Talk:European Union/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

How is this?

TRANSCLUSION REMOVED

Hey guys, unless I'm mistaken we don't have a clear chart of the institutions. I apologise for the baby-style of this as a rough display (it is going by codecision of course) does it display everything we need and accurately enough? I had trouble making it clear and accurate, of course if it was accurate then half of the little people at the bottom would be eating their vote rather than waving it in the air. Also, need for the Court of Justice to fit in there?- _J.Logan`<sup>t</sup>: 13:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC) FYI, it is clickable (User:JLogan/Sandbox 2) so it can be translated.- <sub>J</sub>.Logan`^t: 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Something like this may add some explanation. I would replace the word "state" with "national government" as that is not very clear with the word state in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I think something similar was discussed before and I said then as I do now that any diagram of how the EU works would be too complicated - I honestly don't think any reader would gain any understanding from that diagram. Think its something that would be useful perhaps if the structure of the EU was more simple but I think its too complex to simplify into a small diagram, which is shown I think by the end result above! Fair effort though! --Simonski (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning towards agreeing with Simonclamb. I am familiar with EU decision-making and I found this diagram a little confusing. There are also some specifics I am not convinced on.

1)Does the European Council really give guidelines on legislation (and what does the term 'guidelines' mean)? Is it not more about defining the direction of the Union as a whole (i.e. high level policy direction and not guidelines on legislation per se)?

2)On the European Council point, unless I am missing something, there is an internal inconsistency in the diagram. If it is to be accepted that the European Council is a separate institution (institution in the loose sense, as it is certainly not an institution under the Treaty) to the Council of Ministers then it is not the European Council that proposes the Commission, as shown in the diagram. The Treaty is clear that it is the Council (referring as it always does to the CoM) in the composition of Head of State/Government that adopt the lists which are compiled from Member State nominations. So, either the European Council is separate to the CoM, in which case the diagram is incorrect, or it is not separate, in which case the diagram is still incorrect.

3)Why are we to only examine co-decision? This is misleading and suggests that this is "the" way law is made. This ignores other important legislative procedures and comitology...

Overall I think it is too difficult to break down the institutions in this way. It is a good effort at a diagram, however. Lwxrm (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points, okay how about.

On the over complication issue, maybe we split the law and mandate into separate diagrams, might that be simple enough?

On only having co-decision, as that will apply to nearly all areas with Lisbon, to include the others would be over complication but if we split it as I say above then we could include it or at least have another set of diagrams.

Giving "guidelines" is a term I took from the Swedish presidency website, I think the treaties use terminology of political direction or something. It certainly has that role though doesn't it? The Commission doesn't take much initiative but follows the Council.

On EC appointing Commission, that decision is taken by the leaders though isn't it? Well, the President at least, perhaps that distinction should be made? EC appoints President, Council agrees on the college?- _J.Logan`^t: 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

-Splitting law and mandate could make things simpler, yes.

-Lisbon is not in force, I don't think we should treat it as so. Even after Lisbon there are key differences in legislative processes which still exist. I am not sure that removing these completely and presenting co-decision as "the way" is such a great idea. I do take your point that this would become overly complex if we include many more. It should, therefore, be made clear that this is the "main" but not sole way somewhere on the diagram.

-Again you conflate the European Council with the Council of Ministers. All the Treaty says for the European Council in this regard is that it 'shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof.' Article 5 TEU. My issue was that it is not correct, at least to me, to translate this into some "guidelines" in the legislative process, which different to any political process.

-The decision on appointment is taken by the Council of Ministers sitting in the formation of Heads of State or Government. As far as I can tell, someone correct me otherwise, this is not the same as the Heads of State getting together in the European Council. The two hold very different institutional positions/roles/powers. For the sake of clarity, Article 214 EC Treaty makes it clear (to me at least, I am willing for someone to dispute my reading) that it is "the Council" (i.e. the Council of Ministers) that appoints both the President and adopts the list of Members of the Commission. To me, the diagram is inaccurate because it suggests it is the European Council that does so. Lwxrm (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I was taking Lisbon as the base so it doesn't have to be adjusted once it comes into force (this wouldn't be used until Lisbon comes into force and would have to be altered if the Irish vote no again). There would also be an indication that it is not the only procedure, especially if it is split.

Like I say, I took "guidelines" from the Swedish presidency, if you have a better word (i.e. something that sums up the jargon "accurately" if that is possible for the ambiguous rubbish they write) then I have no objections to changing it for said word.

Erm...if the Council meets with heads of states it is the European Council. Nevertheless, the treaties speak for themselves, article 17;

7. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.

- _J.Logan`^t: 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that we were talking about post-Lisbon. This changes things significantly. Currently, the EC does not give legislative guidelines to the Commission. It give political impetus and direction to the Union as a whole. This is a matter of policy, rather than legislation. Obviously the CoM provides impetus for legislative programmes, and thus the arrow should be coming from the CoM and not the EC. On a point of principle I would enquire as to why, if the European Council is the same as the Council meeting as Heads of State, they are represented differently in the diagram (this is more confusing surely)? To me the Treaty (as it stands today) is clear that the two are different bodies with different roles. Obviously, if we are taking the post-Lisbon position, the European Council becomes a de facto institution, with provisions governing its operation. I was talking of the pre-Lisbon position where the European Council has no formal powers as such. Therefore, the Commission MUST be appointed by the CoM comprising the Heads of State of Government. As said, most objections are withdrawn now that I am clear we talking of post-Lisbon (although I still think it will be too complex) Lwxrm (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, I should have made the Lisbon point clear, I thought it would be implied by the portrayal of the EC as separate but obviously that is ambiguous from a de facto POV.

