solve this problem, i.e., when you click it it gets larger. Can anyone please fix this limitation of the current map, while we discuss which projection is better. As far as I can see the urge for a larger size is not controversial here, but I do not know how to do it myself. I do not want to use the robinson map (which I would like to, simply for the sake of its larger display), because it is so far opposed for different reasons. Tomeasy_talk 22:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As none of us seems to know how to enlargen the SVG image on the description page, I posed the question at Wikipedia:SVG Help#Image dimensions on description page. -- Jao (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rescaled version

Jao brought this to my attention on SVG Help. Just to let you know I have changed the default scaling on the image - the updated image is shown to the right. User A1 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something green in the Sahara. Tomeasy_talk 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, it took me about 1 minute to load this image into my browser (medium speeds ADSL connection); which I think is way too slow. (and there is some green country in central africa). Arnoutf (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything green in Sahara, and I have no problem loading the image (?). When the margin around the mercator image is removed, it doesn't look very good in the infobox (and Europe doesn't get much bigger). The (default) robinson image has even more blank space. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone now, and very fast on this explorer browser, perhaps a glitch in my home installed firefox? Arnoutf (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Independent from the projection discussion, I feel everyone agrees that we should have a larger display upon clicking. So I will put the rescaled Mercator now. Tomeasy_talk 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that. Three messages above this, I explained why there should be a margin around the image. The infobox template has default margins above and beneath the map. When the left and right in-image margins are removed, only the default margins from the template remain. And that looks weird IMO. Europe doesn't get much bigger anyway. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know that this margin thing was so important to you that you would oppose the larger map for it all together. I understood it as a small thing that should still be fixed. Fell free to revert me, since consensus is apparently not achieved yet. BTW, I find it OK without margin. Does not look weird to me, but that's personal.

I don't get one point of yours: Europe doesn't get much bigger anyway. Did you click on it? Of course, the map does not get bigger in the infobox, but it does get much bigger when you click on it. So big that now you can even see that French Guyana is part of the EU, which was not possibly seen before. Tomeasy_talk 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"it does get much bigger when you click on it" - that's not an argument. This is an SVG that can be rendered to any size. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is an argument. What do you think readers will do when the size of the infobox map appears to small to them. They will just click on it! Now, it's up to us to make this solution helpful or not. Conversely, how many readers do you expect to download the file and then open it up in an application that allows them to scale up the image. For us editors it should be an imperative to make things easily accessible to the users.

Independent from that: Do you agree that it is of importance that users are able (in what ever way) to see so much detail in the map that they can tell French Guyana is part of the EU? Tomeasy_talk 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think therein lies a hazard of SVG for maps. So you can scale to infintiy, fine, I'd like to see the individual trees in my street rendered; if I scale enough ;-). But no kidding, we should look carefully at the purpose of this map, which is only twofold 1) to provide an overview of the general shape of the union and 2) its relative position on the globe. Everything else is (in my opinion) irrelevant for this article, and people looking for high quality maps should order them from ordnance survey and not look on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that requesting a resolution wherein French Guyana becomes visible is too much asked? So to point one in your list: Be specific as to where the general shape of the union ends! I think a world map with 250px width is too poor. Tomeasy_talk 15:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, I only mean that we should not take scalability to the ridiculous. The problem with the scalable map above is for example that the coast of the Netherlands is one single line and omits IJsselmeer, Zeeland and the Waddeneilanden. These features are important. No problem that it is impossible to see these on the small map; but the newly proposed map allows scaling to a size where these features should definitely be detailed. That is in my opinion the problem here, you cannot make a sufficiently exact scalable map without implementing detail levels that are not realistic. Arnoutf (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Just to make sure: Since we have now a preview for 1000px upon clicking, the underlying svg should be more detailed. So, you prefer the version that only displays to 250px, because it matches the level of detail provided by the vector. Tomeasy_talk 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed basically my point. Arnoutf (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

@Solberg: From your revert edit summary I understand that the missing margin is more important to you than the invisibility of French Guyana in the smaller map. How would you react to a map that has a margin and still shows up larger upon clicking? Or, do you completely dismiss clicking an svg as a method to display it larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomeasy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

When Image:Location European Union.svg is set to 250px, I can clearly see some dark pixels in French Guyana. The maximum rendering size of images when they are clicked, is optional (click my preferences). I sat the default size of Image:Location European Union.svg to 250px (so you see a 250px rendering when you click on it). I understand you want more default "detail", so I reuploaded the SVG with a bigger default size. Is that OK? With Opera you can zoom without downloading the file. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good! For my part the discussion is on size is this way concluded. Tomeasy_talk 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. Nobody is going to use this map for navigation; it's point is to show the relative position of the EU on Earth. Relative Size is important for basic comprehension of relative position. The Robinson Projection is used because it shows relative size. The Mercator Projection might plot the actual angles of the coasts correctly, but distorts the size of the polar regions. For reference, see a globe, or satellite images. Using Mercator projection on a map intended for relative global position in an encyclopedia is about as accurate as just printing "Greenland is the second largest continent after Eurasia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mercator Projection...yuck. But seriously, Robinson seems to be the de facto standard used here on Wikipedia, even on the article for Europe. As mentioned above, the only purpose of this map, as with the map in the Europe article, is to show relative position. --71.112.145.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

i can barely see Malta.. i know it's small but it should be more visible.. --Gian (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Malta is visible on the current larger version, if you click on the map. Agreed, that it is just a tiny little green dot, but that is not because anyone has downscaled its appearance, it's just simply its size. Scaling these islands up with respect to the remaining parts would be weired in my opinion. Tomeasy_talk 08:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of this map isn't so you can see Malta, it so that some (theoretical) person with zero knowledge of geography can locate Europe. I can't see Bribie Island on the Australia map either, but that doesn't particularly bother me. The use of Mercator here is the only time I have seen this projection used in a country article (countries of Europe included). Who cares if the image is distorted? There's no way you're going to get a full picture of an entire continent in an entire SVG graphic, the point of the image is simply to give a rough indication. Slac speak up! 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Malta is one of the 27 EU member states. Thus, its visibility has increased priority: e.g., ranks higher than that of one of the many Greek islands of similar size. That makes the difference to the case you've mentioned. Therefore, I understand Gian's request to have it visible. However, it is already visible! So this issue should simply not bother us any further.