I was meaning that CoM as HoS/G is EC and hence not the CoM, rather than implying that EC is part of CoM. Furthermore I was taking guidelines as an indication of impetus, the practical implication I'd think is the same unless you're talking about requests for legislation which can also come from Parliament. Perhaps it might help if you see what I was looking at: on the right.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite the above, and even if it is a post-Lisbon diagram, I still remain sceptical about the usefulness of the diagram. That said I would give way if I ended up being in the absolute minority, which I'm not sure I will be. I think it would also end up being a point of contention in the future with some new editors - I just think overall its probably more of an effort (a creditable one of course) at simplifying the unsimplifyable!! --Simonski (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you not thing a visual representation of the legislative process at least will make it easier for people to understand the procedure?- _J.Logan`^t: 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying a diagram would not be useful, of course it would be, just I don't think its actually possible to make a diagram of the EU Legislative processes that is clear to any reader who is not relatively well versed in the field of EU Law/Governance. As a tutor of the subject last year I thought about how to make one but gave up in the end because it was not really effective. Do you not agree then that the average reader will get quite confused by any diagram unless we find a way to simplify it further? --Simonski (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well simplified it would just be "guidelines" - if at all, could be left out - then Commission proposes, line to Parliament and Council, co-decide, then point to "law". That would be the simplest form yet also not so simple it is pointless (given the mismatch of the usual terms).- _J.Logan`^t: 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

what up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.231.64 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan your last proposal there sounds good - we could take it from there and if necessary add to it. A diagram of how codecision works, considering its the most common legislative procedure these days, would be a good idea possibly. Would be interesting to hear the views of others on this? --Simonski (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at WP chart template and I found another way of doing both, thoughts? (see above, same place)- _J.Logan`^t: 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Much, much clearer and simpler. Great. Lwxrm (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New Super Power Discussion

Someone is at 'war' with this writer in that they don't like this contribution to the discussion on cultural differentials affecting perceptions and arguments concerning the definition of the EU's status as a Super Power. Those who assert that Wikipedia contributions must rely upon citations from what amount to uncited sources; i.e., anything published by anyone as if this provides empirical evidence of anything at all, are merely presumptuously hiding behind a veneer of faux academic correctness that will be consigned to the same obsolescence as all those other worthy dons whose thesis have been rendered erroneous by subsequent revisions. Much of the discussion here, including in the main project article itself, suffers from the trite subjectiveness of wishfullness. Opinions about the status of the EU, particularly those of Americans who can barely stand the idea that perhaps there's another kid on the block who may be bigger and cleverer, are so barely concealed in belligerence as to render this Wikipedia article almost impossible to complete to any degree of studied objectivity. it's risible that so many Americans believe Wikipedia to be a more worthy tact of studied objectivity the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's true that the two encyclopaedias occupy different planets of integrity even though opinion on the American side in inverse proportion to the truth. The argument that spirited argument is not a part of true academic study is perverse. I therefore resubmit the articles here that an extreme and reactionary vandal hopes to keep from the consideration of the World. The censorship that seems so effective as to be a bot will probably remove this item very quickly. for those of you who spot this item as it briefly exists, be afraid of the Gestapo who run this website, be very afraid.

Following the argument over at the original 'Super Power' heading, it's clear to me that on the one hand we have a European whose native language is not English and therefore lays himself vulnerable to the not so subtle condescension of both so called editors and Americans who rely upon a veneer of faux academic propriety to support the sort of self aggrandizement that is as typical of Americans as any other patriotic member of other societies. The insistent demand for citations that even include requests for media/press articles, for which any mildly learned person would know can never be accepted as a source of empirical factuality, merely underlines the nature of nationalist pride that is hiding behind that veneer of academic respectability. As sequitur as the forgoing maybe, there are certain easily verifiable facts that do indeed indicate that at the very least the European Union must be a Super Power within the commonly accepted meaning of the term. Clearly the USA still retains a greater military arsenal than the EU in terms of nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers, cruisers, nuclear submarines and strategic logistical support elements. Nevertheless it is a fact that the EU has nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers together with about a million more trained armed forces personnel, significant numbers of which are as good or better than thier US counterparts in terms of professional abilities and comparable numbers of skilfully operated modern fighter aircraft, combat helicopters, main battle tanks, frigates and destroyers and enough nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems to make the numerical differentials of merely academic interest. Before moving on from the purely military considerations it's worth considering that the main reason for the EU's underdeveloped military strength is that the nature of the Union is still developing, the level of interstate integration that the Union is slowly but inexorably developing has not yet provided the basis for the economies and efficiencies of scale that are bound to occur as economic-military rationalisation evolves. We can see some signs of where all this going when we observe the increasing pan Europeanisation of key military assets such as the Eurofighter, which also suffers here in Wikipedia from patriotic tinted lenses, mostly on the American side. Indeed a number of other significant pan European projects should be noted here such as the nuclear propulsion technologies shared by France and the UK, peerless airborne and ship based missiles, small arms and advanced large caliber guns for tanks together with armour, both of which technologies have been adopted by the USA whose Abrams MBT is protected by licensed built Chobham armour and the 120mm gun originating from the EU. Vertical take-off technology is largely EU derived as are a great many technologies adopted by the US military. Even historically the greatest advances in US military, as well as space and other technologies have depended to a critical degree on Europeans. without Europeans the US would not have the Atom Bomb, the jet engine, advanced airframes, missiles, space rockets, radar, sonar, military medical technologies including antibiotics; the lists are endless. The other significant differentials are that Europeans, unlike Americans, know and appreciate the strengths and weaknesses and the successes and failures of other peoples; so in military terms, the EU is the real 'sleeping giant' whose potential military muscle has barely begun to be flexed. The USA's military muscle is by comparison, already stretched disproportionately to the US economy.