More interesting perhaps is the question which projection is appropriate?. I have stated many pros and cons above, but the response from the community was limited and rather status quo preserving. Tomeasy_talk 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I've just noticed Canada (same latitude as Europe, FWIW) uses the Robinson projection. Slac speak up! 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Giangian. Malta isn't visible enough. Fonez4Yw (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Giangian. WalkingTelephone (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Malta is a ridiculously small island. The role of the map in the infobox is to locate the European Union in the world. Shoreline details are just a bonus. To make Malta visible, it would have to be a locator circle larger than Sicilia; which would be strange and misleading. People who want to see Malta should check out the map displaying member states a quick roll down on the same article. - OR click on the infobox map. - SSJ ☎ 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. F*** Malta, you don't hear Rockall complaining (well, you do. but f*** Rockall). In short, the map is fine, looks great, pay attention to the text more - bigger problems have, are and will always be in there rather than the images and SSJ's maps are damn good so argument applies x10.- J Logan ^t: 23:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have requested in WP:RFPP to semi protect this page due to the recent high level of vandalism. It has been done for a period of three weeks. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Map Change

I propose that the shaded portion of the EU be change to a different color other than green, red, or blue, so as to not be the same color as the African Union-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union South American Union-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Union

I do not recommend blue as that has been the proposed color of the theoretical "North American Union".

I recommend yellow, but that's not for me to decide.

The whole intentions of this are to create greater color unison with the map on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Union

I have already proposed there that the colors be changed to match the articles above, and that once a new color is decided for the EU here, the map on that page can be changed as well.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think that is not a good idea. Almost all of this style of locator maps uses Grey-Green. Yellow seems particularly bad choice as that is light and thus close to both white and grey. I we want to achieve maximum color consistency across Wikipedia we should stick with that. Furthermore I am not convinced that we should match the map of a long and good article to the map of an almost stub sized article on continental unions, I think that would do unjustice to the status of the articles, and might be a precedent for all kinds of instabilities. (In other words if you want color unison in the continental union article you should match the continental union map to the map used on EU not the other way around). Arnoutf (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I have to be with Arnoutf on this one. Having different colors per different continents does not look appropriate to me, on the contrary, standardizing those colors seems better. The tendency to use green and grey is well known, it will simply look weird. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. My arguments have already been stated by others. Tomeasy_talk 11:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cartogram

Two Wikipedians have, one after the other, removed my EU population cartogram from this article. Miguel.mateo gave no reason; Lear 21 said that the cartogram was "non scientific" (no cartogram is ever really "scientific", old bean). But I forgive them. I was drunk when I made and uploaded the thing and, being a responsible drunk, I accompanied the upload with lots of self-deprecatory nonsense. M.m and L21 were probably unduly influenced by my drunkenly diffident maunderings.

But can anyone spot anything significantly wrong with the cartogram? The Netherlands has internal boundaries that don't belong in this pic (prob. bad shapefile) but is there anything else? I still have reservations about the way the software, ScapeToad, handles world datasets but I'm starting to think that it has worked its magic very, very well on this limited EU population dataset. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vinny,

Please do not take it personal, as you saw I put my reversion comment as "mistake?" instead of "vandalism". I do believe the contribution will be great, as long as it is well put. A few comments:

• Make sure that the map "looks nice"; I think the resolution of your original cartogram was not appropriate. Looking at the high resolution picture you provided, Finland, Sweden and Denmark look weird, because of the angle of the map. Can that be fixed to make flat like all other maps in Wikipedia?
• Please add an explanation to it, the map with colors is meaningless without an explanation of what those colors represent.
• Finally, source it.

I can help you out with any of the previous comments, since I do believe that the information you are adding is valuable, if properly added.

Regards,

Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi some question and suggestion for clarification

Indeed the colours are somewhat of a mystery. I thought you distorted the map to represent a homogenous density; or do the colour imply higher than average density (ie expanded size - dark red) lower densitye (purple - reduced size)? This needs clarification indeed.

Also I agree Sweden and Finland look very weird, spidery almost, with their true rounded shape being distorted almost out of recognition. Finally, could you add norway (in white like Swiss) to complete the landmark coastline.

For the rest if your cartogram theme is "landmass scaled towards equal population density" that should be clear in the commons description and in the caption of the image. If this is indeed the case the sourcing is relatively easy as you can use the average pop density of Europe (see Demographics of the European Union) at 112/km2 as a surface factor 1; then Netherlands and Belgium (at 394 and 344 respectively) should be surface area inflated by about a factor 3. Is this indeed the case? Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm back! Moderately sober, this time.

Firstly, those colours. Like Arnoutf, I assumed that they represented the extent to which different areas of the base map had been deformed to create the cartogram - that is, the colours were a measure of population density - but no, they actually indicated the degree to which the carto had fallen short of an ideal representation of population density. Reds meant that a country was smaller than it should have been; purples meant that it was too big. Interesting, and a useful guide to improving the output, but not appropriate for a Wikipedia illustration.

Second, all that Scandinavian weirdness. Extreme values are always going to produce weirdness in a cartogram. Indeed that's pretty much the point of cartograms. Sweden and Finland look weird mostly because, by European standards, they have very weird population densities. (They should have looked even weirder, in that they ought to have been even smaller. That's what the purples are saying.) I do, however, concede that they probably look weirder than is necessary - which is why it's fortunate that I have finally got my hands on a decent equal-area projection shapefile of the EU-27 (Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area, the projection favoured by the EU itself: I'll make it available at the Commons when I'm totally happy with it), which shapefile I'll be using as the basis for a new series of themed maps of the EU. I've started on the new population carto and you'll be please to hear that, although Sweden and Finland still look weird, they are thin and spikily upright rather than spikily smeared towards a disreputable horizontal. (I had hoped to have posted this new, improved, Scandofriendly pop carto by now but a final pre-launch check revealed a United Ireland. This is a not wholly unfamiliar "error" with boundary shapefiles etc. originating in the USA and I should have checked for it earlier. Grrrr!). I'll post it to Wikipedia Commons and make a note here as soon as it's done.

Third, documentation. Sorry about that. (Have I mentioned that I was ... Yes, I have.) The final version will have everything - proper acknowledgments, links to data (and, perhaps more usefully, hints to data), links to software, and an unambiguous statement of what it is the pic is attempting to show, and maybe even why.

Lastly, Norway. No, I'm not going to include Norway. Switzerland was white in the original carto because it wasn't there - the same as Croatia, Serbia, San Marino, Ukraine, Morocco, the Isle of Man etc. etc. etc. were not there. This is to be a carto of that great squatting bandy-legged loop-tailed salamander the EU-27 (which entity I have maptastically defined as the current EU less various far-flung French tropical doodads and, perhaps less forgivably, the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores), which beast is always more magnificent when seen in isolation. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,I'll be looking out for the new file. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a simple, uncommented PNG (bitmap) version of the new population cartogram to Wikipedia Commons. Title, acknowledgements, explanation, vector version etc. to follow. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All, I am bringing this topic again since there was no particular conclusion and recent changes has been made.

I read dozens of economic articles a day because of my job; I have seen hundreds of different types of graphs and charts to show "density" in different ways (not only population density, but any other sort of density). I have never seen a graph, map, cartogram (you call it) that it distorts the map of the country to show any particular density (in this case population), I do not think this is common and I do not think it is easy to understand by the normal audience (it was not easy for me either, at the point I thought that the original graphs were wrong with the angle ... imagine a junior high reader). I do appreciate that one particular editor seems to have a high passion for these kinds of cartograms, but should that be enough to include it in here? Even when it would be very difficult to be read?

I think that if a map to show population density is needed in the article it should be a most widely used color tone maps, where light color regions means low density and darker regions means higher density.

My two yen thoughts ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion: Neopaganism, Hinduism and Buddhism significant??

A section was added to the religion section naming Neopaganism, Hinduism and Buddhism significant religions in the EU. The provided sources however do not report a number of followers for the EU, so I find it very hard to assess whether we can truly speak of "significant". I would say that a religion has to either a dominant religion in a country (I doubt that any of these are), needs to be visible in sufficient numbers throughout the EU (like Islam and Judaism); once again I doubt that (e.g. Hinduism seems to be a significant small minority in UK only; but has no relevance in the rest of the EU / neopaganism is probably not even a significant minority anywhere). Before engaging in editing I would like to check my suspicions about these deities, so does someone have reliable estimates about number of followers and presence across the EU? Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why we have a religion section at all? As it is the article says more about Neopaganism than Christianity. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For your attention

Once again the argument EU is not a country is used to make a case against its (unranked) inclusion in GDP country lists. You may be interested in the Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal)#Informal mediation here. Tomeasy_talk 08:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trade

Have I missed a discussion ? There seems to be "not-a-lot" on external trade. Considering there is a commissioner dedicated to this, WTO, ACP, and the yanks all dealt with mainly at the EU level.... --Triwbe (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, you havent? Feel free to propose some content for this section, though take into consideration that it might be touched on elsewhere in the article. Could be an interesting addition though? --Simonski (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Objections with cartogram

Funding/disbursement cartogram for 2007-2013

I reverted the above cartogram, but the author re-placed it, so I think we should discuss here. There are several things I object:

• The cartogram displays the member state area proportional to their per capita net balance. That is extremely unusual and I call it non-scientific. Cartograms are useful when area size relates to an extensive quantity. With respect to the subject at hand this might be the total net balance. the reason behind is that area size itself is an extensive quantity and relating it to an intensive quantity can lead to ridiculous results, as would have been the case here for Luxemburg.
• I proposed in my edit summary to apply a color shading scheme to the per capita net balance instead, but this was not appreciated.
• The cartogram exhibits other technical shortcomings: The state shapes are very much distorted to an extend that they appear more as a caricature of what they really look like.
• The enormous text placed in the image is unacceptable, because its wordiness cannot easily be amended by other editor. The caption is of course also bad, see MoS.
• The cartogram replaced another image that showed a budget split off of the EU. Since the section is called Budget this image is much more valuable for the article.

All this makes me wonder why user: Vinny Burgoo insists on this cartogram. I hope I get some answers or support. Tomeasy_talk 14:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove. I have expressed this before, and I do not want Vinny to take it personal, since I can see he has an obvious passion for these cartograms. I have to read at least 10 articles a day, due to my job, all of them related to economic market data, and there are tons of "density" related topics: GDP per capita, number of gold coins in Olympic Games per population ... to put some simple samples. I have never seen these cartograms, and I do believe they are very difficult to understand. We have a lot of students in Wikipedia, and they will think that France is just a dot in Europe! To me, it simply does not make sense. It is by far simple to create a color scale and apply that scale to the maps, light red means less people, dark red means a lot more people ... something similar, which is very simple to understand and quite a standard. You do not like colors; put a bar on top of the country (quite common these days too, look Marshall Plan for example. The bottom line, there are tons of way of showing that information that looks simple, accurate and easy to follow. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove Agree with arguments byTomeasy and Migual.mateo. Also not showing Luxembourg seems arbitrary to me, and hence unacceptable. Readng of the caption is essential to interpret as the difference between red and blue is essential. Futhermore, any image that requires that long a caption is not supporting, but rather clouding the data. While cartograms maybe useful for some information, I do not think that is the case here. Basically I think the specific graphic design of a cartogram is not suited for this information.