Economically, and lets face it, the main limitation to 'SuperPowerdom' is wealth, the EU is increasing its lead over the USA exponentially, year on year. The EU is the Worlds biggest economy by a good margin. It's half a billion people includes a rich and potent diversity that far exceeds that of the so called melting pot of the USA. At its most developed Western and Scandinavian sector the EU already has a society that easily equals or betters the sophistication of any other in the World, but the new members newly released from the repression and World War II legacy of the Soviet Union are demonstrating abilities that are accelerating them as sophisticated societies faster than any others including the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The term sleeping giant once used to describe the USA by Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese navy after Pearl Harbour now applies with even greater prophetic accuracy to the EU. Consider the recent launch of the heaviest pay load into space by an EU Ariane rocket, the Large Hadron Collider, the World Wide Web (not to be confused with the Internet), the Merlin Helicopter, the vastly superior automotive, mechanical and electrical engineering, the prevalence of imported Europeans behind the best US technologies etc., etc., and it's abundantly clear that to not accept the EU as having Super Power status can only be surly, patriotically motivated and/or self evidently ignorant.82.27.227.187 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As an European citizen I would say there are more or less 5 superpowers actually and these are the European Union, the United States, Russia, China and India because of their economy, the number of people living into these "superpowers" and their military and political strength. I don't think one of them is superior to anotherone. --Vicente2782 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness doesn't help progress this debate. Whilst Russia, China and India have recently enjoyed rapid economic growth neither country can be described as equal yet to either the EU or the USA in terms of economic size (merely holding a disproportionate percentage of Americas paper money units is not, as China is now discovering, nearly enough to dominate the balance), neither are they equal in military power (and that include Russia) nor do they enjoy the social, political and cultural diversity or the individual empowerments that sustained exponential development requires. The only area in which they can be regarded as greater is in the size of their populations; and yet, consider the EU's half a billion people as enough to represent sufficient critical mass of scale to make the differentials merely academic. With the current global economic recession has come the revelation that both China and India depend heavily for their own economic welfare on the economic health of the developed West. It may be that China and India will continue to gain on the EU and USA until parity has been achieved but this writer does not believe that they can exceed that parity or that they are anywhere near it yet. The reason for the West's success is the freedom of culture and socio-political diversity. The free thinking individualism of Western society is the foundation for the level of cutting edge science and intellectual exploration required for solving the most challenging conundrums in any area of human life. For example, in China today the annual numbers of graduate mathematicians might be impressive but virtually none of them can beak the glass ceiling that separates maths by rote from the maths that have never been calculated before. Maths is the purest and highest form of science and the basis for all new developments. It's not because Westerners are inherently cleverer than Chinese, it's because western societies have evolved the sort of freedom of thought and expression that is currently five or six generations ahead. India is interesting in this respect because despite India's more chaotic and shambolic development Indians produce a lot more creative science than China. It's also this writers belief that India will surpass China within twenty years once their primitive cast and religious dogmas have been relegated to the status of mere primitive tradition; and by this I don't mean the powerful evolutionary potentials of spiritual enlightenment commensurate with the expansion of pure conciousness that both Eastern and Western societies should value above all other human achievements. It's the primitive religious dogmas and blind rituals that this writer refers to; unfortunately there remains more that enough of it in both the Americas and Asia to ensure the continuance of conflict for at least another generation. For the record, this writer is mixed race European with no connections with India or Asia. Nevertheless, neither India, China or Russia show much sign of evolving above the trite mindedness of their overly collective reactionary tendencies; it's these national traits that will continue to hold them back form their potentials for some time yet. Considering the evolving nature of global societies though, it seems probable that as the emerging power blocks settle into their natural relationships so will those of the western democracies, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and other divers nations with umbilical connections to those societies and probably, also to be a member of that group, though somewhat anomalously, Japan. Ultimately this union might also include India, Brazil and Russia as these nations are likely to evolve ethics commensurate with tolerant liberal democracy before too long. This Union of liberal democracies will continue to dominate as the biggest economic and military power for some to come. As far as the world is concerned, that Super Power Club is the Sleeping Giant of the generation to come. By the Grace of our Creator we might hope that by that time the nations of the Earth will have begun to pull together for their mutual salvation and our primitive tendency towards national pride and the evils of blind patriotism will have been consigned to history. 82.27.227.53 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)82.27.227.53 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TLDR to the 7th power. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TLDR indeed. Was there any proposal for the article in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.207 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that this was previously repeatedly removed for the reasons above. The most recent version was re-added by 82.27.227.53, including the comment by Vicente2782. Arnoutf (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entire thing. Besides him saying that EU is a superpower and all Americans are just denying reality, and how all of us American are gestapos on Wikipedia removing and censuring his comments (hey Arnoutf, I guess you're an American gestapo :) ), the only thing that could be taken as a suggestion to improve the EU page is something he said about the European military cooperation or something like that. Also, besides being too long too read, and carrying very little suggestions for the page if any, this wouldn't even work on the pages about the superpower. It's all the IP's personal opinion, not backed up by relialbe sources, with no improvements specified for the article. Pretty much, it's a huge rant that belongs in someplace meant for it, like a blog. Deavenger (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody living in Europe, the idea of the EU being a superpower is laughable. The EU couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery as far as foreign policy goes, and the rest of the world laughs at us. If you're looking for superpowers for this generation look no further than the USA, Russia and China. The EU? Hardly. Apologies for feeding the troll but it had to be said! Back on track, absolutely pointless long post which put forward no real suggestions as to how to improve the page. To avoid being a hypocrit, I will end this post with a suggestion on how to improve the page... ignore "editors" like the guy who posted that rant. --Simonski (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As a pro-EU Dutch person (why the anon editor, just like the sockpuppet group EU100%, Worldpower27 and UEonly, thinks that everyone disagreeing with his megalomanic ideas about the EU cannot be from the EU, and has to be against the Union, I have no idea.) I have to agree with Simonski, not only has the EU serious trouble with foreign policy, internal regulations are also seriously stretched, among others by a non-democratic system of closed decision making, the veto system on even the smalles issues etc. These things are nice for a club of 6, but are unworkable for a group of 27. Furthermore the stability pact for the Euro is in serious trouble with the financial crisis, and the precedent is already there as Germany got away with flagrant breach of the pact a few years ago. EU military - There is nothing close to a central command, and all countries put emphasis on having a multibranch military with their own, often incompatible, equipment. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a superpower.

LMAO. The OP rambling and incoherent rant is quite the tour de force of the amateur philosopher. To all experts though, the EU is not even close to being a superpower. While as a grouping the EU have economic and even military heft, the EU is not a unified entity as in the US or China (Lisbon Treaty or not). There's a reason why David Miliband said that the world is dominated by the US and China in a G-2 and if the EU spoke with one unified voice it could be a G-3 world. But as it stands, this remains wishful thinking. 76.65.20.105 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a sock of EU100% as the anon's IP is way better then EU100. However, this discussion is go8ing nowhere and adding nothing to the improvement of the page. Deavenger (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly not - EU 100%'s IP addresses resolved to Italian ISPs; this one is UK-based. The original post is not relevant to improving the article, however; I agree with Deavenger. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not a secret anymore that the EU or to be more precise, the collective influence of its member states can be considered an "economic superpower". The EU is the dominant single force in trade talks via WTO and is home to the, by far, second largest reserve currency. The GDP of the EU is higher than that of the USA, four times the size of China. Since the beginning the EU is on board at all G7/G8 summits. It is also not a secret anymore that most experts agree on the future role of the EU and/or the collective will of its members in global politics Parag Khanna (Obama advisor on foreign policy).

The EU integration process will go on like the last 50 years. Why? Because it has to in order to ensure European interests on the globe. One personal assessment: I see Russia and India as global middle powers not as superpower candidates. China will have to go a long way to rival or to overhaul the US or the EU in terms of economy, military, science, culture, political influence.