On top of that, there is another issue. The pie chart did illustrate the budget section, providing more details about the budget split (last line of the section), however in that section there is no reference to the separate coutries, therefore this picture is not illustrating the section, and should not be used. Arnoutf (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's far too much text in the picture. A slight change to the (in-picture) title and a simple two-box key should allow the dumping of most of that. I also agree that the external caption ("funding/disbursement") is unclear. The other objections? Hmmm. They boil down to these. (1) Cartograms are the wrong tool for this particular type of data. (2) Choropleths (colour-banded maps) are better. (3) Luxembourg should not be excluded.

(1) The first one is the hardest to defend, especially as I'm going to start out by shooting myself in the foot. Here are all the arguments you'll ever find against plotting per capita data as a cartogram: Worldmapper on "Mapping Rates". My counter to all that good stuff is that the European Union is (as always) a special case. It is still very much a histogram rather than a pie-chart. As such, nobody but nobody would look at my cartogram and try to add up all the different blue areas and subtract all the red to try to come up with an aggregate figure representing the typical EU citizen. It just wouldn't happen. That is not the first instinct of the typical EU citizen when looking at EU data, however represented. I could go on about this at some length, but I'd probably start making a lot of unsupportable assertions. So, skipping to the chase: For the EU, there is nothing inherently or counter-intuitively wrong about conceptualizing cartograms as reshaped histograms rather than the more usual mangled pie-charts. Think of this one as a mangled map of nationalities rather than nations, or wallets rather than treasuries. It's not so hard, honest.

(2) Choropleths are no more scientific than cartograms. There's a lot of art involved in selecting the right intervals and the right palette to represent the data as clearly and fairly and possible. A bad choropleth (there are lot of them about) is as misleading as a bad cartogram and a good one is as good as ... etc. Cartos and choros each do different things well. So why a carto in this instance? Mostly because I like the look of it. Yes, I like the cartoonishness. The thing instantly tells me what I need to know about who is paying what to whom but there's also something appealing about the robust bouncy plumpness of the eastern nations and about the wan bloodless damn-it-all perseverance of the front-line blue chaps who're feeding the newcomers while fighting gamely against suffocation. Plus Italy looks splendidly Gillrayish. And, more to the point, I suppose, nobody looks at choropleths. We see them every day. They're wallpaper.

(3)And choropleths are very bad at making extremes obvious. "This one goes up to eleven", is about their limit. Histograms, pie-charts and, yes, cartograms, are very good at it. But what if a particular value really does go up to eleven? That's what's happened here. The average Luxemburgian receives (notionally, of course) about seven times more from the EU than does a member of the next most fortunate national group of EU citizens (the Hungarians, I think). A histogram or pie-chart or, yes, cartogram cannot portray a full range of data that contains such an extreme outlier without losing most of the detail elsewhere. So the diligent Wikipedian has a choice: lose the detail and just show the monster or lose the monster and concentrate on the details. (Perhaps there should be 2 versions, one within the other.)Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove Not suitable for encyclopedia articles. Still an interesting work, though. Lear 21 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Vinny Burgoo

ad 1: You have not convinced me this specific data is suited for cartogram depiction, especially as it contains negative values (net payers) which (taking the logic of the cartogram to the extreme) would require negative surfaces....

ad 2: That is the problem, this thing does not tell me who pays what to whom, as the blue-red colour in combination with the sizes is not very illuminating. A palette of 5 shades of green (small net gain - huge net gain) and 5 shades of red (small net payer) on a non-distorted EU map would make this (IMHO) much clearer as I , as a reader would only have to interpret the single dimensions (payment) on a single dimension (colour) rather then two (colour and size).

ad 3: My suggestion under 2 would also allow for Luxembourg, being placed in the highest green category. In my opinion the benefit of cartogram is that you rescale to show the size of things, leaving out those that do not fit your window (ie Luxembourg) is a serious problem with its application. In histogram you could provide logarithmic scales, or an interupted scale to at least partially compensate for this.

Finally, even if you like cartograms, a cartogram of the EU should not be placed in a section where the text does not refer to the separate countries, since an image always has to be in support of the text of the section. At the moment the budget section does not mention net-payers vs net-receiving countries, and hence this image has no place there. Arnoutf (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal section

I've been away for a while. I can't help noticing that in my absence the legal section has been turned upside-down. It now ignores the most important aspects of EU law: supremacy and direct effect, while giving undue attention to the kinds of European legislation. (Actually a decision isn't even a kind of legislation.) Owing to the principle of direct the difference between directives and regulation is considerable less than what you would expect. I'll see if can rebalance this a bit. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The explanation for decision is missing now. Any reason you did not include this in your overhaul? Tomeasy_talk 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because they are of very little significance if you take a broad view of what the EU is about. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have edited some POV text. The decisions of the ECJ cannot over-ride national constitutions since the treaties have been enabled by national constitutional amendment. Of course the enabling amendment may mean that other provisions of the national constitution are invalidated, but only if the enabling amendment says so. It is instructive to read the Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland#The European Union.

Next, to say that 'only the Commission can propose' is clealy false and mischeivous. Many people can propose, but most specifically the Council. The Commission 'initiates' which means it drafts the text and checks it for national issues. I don't pretend that this process is particularly democratic but it is not as autocratic as the original text claimed. --Red King (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back then Blue haired. Though to say the section has been "turned upside down" is a bit of an exaggeration. Simply whilst you were gone, a few editors who also specialise in law, particularly EU law, felt the section was not satisfactory and needed fixing. One thing that was particularly important it was felt was to explain the legislative instruments used in the EU, which I would say is pretty important for understanding how the EU legal system works. That, and also how the national court>ECJ relationship works. I don't see how there was "undue weight" given towards how the instruments work. You're entitled to your opinion but I dont see what basis there is for coming back, seeing the section is not how it used to be, and undoing the work that others put in. Particularly when it may involve tweaking with some POV issues that have been debated in the last 6 months or so. --Simonski (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to what Red King said, I also think we should be careful not to just follow blindly the ECJ's interpretations of supremacy as we all know in reality that almost all member states do not agree with the ECJ's monist rhetoric (even Craig and DeBurca say this in their chapter on supremacy. Damn I love that book in a disturbing way). --Simonski (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Decisions:

Just a quick point as well, that it seems a complete and total generalisation to say that EU legislation only comes in the form of Directives and Regulations. As unimportant as you may believe them to be, Decisions are also of serious significance. I'm sure any multinational company affected by a Commission competition decision would tell you that. Also, what about Framework directives and other second and third pillar instruments? By editing the page the way you did, you've completely unbalanced things and made matters inaccurate surely. I'm going to replace that bit then explaining the three types as clearly everybody else was happy with it (plus it was more accurate)... --Simonski (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You make some fair points. The one thing I'd hadn't really notices was that someone had moved the main bulk of the legal stuff from the legal system heading to the governance. I would however like to make a few points:

1. Decisions, important or not, aren't legislation. A decision affecting Microsoft, just affects Microsoft. In contrast, a regulation can immediately affect everybody in the Union. This is what I mean by relative importance.

2. Owing to the principle of Direct Effect the difference between directives and regulations is quite limited. National courts frequently quote directly from directive as if they were regulations. If you want to re-introduce the definitions, do. I just thought/think this page is large enough and as it is and hardly needs to be bulked up with fine distinctions detailed elsewhere.

3. Strictly speaking there's no such thing as a "Framework directive". It's just a term the Commission adopted from directives which set up a framework for the passing of further legislative acts, be they further directives or regulations.

4. The wide range of instruments available under the treaties appears to me to be quite a good reason not to mention them all. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed my mind. Lets leave the bit on decision in there but I would like the bit on directives, regulations and decisions to be a single paragraph. If nothing else it would look better. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, like I said, I've no problem with it being shortened at all, as long as the basic point remains. The reason I liked the 3 main ones being discussed like that was because ages ago I picked up the Craig and DeBurca bit to get an idea of how they'd put it across, and one of the things they did/do is have like a chapter on the three main instruments (in EU law as a whole, not just the EC pillar). I still personally think the importance of Decisions is underrated by most and that they can be argued to be "legislative" in nature in theory. I would still describe a decision as a legal instrument, and an important one at that.

As to your other points, yeh, that happened a while back, somebody didn't like how it was set up and so they moved the bit about direct effect and supremacy outwith the legal system section as far as I remember. So that is probably why it came across as so unbalanced in favour of discussion of the instruments.

On framework directives, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here but its not important really. I know strictly speaking any directive is a framework directive in a sense but I was meaning the specific term commonly used for second/third pillar instruments, which are strictly speaking different from the first pillar ones. I'm not going to try and speak with any authority on this final point though because my second/third pillar knowledge is shaky. I know Lisbon would have made the discussion even more pointless! --Simonski (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Blue hair makes some fair points, but I disagree over certain aspects. The fact that "legislation" affects an individual/undertaking as opposed to a wider group of persons does not mean it is 1)of less "relative" (to who?) importance 2) not legislation. Look to UK private bills or US and Canada have similar provisions allowing for de facto legislation for individuals. I simply feel that the term "legislation" doesn't fit well into the EU context given the number of actors involved and the way the Treaty works. Any reference to "legislation" here should properly refer more correctly to 'legal instruments', of which Decisions are undoubtedly an important part. I also think maybe there is a cross-purpose over what Simon terms "Framework Directives". I believe he means Framework Decisions which are important legal instruments under Title V of the EU Treaty police and judicial coop (which are certainly "legislative" in nature). The difference between directives and regulations is still clear, if partly diminished. Direct effect has not completely eroded this distinction and to meld the two together is a little misleading (particularly lack of hztl de of directives). If you want to cut a part I suggest altering the part that talks of certain conditions being required for directives to have d/e. It is not very "helpful" and explains nothing. Certain "conditions" are also required before regulations or even Treaty articles can have direct effect.

I do agree direct effect and Supremacy are important issues that could do with a bit of elaboration here. Unfortunately I am uncertain HOW effectively/accurately that can be done without taking too much space. For example explaining the limitations of de or how supremacy is still not a settled part of Community law. Plus it opens the floodgates to other "important" principles being discussed. For example, proportionality/legal certainty has been an equally important principle in the development of the internal market... Just some random thoughts.... Lwxrm (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it's better not to get into an argument over what is and what's not legislation. My mistake. I'm going to go ahead and merge the paragraphs on directives, regulations and decision, unless anyone has any objections. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objection in the principle of merging. I may object when I see how it is done ;) . Lwxrm (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Lwxrm on that one. At the same time I'd say merge with care if you must merge them, as I really think at the moment your average person wanting to find out about EU law can look at the legal system section, get the basics, and then be able to get a grasp on the three most common instruments the EU uses. Merging the bits on them might make it a bit less clear/less simple to read/understand. If that makes sense. Just my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the edit, "Justice, freedom, and security: removing rather nasty vandalism - we should be more watchful for this kind of thing"