Does this current state has an influence on this article? Well, at least in the Economy section it could be considered to add the term "economic superpower" while explaining the consequences. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia is a semi-great power undergoing decline and is on the verge of being downgraded largely to a regional power status. India is a country that is growing but has a chaotic political and foreign policy voice not to mention a proportional of very poor people and the associated social problems that come with that. It is a middle or regional power that may or may not emerge as a great power in 20-30 years depending how fractious it's voice is. ---Chrissy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.7 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While the EU maybe a superpower, all your other claims to EU superpower relate to individual members or summed influence of member states. The EU as a united military power, for example, has a potential similar to that of Iceland (i.e. negligable). In any case, we need reliable sources confirming superpower status otherwise this is all original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the definition of super power. In the past (ie during the cold war) it has been used to describe a hugely influential economic, military and political force in the world, and it has always been applied to sovereign countries (single nations) acting with coordinated foreign and domestic policies. While the EU fills certain parts of this definition (economic and perhaps political and domestic policies for many issues), it does not fill the definition in its original sense. Any adaption of the term (that it is an "economic superpower" or something like that) seems to me a less established, more "original research", concept and should probably not be included in the article on that grounds. TastyCakes (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From an outside perspective it doesn´t matter if ONE single EU authority is projecting influence in the world or if several EU members with the same interests and the same opinion are doing it because they´re heading in the same direction. (funny/strange prophetic US view). It would be easy to underline an "economic superpower status" with sources: [1] but the age of so called superpowers is over. Several experts tend to emphasize more and more the concept of a multipolar world order without a single or few superpowers. Thats why I think the term "superpower" alone doesn´t help the article at all. On the other hand, within the Wikipedia world, terms like "energy superpower" (Russia), "emerging superpower" (China) are common. It is only this circumstance why I could imagine to introduce the "economic superpower" term. Lear 21 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving in one direction.... France and the UK have often opposed international views, especially regarding the middle east. And if moving in the same direction is an indication of several nations being a single superpower then the anti Somalia piracy actions would imply as US-Chinese-EU superpower.....

I do for that reason agree that superpower is not at all useful in this article. However constructing "partial superpower" definition seems equally unhelpful as well as original research. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Vicente and 82.27.227.53.EU is a leading power,better the leader power.151.60.116.214 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

EU 100%. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The people of Iceland will CRUSH!!! the pathetic European Union and end its nonsense once and for all. Super power my ...--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC) .

The people of Iceland no less...... Ow, I think the EU should be very scared.... Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article nobody cites EU as potential superpower as Wikipedia does in "Superower" article.There's a conflict (or at least an omission) between the 2 articles.I agree with Vicente and others about EU world leader position.89.97.225.77 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does mention the political debate about the EU's possible status as a "postmodern superpower". I think this gives the discussion the appropriate weight. Any more would probably degenerate into original research and discussions on semantics, etc. which would be more appropriately conducted in the context of the articles Superpower and Potential superpowers. --Boson (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Vicente and Boson are right.The debate about EU status as "postmodern superpower" should be set however in the first part of the article to give an idea of the primary importance of EU on the Earth.89.97.225.77 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Superpower is not an official term and can therefore never have a very strong emphasis. If the start of the page were to be to discuss the primary importance of the EU (which I think would be a bad idea), then we can mention superpower in that debate. The superpower issues itself (by its non officialness) can not be an argument to restructure the text. Arnoutf (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Superpower, postmodernist and image

I can live with the mention to superpower in the foreign affairs section. I am not convinced with the "postmodern" caption as that seems to be a paradigm of some social sciences to launch a term without having to provide any meaning/definition in the phrase connected to postmodern. The reference is not very strong either as that seems to be a conference paper (i.e. most likely not peer reviewed). But ok, I can live with that.

I do think that a simple mention is as far as we should take it, and a map of potential superpowers is (a) putting undue attention on this unofficial and in any case relatively uninteresting issue (WP:UNDUE)(b) feels like OR to me, as the map lack clear references to whom states that these entities are superpowers. (WP:OR). Therefore I removed the map Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball -- the map doesn't belong and, in fact, the entire section is debatable. The EU does not wield power in military, economic, and sociopolitical affairs on a global scale; only the United States does. Prognosticating aside, the EU has no military, a budget 1% as large as its combined economies, and its status is still ambiguous given that the Lisbon treaty must still be approved by the Poles and Czechs. It might become one someday, but we may all go up in flames before that happens, and I'm sure there is content more deserving in such an article than a paragraph-long weather forecast. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the beauty of the word "postmodern" (sarcasm intended) - by adding postmodern to superpower you suddenly don't need any military or sociopolitical power to be a "postmodern" superpower (whatever that is). Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:) Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

@BD: The EU DOES wield power in military, economic, and sociopolitical affair on a global level. That is common knowledge by now ! EU Military actions : European Union’s geopolitical footprint Global influence: Danish ambassador to US (Oct/2008) The European Union as a Rising Superpower. For the time being though, I won´t support any image or graphic to underline a superpower claim. Lear 21 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A superpower must wield exceptional soft and hard power on a global scale. The EU has no military of its own, and the structures currently in place are loose at best, more subsumed within NATO. (Also, neutrality aside, only the forum link mentions anything about it being an aspiring superpower.) The EU may have elements of the other characteristics, but it cannot reasonably be a superpower until it has at least that characteristic and (as it were) gets its act together. For the time being, only one entity fits the bill -- the US -- and others come closer with such a claim than the EU (e.g., Russia). Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "only the forum link mentions anything about it being an aspiring superpower". The article has at least three references that mention something about the EU being a superpower (without necessarily claiming that the EU is a superpower. --Boson (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: of the two links lear provided, I see no mention of 'superpower' in the European Geostrategy link provided, at least at a glance; I am cognizant of linked-to content in the article itself. Nonetheless, I defer to prior commentary: I am simply saying that too much is devoted in the article (yes, even if it's a paragraph) to a notion that is uncertain. EU boosterism notwithstanding, this thread can't really go much further. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Can the definition be changed to mention that it is (primarily) a Continental union ? This can also be done via a link; eg in the form: The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe.