Blue-Haired Lawyer should have read the footnoted source material before deleting an accurate and rather helpful amendment and smearing it, somewhat bizarrely, as "rather nasty vandalism". The Amsterdam Treaty announced the establishment of "an area of freedom, security and justice", not an area of justice, freedom and security. Even the Directorate-General of Justice, Freedom and Security[1] says that its main task is "to ensure that the whole European Union is an area of freedom, security and justice". The Vice-President of the European Commission Responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security backs his department to the hilt.[2] And quite right too. The AFSJ has been around a lot longer than either the DG-JFS or the VP-EU-RJFS and, even today, Freedom, Security and Justice crops up in Brussels Bullshit Bingo more frequently than Justice, Freedom and Security. I have no idea why the established order of these preposterous misnomersabstract nouns was spurned by the Commission's newest directorate-general (though I suspect that the spurning was not accidental), but it was spurned and Wikipedia should mention this minor oddity at least once - if only to save ordinary EU citizens like myself a lot of google time (it took me ages to make the link between convicted embezzler Jacques Barrot's department of Justice, Freedom and Security and Wikipedia's then-unexplained initialism AFSJ).Vinny Burgoo (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. I always thought they were the other way around. I hardly see the need for the "[sic]" though. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

EU infobox

1) The EU's (allegedly unofficial) motto is not In varietate concordia; it is the equivalent of that Latin phrase in whichever of the 23 official languages is the most appropriate for the given context. If anyone can find a prominent use of the Latin version of the motto on an official EU document or website then the current infobox is just about justified. Otherwise ...

2) "Political centres". Yes, Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg City are centres of political power, but so are London, Paris, Milan, Koln and (of equivalent polcentritude to Strasbourg) Leicester. Unless you want the infobox to appear to support the EU reformist claim that the national capitals and institutions no longer have any real say in how things are run, Brussels and its parasitical satellites should be relabelled as "Locations of the EU institutions" or something equally neutral.

3) Even with all the enlargement of recent years, the EU's demonyn is not "European"; it is "EU citizen" or "Citizen of an EU member state".

4) "Government". Shouldn't that be "Governance"?

5) "Sui generis". Shouldn't that be "stealthy, illegitimate and unswerving"? Just kidding. How about "Universal pragmatism" or "Bureaucratic paternalism" or "Utopian corporatism as foreseen by 1950s science fiction" or "Old-style socialists collaborate in the attempted destruction of the democratic nation state after realising that they've got no hope of ever being elected by people who can understand what they are saying" or simply (this has long been my favourite) "Marching backwards into the future"?Vinny Burgoo (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re (1) You are right; the official website does not list the Latin version at all.

Re (2) This has been extensively discussed. The three listed cities hold parts of the European Parliament/Government, hence they are Gov Centres of the EU. Non of your suggested cities do.

Re (3) Again discussed in the past, there does not appear to be a clear demonym. Your suggestions are not used in colloquial discussion. My suggestion would be to clear the field altogehter

Re (4) I don't think that would make a difference, staying with Government is more standard, so I would leave it

Re (5) Huh, all your alternatives make no sense, and I can only conclude you are not serious. Arnoutf (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re (2): If "Government" is staying (point 3), I'd favour changing "Political centres" to "Governmental centres". (As this topic has been extensively discussed, I'm assuming that alternative forms used in the infoboxes for other regional unions have already been rejected. For the record, though, they are: African Union, "Administrative [c]entre[s]"; ASEAN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, "Secretariat"; and the Arab League, SAARC and OAS, "Headquarters".)

Re (5): And "Sui generis" is serious? Vinny Burgoo (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re 2-3, I see your point but this maybe a bit sensitive to some.

Re 5 Sui generis is an existing term that does refer to the EU (some editors are very fond of it). Personally I think it is a bit over the top adding it here, and would suggest to remove it altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 5), I do personally like the sui generis thing because for all the EU related material I've had to read over the last few years, it has become clear to me that its probably the most used description for the organisation.

To me it also seems to give us the advantage of not having to jump off the fence and say "more supranational" or "more intergovernmental" or try and describe how its a mix, plus if its what the experts call it, who the hell are we to say otherwise. Just because average Joe doesnt know what sui generis means, that should not matter. He can always click on the active link on the page to find out! I fail to see the problem here personally. --Simonski (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the main thing about the EU's governmental structure is that it is, and always has been, a work in progress? Ever-cloer union and all that. The EU isn't unique or indefinable; it's just not finished yet. Besides, as I understand it, "sui generis" is the tag preferred by only one school of integrationist thought, that of the neo-functionalists (aka the stealthy monomaniac bastardsillegitimatists), who like it because it's as grandiose as it is shifty (a bit like themselves, really). Everyone else is, and always has been, happy to use borrowed terms like "customs union" and "association of states" and, more recently, "supranational union" (and "quangocracy").Vinny Burgoo (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vy the way, what does the note mean at the bottom of the infobox? 1 If listed among entities with traditional nation state status. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Vy? Vy not?) Scrub that question. I've worked out the answer. I was confused by the proximity of another footnote numbered 1. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 1 is the index of this footnote. The text is the footnote itself. It is added to rank numbers shown in the infobox for population and area figures. The footnote tries to explain how to understand these rank numbers, e.g., the EU has the third largest population if ranked in a list of population figures of the states on earth. I hope it became clear.

Now, I think these rank numbers are senseless and should be erased altogether with the respective footnote, just because the EU is not a nation state and its member states are already ranked in these lists. Tomeasy_talk 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Currency 13

The info box currently has a field Currency and shows the related value 13. This is very unclear to the reader, because 13 is not a currency!

What it (presumably) means is that there are 13 currencies in the EU. By inflating the value field one can see a list with all of them, the euro on top as the de jure currency.

I tried to change the specifier to Currencies but that does not work with this template. In this case, the field will not show up at all, because a country info box does not have a currencies field. So we have do something else about it.

I propose to simply show Euro and upon inflating the value field show that it is the de jure currency and that there are 12 more currencies at the moment. I hope that is OK with everyone. Tomeasy_talk 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Euro (+12)" as text Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"13" is not perfect. I could live with both "Euro+ 12" or "Euro" only. Lear 21 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Euro+12 seems to be the most accurate, and best option. Euro would be misleading, and 13 just makes no sense by itself! --Simonski (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

lede

I think the lede really quite good now but I'd like to make two minor changes:

1. Do we really have to say that the EU is "located primarily in Europe". Surely the name "European Union" kind of gives it away?

2. Do we really have to mention both names of the Maastricht Treaty? Saying that the EU was founded by the Treaty on European Union, is a bit like saying that the European Economic Community was established by the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Rather yes. The term "located primarily in Europe" seems necessary 2. No, Maastricht Treaty only should be sufficient. Lear 21 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I'd say that we need it. Reading only the name, one would be very tempted to assume that it is located entirely in Europe. This not being the case is a major fact worthy of the lead. 2. Definitely agree. The article on the Treaty itself is at the colloquial Maastricht Treaty, and there's hardly any reason to be more formal here, especially when it sounds so tautological. -- Jao (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD on our FAQ

FYI: The EU FAQ page (European Union/Frequently asked questions) has been put up for AfD.- J Logan ^t: 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "A" in the "AFD" is just because it's currently sitting in article space. I don't think anybody is calling for the deletion of the FAQ itself, but it should really be sitting in talk: space. Since it currently has its own talk page, something at some stage seems likely to need deletion. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 18:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes on recent changes

1. I've substantially reduced the number of subheadings in the article. I'm not sure if every paragraph should have its own heading. It greatly bulks up the table of contents and obstructs the flow of the article prose.

2. I've put the paragraphs on the European Council nearer to the top of the governance section. I realise that it's not an institution but it is according to the article, both before and after my edits, where the EU receives its political leadership. Surely the most influential EU body should be treated as the most important?

3. I've renamed the politics section 'Contemporary political issues'. It is a more accurate title given the section's contents. In most country articles (I'm slowly turning into Lear) the 'Governance' section would be called 'Politics', 'Government and politics' or something similar. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions page

I noticed this earlier on the FAQ page, to do with why there's no criticism section...

However, we agree that if there was a relevant body of decently grounded studies voicing conceptual criticism this should warrant a separate criticism section. However, the only sources for conceptual criticism on idea of the European Union as a whole is provided by some extremist publications that have no academically rigorous background, and are more personal opinions of the authors of these publications then based on objective facts. The problematic and dubious quality of these sources makes that these arguments simply cannot be incorporated in an article that aims at objective and high quality coverage of the subject.

Is it just me... or does this come across as a bit of an exaggeration/a bit silly. It does seem to me to be suggesting that only extremists disagree with the concept of the EU itself. Hardly. People who hold socialist/left-wing views might not agree with that for example given the whole idea of free trade behind the bloody EU. I think the section on why there are no bits on criticism needs to be reworded, I might have a go at some point myself. There is a decent reason why there isnt a criticism section, and its because there are so many areas that could/would need to be addressed and it would be insane, plus the criticisms within themselves aren't always neccessarily the same - its just not a clear cut case of one or two potential criticisms. You could also point out the UN doesnt have a criticism section. --Simonski (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a go, I hope you'll agree my version is much better and that any person who stumbles across that (though I'm sceptical they'll actually even see the FAQ page exists) and reads it will go "wow, good point. we dont need a criticism section after all! :D (edit: particularly now after Arnoutf has fixed it up further!) --Simonski (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Official languages

It would appear that Turkish is an official languages according to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, but I don't see the basis for including Kurdish. --Boson (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The official languages of the EU aren't just automatically those of the member states. Irish has always been an official language of Ireland (well since independence at any rate), but it has only become an official EU language recently. The 23 official languages of the EU are listed here. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A de facto federation?

An unregistered user seem comitted to put the following in the article:

"The EU is not de jure a federation ,but some academic observers conclude that de facto it is one ,after 50 years of institutional evolution." (The user doesn't seem to understand commas.)

I've deleted this from the lede a few time on the basis of its being too much information for the introduction. But frankly I don't think it should go anywhere. Federation is not a precise term. There are many different kinds. If we don't know what a federation is, what's the difference between a de jure and a de facto one? The article takes an active choice to talk about intergovernmentalism and supranationalism instead. These terms are commonly used in describing the EU. Blue-Haired Lawyer 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I reverted that piece myself earlier, naturally I agree with your revert. It's badly written and misplace in the lead. (BTW, why do you consistently spell it lede?) Tomeasy _{T C} 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I once wondered about someone else's use of 'lede' myself. Apparently when journalists talk about the lead section of an article they normally spell it lede [3]. Wikipedia used to spell it lede as well but seemed to have switched back to the, probably the more sensible, lead. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thaks, apparently my English dictionary is incomplete. :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

About de jure and de facto: I think the former one is pretty clear. The EU was de jure a federation only if that term occurred in its treaties. Since it doesn't the EU is not a de jure federation. As to the de facto statement, I agree with your argumentation. Federation in itself is vaguely defined, so that it becomes too arbitrary to say the EU is a de facto federation. Why not confederation? No, that's all too blur and I prefer the approach we are taking in the article, i.e., to simply state what the EU is, in the language that is commonly used, and not to rely on terms that everyone interprets differently. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If the EU is anything de facto, then it's a confederation, but I prefer the terms political and economic union and sui generis. From what I understand the difference between a federation and a confederation is sovereignty; in a federal state, the federation itself is sovereign and thus a secession from the federation is illegal in terms of international law if the federal state opposes the secession. In a confederation, it is the constituents states that are sovereign and only agree to cooperate on certain matters; if they want to secede from the confederation they can do so unilaterally (e.g. the independence vote of Montenegro, Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006) was the last true confederation in the world). So if the EU needs to be fit into a classical definition in the first place (I don't think so), it's a confederation and not a federation.