Economic may also be linked (eg to Economic and monetary union)

thanks, 87.66.60.118 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Continental union is to my knowledge not a very common phrase; and I would say no to framing the EU in its definition/lede as such. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Continental union means absolutely nothing, in terms of the EU's composition, governance, background or anything. Besides, the EU doesn't even cover a whole continent, especially when one considers that Europe isn't a continent.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Geography students aside, I think the school of thought stating that Europe is not a continent is not a very large one, most would of course consider Europe a continent - however there are still a number of significant countries within Europe outside the EU so at this stage the phrase "continental union" is not of much use I'd say. For me its clear that eventually, assuming two speed Europe doesnt end up happening, that the whole of Europe will eventually join, but for now definitely continental union would probably be if anything misleading. --Simonski (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Geography as a topic aside, I would only agree to name it a "continental union" if that is a generally recognised, specific and accepted term to identify such unions. As this does not appear to be the case I would not link it to that. Arnoutf (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with last three comments Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Subsidiarity

I tend to agree that the principle of subsidiarity is too detailed to be in the intro, but it now doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. I would suggest mentioning it briefly where supremacy is mentioned, under the heading 'Legal system'. It also doesn't seem to be discussed at Law of the European Union. I would suggest discussing it in more detail there, under the heading Law of the European Union#EU legal principles. It might even be worth making a separate article out of Subsidiarity#European Union Law and making that a sub-article of European Union law. This could include a discussion of Protocol 30 and the different opinions on the meaning of the principle of subsidiarity and excluxive competence.--Boson (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was mentioned previously in the Legal system section so somebody must have removed it, rather foolishly I should add. Subsidiarity may be a concept used sparingly in EU governance and law but it was mentioned again in quite a significant ECJ judgment recently which highlighted its continuing importance. I'm not certain it should be in the lead but it should definitely be reinserted alongside the concept of Supremacy as it is a key concept in EU law and one that will be further developed over time. See for the recent case -http://eulaw.typepad.com/eulawblog/2009/09/index.html --Simonski (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sui generis

It would help if certain editors did not remove this phrase which has been consistently deemed relevant to the article lead. In addition, sui generis does not mean "unique kind" and is instead a term used in any walk of life to basically say something does not fall within commonly used definitions. I can understand anonymous editors trying to change this but for editors who have even been shot down on the matter in previous discussions to try it is a bit of a joke. Stop wasting everybody's time. --Simonski (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to use an obscure latin term when there is a straightforwards English equivalent. You write that "sui generis" means that it "does not fall within commonly used definitions". Well that could exactly be summed up to "of a unique kind" or "of its own kind" - we don't need Latin here. Laurent (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If we were really trying hard to discourage people from reading the article, an obscure legal latinism in the lede is a good way to go about it. My dictionary translates the (non-English) term sui generis as "a unique kind", so that's waht we should use. --Red King (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with using common terms: as Orwell pointed out, do not use an esoteric term when a generic one will do. Besides, 'unique kind' links to ' sui generis ' and the latter term is already in the infobox: it is certainly NOT commonly used, nor is Wikipedia a 'formal' environment like, say, a treaty. This is not a specialist resource, and should not read like one. At this juncture, repetition and superfluous language is also invoking another Latin phrase from within me: ad nauseam. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My Chambers Dictionary, which is English (or Scottish), defines "sui generis", which was indeed originally a Latin expression, as "the only one of its kind". "Of a unique kind" means something different, if it means anything (the category is no more unique than any other category, but it has only one member). The next entry is "suicide"(also of Latin origin), which the dictionary defines as "the act of killing oneself intentionally" but that does not mean we have to replace the word "suicide". Sometimes it may be better to use a less specific term, but sometimes it is better to use le mot juste. --Boson (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe in this situation what the dictionary says is irrelevant as are the points above. When discussing International organisations, sui generis is a commonly used term and to argue otherwise suggests a lack of knowledge on the subject, its as simple as that I'm afraid. So it basically falls down to whether we are going to use the correct terminology relating to international organisations or if we are going to dumb it down for the sake of a few editors who have just popped up out of nowhere after what has now been a number of years using the term sui generis in the lead. If an individual is confused as to what sui generis means, they may click the link to the sui generis page. In my view (and I note from recent reverts that I am not alone) not only is it unwise to use the term "unique kind" instead of sui generis, the actual wording unique kind makes the lead read in rather amateurish fashion. --Simonski (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it's necessary to imply that other editors are ignorant, amateur or are trying to dumb down the article by using English instead of Latin. Frankly, if I skip all the implicit and explicit personal attacks in your post, there's not much remaining. "Sui generis" may be frequently used in international law but I think that's irrelevant here because we are not writing for lawyers, nor are we writing formal legal documents. We should use a language accessible to everyone whenever possible, and in that case it is possible. Laurent (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that we're writing for everyone. We're writing for persons that have a high degree of competency in English. The Simple English Wikipedia is written for everyone. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 12:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would second that point, and add that the discussion area of international organisations is not limited to lawyers. You will find the term used in any relatively sophisticated discussion of current affairs. This is an encyclopedia for goodness sake. The link to the sui generis page, as I have pointed out, is particularly accessible to everyone and that should settle matters. If, indeed as Blue Haired seems to have done, you do not want to use the term sui generis then the only acceptable compromise I can forsee is to remove the term completely (ie. not try to reword it clumsily) and keep the "mix of supranational and intergovernmental" sentence - this latter part would have to remain in its current form and not, as I'm guessing you'd also like, to be dumbed down for Joe the plumber and co. --Simonski (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with English terms. I only have a problem with pointless usage of Latin ones. Laurent (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Certain terms are taken from other languages and are used in certain instances, i.e. de facto, savoir faire. There is no "widely used" term with which one could replace sui generis. Previous attemps at the implementation of another expression have simply been either literal tranlation of the latin or a descriptive translation. I propose that either we find a suitable, commonly used English term or we keep the latin expression. As the expression goes "Do not fix that which is not broken". --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 15:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the references and notation which Blue-Haired Lawyer blanked that clearly refer to the EU as an international organisation (which all three references do, in some fashion): they were originally added more to corroborate that point, not so much that it is an organisation of a unique kind (which two of the three references do). We may debate about whether to use clear or cryptic language in describing its unique nature, but that's another issue. As for which 'widely used' term can be used in lieu of sui generis, the prior version was satisfactory and, what's more, linked to the Latin term -- do we need to source a dicdef for that? The point is we shouldn't have to: again, ad nauseam over two/few words. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the current version is fine and removes any point of debate. Laurent your claim that the use of sui generis is "pointless" is slightly contradictory though given the fact that your "unique kind" phrase linked to the page for the latin phrase. If it was such a pointless term of no importance why have a link lead directly to it? Regardless, I'm not convinced you're in much of a position to comment that the phrase is pointless given the numerous editors before you (who actually know a fair bit on the subject of the EU or have worked on the page for some time) who were happy with/argued for its inclusion. Maybe best to move on and tamper with another article where you can be of more use? --Simonski (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the article history before making yet another pointless comment. I did not add this link to the "sui generis" article and would have rather removed it. Also from this discussion it's rather clear that there's no consensus for the inclusion of this term. Get over it. Laurent (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure where the incivility is coming from, but said editors better shape up and take a quick course in manners or matters will escalate. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try Laurent, but only if you agree to cease being a philistine and get over the use of latin within the English language. --Simonski (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I guess Orwell and Boileau were philistine too then, since they were both promoting clear language. Sorry but yes I think we should avoid using Latin and obscure words whenever possible. We are writing for a reasonably educated audience, but still not for specialists. Laurent (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sticking my two cent in with using an English word rather than a Latin. Although the term is used in English, and frequently applied to the European Union, it is not in mainstream usage as other Latin phrases are and as we are educating people on the EU through this article, they may well not have heard the term before unlike those of us who have heard it used for the EU before. This article should be understood by the vast majority (which covers most other technical terms used) without recourse to a dictionary. As there is no accuracy gained by speaking in Latin over English, I strongly support a change in the phrase to the English translation.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To save some time and avoid us going round in circles then I'll just say again that despite no doubt being seen as being unreasonable here, I have been happy to compromise in the end in not having the phrase in at all. I would heavily oppose the phrase being kept in with English wording. As I was not the only person to want to keep sui generis in during this debate we can either take the current version at the time of writing as the compromise or we can just go round in circles here with the Wikipedia consensus rules. I'm quite happy to do a Lear here if necessary. --Simonski (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m a friend of the sui generis term. BUT, experience has revealed, the term has caused reemerging discussions which in the end can´t satisfy all parties. To me "international organization of a unique kind" sounds neither elegant nor professional. I amended the wording a little therefore to preserve the sui generis character. Hope this settles something. Lear 21 (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This reads fine to me -- thanks! Barring concurrence from other editors, it appears that someone who above wanted to emulate you may now have only himself to play with. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic just because Ile isn't posting his responses as frequently as the rest of us does not mean his views suddenly become irrelevant, as much as you'd no doubt like that to be the case. I've changed the intro back to the wording I said I was happy with and will hold this as the position I'm happy to compromise to if we're not having sui generis. Of course Lear's edit would have read fine to you - it was practically the exact same as you had proposed in the first place, minus the word "kind". Perhaps you need to brush up on the definition of compromise. If not, then I've no qualms in saying I'll pull a Lear. It worked for him and I have no doubt it will work for me. --Simonski (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient input, as yet. Lear's edit appears to me to be more conciliatory than anything you can and have put forth, and (though I've had challenges with the editor) your reference to "pulling a Lear" is as condescending as most of your commentary in general. You can continue to pull whatever by yourself; I await more useful commentary from others. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic you can wait for whatever you want, just be aware of the Wikipedia rules on consensus and the fact that one editor who feels particularly strongly about something cannot be brushed aside as you'd like to think. If I wanted to truly channel the old spirit of Lear (I assume from you not getting the Lear references that you have not been around where a point is being debated which Lear feels strongly on) I could just keep putting in the sui generis phrase until everybody got sick of me and gave in like has been done with editors such as Lear, Sandpiper etc in the past. You should be thankful that I am instead being reasonable and seeking a halfway. Like I said, I'm not going to accept anything else so you can either keep this straightforward or cause unnecessary problems. --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your verbiage has been read. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead is actually supposed to introduce and summarize the rest of the article, but I cannot find the details of this in the article. Perhaps it would in fact be better to go into more detail of the sui generis nature of the EU in the body of the article, where it would be possible to explain what is meant by sui generis in relation to the EU. In the body of the article, explanations can be less concise, which might also make it easier to avoid any NPOV problems with the word unique.--Boson (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Boson has a good solution, with a discussion of it in the main body of the article. I don't want to cause a riot, but why is it acceptable to use "sui generis" in the info box to describe "Government" of the EU, but not in the lead? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Lwxrm (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion later in the article seems worthwhile, though I'm curious what form that would take.