There are also many differences between the EU and a confederation. A confederation behaves like a state in the international scene: it has one UN seat, one Foreign Office, one military etc. That's not to be expected from the EU in decades. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The same fantasy was in the Federation article. I have deleted it as a POV political polemic but others may want to put a watch on it. --Red King (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some points on neutrality (in the geopolitical sense):

1. What neutrality actually is, is debatable and what each EU neutral state has (I believe) a different idea of what neutrality means. I don't think the article should cast judgement on which country is really neutral and which isn't.

2. Is Finland really no longer de facto neutral. The article links to a Europarl debate where the Finnish PM said:

"Mr Pflüger described Finland as neutral. I must correct him on that: Finland is a member of the EU. We were at one time a politically neutral country, during the time of the Iron Curtain. Now we are a member of the Union, part of this community of values, which has a common policy and, moreover, a common foreign policy."

He doesn't mention anything about Finland no longer being neutral. In Ireland, our government always says that we follow a policy of "military neutrality" (i.e. not political neutrality). If anything he appears to be saying that Finland has become a bit more like Ireland.

3. The Irish guarantee on neutral was/is an unbinding declaration. The legal provision in the treaty, albeit written in more diplomatic language, applies to all member states.

"The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States..." (article 17(1) TEU).

4. I'm not sure why the neutrality bit is tacked on the a paragraph on soft power in foreign affairs. It would make more sense to place it under the "Military and defence" heading. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a small point on 2. I think his intention is to say Finland is not neutral, even on a military side there is nothing to indicate in government policy that neutrality is being followed (may not be in NATO, but the government is holding back on that due to public opinion). In regards to Ireland, its a de jure de facto thing again. That declaration is worth sod all, Ireland claims to follow military neutrality but is involving itself at every step things like battlegroups. And besides, what does military neutrality actually mean? That if sanctions were placed on France, Ireland would give sanction back but if France was invaded Ireland would do nothing? Granted we can't make these judgements in the article but I don't think we should take their formal positions as fact. Leave the question of it hanging, that the effect of the EU on neutrality is subject to debate, or something.- J Logan ^t: 14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was really saying that we should say less rather than more. As for everything else is concerned,it's really neither here nor there. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Ireland could be expected to do nothing to help France in the face of foreign aggression. The EU certainly didn't stand up for Estonia last year [4]Zebulin (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing me thinks, serious but not exactly a war situation. In a military situation, it would be politically impossible for any EU member to stand by while another EU member, or western european country, is invaded. Hence, in the kinds of situations to which Ireland's neutrality applies (not cyber attacks, which - despite its real impact - is more of a diplomatic matter in practice) Ireland would not stay neutral. They would only have neutrality when more distant countries (politically speaking) are attacked, hence applying the restraint of any nation.- J Logan ^t: 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Union

Article 1 of the consolidated treaty says:

"By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called "the Union" on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common."

If you have a contract that says "John Smith, hereinafter called "the Buyer", it is not evidence that Mr. Smith has changed his name to "Buyer"; on the contrary, it is evidence that the Buyer is indeed called "John Smith".

Could we quickly document consensus that the Union is indeed called "the European Union"? And could the IP editor please stop repeatedly adding his or her own "unconventional" interpretation of the treaty against obvious consensus? --Boson (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, have reverted the IP. Usage of term Union in treaties is simple legal short form and is present in existing treaties. Please don't guess at the meaning of treaties - there is no name change. Besides, I think it is best that Lisbon is left out of the lead regardless considering its status (the inevitable dodgy explanation of which also lengthens any note considerably).- J Logan ^t: 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A.P.E.C. and the E.U.

As neither Europe nor India can participate in APEC Summits it would be a great idea to build an EURASIAN answer but just with FOUR participants: EUROPEAN UNION, RUSSIA, CHINA and INDIA.

Just FOUR, no need for more. Four representatives would be enough to talk about Trade, economy, business and politics without ridiculous shirts.

EURASIA needs an answer to APEC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.44 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just curious why leaving Japan, the obvious Asian power, outside? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For that matter what makes the EU economically closer to east asia than to africa and the americas? Large land masses tend to be much greater trade barriers than large oceans.Zebulin (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about a reality: Europe is kept OUTSIDE of APEC Summits...

There are two conceptions: the MARITIME Conception, which is shared by the U.S. or Australia as they are OUTSIDE the Eurasian landmass being geographically isolated, and the CONTINENTAL Conception, which is the natural conception for Europe as we are part of the Eurasian landmass.

Greece is closer to China than Australia and with increasing land connections through Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan.

I am talking about just FOUR participants because that is the way to make it workable and not just a show: the European Union, China, India and Russia.

China, India and Russia are growing over 8% a year. Europe is complementary with them as we have the high value added products and a Market of 500 million fluent customers, in fact the biggest GDP in the World. Japan (an slow growth country) just would be a competitor in the negotiations but other countries (Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan) are part of the land connection between Europe and China so they will participate in the future...

It is obvious Europe doesn´t have other option but to build a Continental EURASIAN answer to the American Maritime initiative of APEC where we are left aside. The sooner the European Union and member states work on it, the better. From Europe it would be enough the participation of the President of the European Commission (Barroso), Trade Commissioner (Peter Mandelson) and Common Foreign Policy Representative(Solana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.121.15 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We are losing billions of Euros if we don´t undertake as soon as possible the Big Four Eurasian Initiative.

Note that INDIA is also outside APEC.

I do not see the relevance of this discussion for the article. If you want to establish a new multinational cooperation, first do some politics to get this thing implemented and then come back an report about in on wikipedia. Your idea about necessary concepts do not interest us. Make clear at which points it touches the content of the article and we can talk. Otherwise abandon this thread. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto: WP:SOAP. Go blog it rather than stick it here.- J Logan ^t: 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)