As well, why is this phrase included in the infobox at all, and as a descriptor of its form of government no less? Some would say the EU, as an atypical non-state actor, has no government as such but merely an administration. If the term is suppressed from the lead, then it has no place in the infobox ... particularly without a source supporting that. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always been in favour of having as little info in the infobox as possible which I have always felt has followed too closely the country article template. You could argue either way though that the EU has a government. Has it not a system of governance? I think its easy to argue that it does hence its one of the infobox points that hasnt raised much discussion in recent times (indeed there are studies dedicated to "EU Governance and Law" etc). If the info is being kept I would refer to my points already made re: the lead. I for one would not be fussed if the government section of the infobox was taken out but its the sort of thing that will probably keep getting reinserted and the consensus will keep shifting on depending what editor is making the most noise at any given time. --Simonski (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to start a discussion etc but a system of governance does not lead in any way to a finding of government. They are not the same...My point was simply if we are removing sui generis from the article lead, it should probably be removed from the infobox Lwxrm (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear of a minimalist approach. At this point, it would be great to expand upon the EU's 'unique' nature later in the article. While I believe that content in the lead is currently fine, I still maintain that English should be used in place of Latin for common folk, at least in the lead but perhaps not down below.

As well, per Lwxrm, just because an entity has a system of governance does not mean it has a government: one hears of corporate governance all the time (e.g., board of directors). Anyhow, in all of our talk, there have been many mentions of the EU (indisputably) being a "sui generis entity" of some sort (organisation or union), but I have yet to see a citation indicating it has a "sui generis government." And, a consensus to keep information without an apparent cited basis isn't one at all. So, it is my hope that someone will provide such a reference soon, or I will be compelled to strike that line from the infobox. (And the above commentator appears to agree in principle with that.) Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sui generis simply because it possesses a unique system of goverment. Bosnic Dressing, I'm of the opninion that you simply want to click the edit button rather than contributing. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then provide a source to support the assertion: if you can't, it doesn't belong here. You will note that I added and sourced the 'sui generis' notion (related to it being an international organisation) in the article recently. I defer to prior comments. And, given the above, I am increasingly of the opinion that yours means little. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My sports club has a written constitution [as distinct from the rules of the sport] and a committee that administers it: it has a system of governance. It is certainly not a government. --Red King (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, however I fail to see the relevence between the rules of a sports club and those of an international body. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was arguing that the mere fact that an association (whether of sports club members, political party members or of nations) has a form of governance cannot be taken to mean that it has a government. Unless a government is formally established by plebicite, treaty or force of arms, it does not exist. What does exist is a committee and a secretariat, possibly with a delegate assembly. So for the infobox to say "Goverment - sui generis" is at best weasel wording and at worst untrue. It should say "Government - (none)" and "Governace - sui generis". --Red King (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the EU has a government is another discussion entirely. One could argue that it does, it has a head of state (The rotating EU president), a form a legal system and has an elected parliament consisting of political parties elected by citizens. If that does not satisfy the requirements of a government, then what does it need? And the system of government does not fit into the usual catagories, so it is sui generis. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed (in ToL) President is only that of the European Council [of Heads of Government]. She will not be 'President of the EU' and certainly not 'Head of State'. Also, the Parliament is seriously constrained: anything of significance is de facto decided by the Council. --Red King (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"She"? There's only been one woman of significance linked with the position - I think you'll find the rest of the supposed candidates are male and that the first EU President (which is, lets be frank, what this position is going to be in effect with the Council probably becoming more dominant) will be a "he". As much as I would absolutely love to be wrong here I think Ile's points are too hard to refute and that the EU does indeed have a form of government, that form of government being sui generis, or should I say, of a unique nature. On the other hand, it is perhaps too contentious a point/unverifiable to be included in the infobox. As I said at the outset, this is a difficult point of discussion. --Simonski (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we would really be losing anything if we removed the sui generis from the infobox, but I think it should be used in the text (where it can, if necessary, be explained). --Boson (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Table of member countries

It would be great to see an easy-to-skim table of member countries, join dates/years, and a few other data points like this. I'll start working on one unless I just didn't see it? Peaceduck (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple list of members appears in the infobox, expandable under 'Member States'; added detail appears at the linked-to article there. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Benelux Part 2

This is continued from Talk:European Union/Archive 23#Benelux. I still think tracing the European Community only as far back as the European Coal and Steel Community ignores the historic importance its predecessor, Benelux, and Benelux's 1921 predecessor, the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union. Besides that, it is statistically impossible that six separate entities would miraculously somehow come up with the idea simultaneously to all cede even that little bit of sovereignty without having any idea that such a thing could work or how. According to http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Benelux , Benelux was so important that a specific clause about it was even included in the EC Treaty and this survives in the European Constitution as Article IV-441.

You are right about The CIA World Factbook though. The one I was referring to I downloaded at the beginning of the decade and Benelux is not mentioned with the same gravity in the current version.

A more mathematically satisfying and historically accurate model is an organic growth pattern catalyzed by the World Wars. Belgium and Luxembourg nucleated the process that lead to the EU, not by following the path that formed the Kalmar Union or the United Kingdom, having personal unions under a single monarch, but by trying to overcome having been two small states recently devastated between France and Germany in WWI. Easily uniting with a shared usage of French/Walloon, this functioned well enough during the interwar period that in the face of the uncertain future of WWII, the shared usage of Dutch/Flemish facilitated the Netherlands also joining. The success of Benelux even after the war then helped encourage other nations to follow the inspired visions of people like Robert Schuman. The Benelux Customs Union seeded the EC through the ECSC and the Benelux Parliament seeded the European Parliament through the EC.

I realize that this may not be coming across clearly and I have only put up one reference as of yet but I think the valour of Belgium and Luxembourg and then the Netherlands should not be forgotten or overshadowed by the larger countries of France, Germany, and Italy just because their vast neighbours have been able to write more history. :)--Thecurran (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be put under Pre-1945 ideas on European unity and History of the European Communities (1945-1957). If here, then no more as a mention that it gave an example or inspiration but it is not like the ECSC. ECSC has continuity with the EU as it was part of the same drive and integrated into it. Benelux still exists as a totally separate union with independent membership. ECSC shared some institutions from 1957, all institutions from 1967 and was absorbed in 2002 with identical membership for all that period to the EEC/EU and Euratom. Due to the continuity, that is why ECSC is mentioned in the manner in which it is, rather than Benelux which does not have the same strong ties (though a weaker mention in the history section can't hurt if it were to be on a par with other issues but it seems to me it is not as notable as other issues which are not covered.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Primarily in Europe

I know that this has been discussed before but...

I don't deny that the EU is "primarily in Europe" or disagree with that statement accuracy, but do we really need to say it at all? Other than Cyprus, whose status is disputable, the parts of the EU outside Europe are all fairly small and insignificant. While special territories is something we like to fret about on Wikipedia, they don't count for much in the real world. Let's discuss them in the Geography section and omit "primarily in Europe" from the lead. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to discuss this again or change this as yet. Like it or not, reckonings of what comprises Europe do vary, particularly with regard to peripheral territories like Cyprus. Even the UK (particularly by locals) is sometimes not considered part of 'Europe'. And, French Guiana (part of France) is definitely not located in Europe. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not much discussion about what Europe is, we all agree that the status of Cyprus is disputable. All other countries of the EU have their focus within Europe (without discussion). The issues is whether overseas domains (French Guiana, are sufficiently relevant to give reference in the lede as they amount to at most 1% of the population of the EU (see: Special Member State territories and the European Union).

As the lede is an extreme summary, the question whether this issue deserves attention in the lede is justified in my view (while it is clear it should be discussed in the main text).

I have no strong feelings about this myself. I would suggest to leave it in, but really don't care much. Arnoutf (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does merit retention in the lead. Consult the United States as an example: states and territories outside the contiguous (even continental) US comprise about 1% of the country's population (even more of its area), yet they are noted in the lead. The EU, in this respect, is little different ... and we're dealing with even more summation in this article, like one or two words at worst. And, as is apparent, there can be and is significant discussion about what 'Europe' is. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon: implications for this article

I think it's fairly safe to say that the Lisbon Treaty will shortly come into force. If and when this happens, the treaty will establish a new European Union, replacing the old European Union and the European Community. As a result the Union will actually be founded on 1 January 2010 (or thereabouts). This makes it quite difficult to decide when the EU was founded: do we say 1958, 1993 or 2010? I think the simplest solution would be to return to the approach of saying that the EU traces its origins from the EEC and the ECSC, without mentioning either 1993 or 2010 in the lead.

We'll also have to remove the paragraph discussing the pillars, but this can be done without any side effects. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There will be a lot of wiki-wide editing in regards to pillars, but exactly what constitutes a new European Union? Why this treaty and not the previous ones, are we just talking about legal identity? It may be misleading if we start saying it was established in 2010, it would be like saying France in 1958 - while that could be technically correct in this situation it would be rather confusing without clarification that would only be appropriate in a more specific article.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It may well be a legal technicality but it is no more technical than saying that the European Union was founded in 1993. There are after all a fair number of sources which just say that the EEC was renamed in 1993. The only real difference between 1993 and 2010 is that the name changed in the latter year but will not be changed in the former. If Lisbon had named the EU the USoE, but otherwise been the exact same text, would it found a new entity or rename an old one?

Fyi, Article 1, paragraph 3 of the TEU (as it would be post-Lisbon) will refound the EU. It says:

"The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaties”). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community."

This is confirmed by the recently enacted Article 29.4.5° of the Irish Constitution:

"The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007 ("Treaty of Lisbon"), and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty."

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you can say the EEC was renamed in 1993, though equally it can be distinguished through the expansion of policy areas which does not take place under Lisbon. Furthermore, I think the name is of high value when we are talking about the lead as that is basic information. But to the articles you quote, I'm no lawyer but it doesn't look like an explicit statement of refounding in itself. For instance "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community" - we already have a union and that is taking over the EC in the manner in which the EC took over the ECSC without it refounding the EC. In terms of the first part, isn't that a legal neccesity and also, in some form, exists from Maastricht. It is not Lisbon itself saying it is founding it, merely changing the wording of the treaty which did so and that wording does not suddenly become past tense post-enforcement. Though I'm no lawyer nut regardless I'm not sure if it will be seen at all as a new EU (without any way to distinguish - such as first republic/second republic) and thus if it would help us at all in the lead.- _J.Logan`^t: 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Abusive restriction of content in the sport section

The sport section is not restricted to the "sport policy" in the EU. The article is about the EU which is composed of 27 European states. The mention of the existence of a European team in some competition which uses the European flag to represent themselves is clearly a relevant information for people interested in how sport is represented at the European level. If some think that it is necessary to mention that these teams are not formally teams of the European Union per se and may some times external countries, fine. However suppressing this mention is occulting one dimension of sport in the European Union which is of interest for the readers of this section. Gpeilon (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You say it yourself -

1) "The mention of the existence of a European team in some competition which uses the European flag to represent themselves is clearly a relevant information for people interested in how sport is represented at the European level." - Following this argument you should add the relevant information at the European level i.e. at the Europe article. You give no argument why this information should be in a sub-set of Europe (the EU article).

2) You say "in the European Union" not "of the European Union". This shows you acknowledge these teams are indeed not part of the EU; and hence only more or less coincidentally of importance to some in the EU.

That leaves your final argument that Europe related sports is interesting for citizens in the European Union. However, that is a fundamentally flawed argument as that opens up to include any trivia related to anything of relevance to people in the EU to be added to this article (which is probably the complete content of Wikipedia). Arnoutf (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf here, if anything it is relevant to Europe, not EU. The inclusion of sport here seems more like an attempt to give it more the trappings of nation articles than is realistic.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Logan and Arnoutf you agreed that information on the membership of EU countries to NATO may be accepted in the article (though not in the lead). So why the participation of EU countries in a European team is not valid in the sport section? Preserving information is a major principle of the guidelines of editing in Wikipedia. There is no strong case to remove this info here. Preventing this info to be in this section is abusively limiting the scope of this article. The repetitive deleting of this info while there is a disagreement on this question is also against the guideline of Wikipedia. In case of disagreement, discuss first.Gpeilon (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf and JLogan: the EU is distinct from Europe and from its members. That doesn't mean that only policy is relevant. If someone forms a European Union cricket team and calls it "Team EU" that might be relevant; it might even be notable enough to be included. I don't think it is very helpful to call removal of information deemed to be irrelevant "abusive" and repeatedly re-add it. --Boson (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, my personal opinion is that NATO membership has no place in this article. Nevertheless NATO is just a little bit more important than team Europe (e.g. nobody has died while in team Europe); therefore I can accept a compromise there.

To go with Boson, while you accuse us of "abusively" limiting the scope of the article, I could (with even more justification) have said that you suggest to ridiculously expand the article (I chose to phrase that a bit more politely). Content wise, please read WP:NOT before you accuse us of restrictions. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Gpeilon, NATO is of extreme geopolitical importance to the EU and influences the EU's role and development (relationship/division of labour between NATO, ESDP and WEU for example). A sporting team is not quite on the same level and it has no relation to the EU. I agree with the above, it there were EU teams then that would be different, but we have Team Europes, not team EUs.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As this discussion shows, while the inclusion of the European Team is debatable, it is hardly "ridiculous" in the sport section. One of the principles of Wikipedia is the preservation of information. Also, in case of disagreement we should discuss as there is no deadline. I thought the suppression was "abusive" as it was definitely not a minor edit and those who did it did not discuss it on the talk page, even after I revert the suppression. Never mind. As Wikipedia is also about compromise, I take your point about the fact that the addition should be about sport team representing the EU, and make this point clear. So here is a suggestion for a point on this question, which will be of interest for those looking at the topic sport in the EU article:

"In sport competitions, member countries field separate teams. In 2007, an EU team was fielded in a match against Manchester United to celebrate the 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The President of the European Council Janez Janša later suggested, in 2008, that such an EU team could play more regularly in symbolical matches. More generally, in some competitions a European team is fielded and use the European flag, like in the Ryder Cup (even if the European countries involved are not always strictly from the EU)."

Is this information irrelevant for the section "sport" of the EU article? I think there is here some relevant information. Your views are welcome and I hope we can work to improve this point together.Gpeilon (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed irrelevant to the EU article. If it were to belong anywhere it might be in Sport in Europe. EU#Sport links to Sport policies of the European Union which makes the extent (or not) of EU involvement reasonably clear. David Biddulph (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is "sport" in the EU, not "sport policies". It links to Sport in Europe and Sport policies of the European Union (just look at it). Until recently, where somebody removed a large part of the section. The section was talking of the UEFA and the relationship between member countries and sports bodies in Europe. I am interested in the opinion of Arnoutf and Boson who pointed to the idea that if an information was to be included it would have to be on an "EU team". I think the proposition I made meet this criterion and their opinion about the best way to improve this section is most welcome. Gpeilon (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to return this section to its previous consensus and for Gpeilon you to drop this issue as you clearly in the minority here. Nobody agrees that the content you were inserting is related or relevant to the EU. As other editors have pointed out to you, do not confuse sport in Europe with involvement of the EU in sport. We debated this a long time ago, and even Lear seemed to give way on the point that UEFA and co have nothing to do with the EU. Please consider improving the article in other ways than trying to insert this information which no other editors appear to be interested in.

Either way, the paragraph you quote represents a particular point of view and therefore would contravene the Wikipedia rules on POV. I will continue to strongly oppose any extra unnecessary content being added to this section and would oppose any change to the version we agreed in our last consensus with SSJ and Lear which followed an incredibly lengthy debate which I don't intend to go through again. Can somebody just link Gpeilon to the last discussion on this issue and we can focus on other things instead? --Simonski (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Little to add to that besides the policy that Wikipedia is not a listing of all possible details. Note that this linked core policy is the opposite of the argument by Gpeilon that "One of the principles of Wikipedia is the preservation of information". So I am interested in the Wikipolicy that supports Gpeilons idea, and its implementation (nobody is against the information being somewhere on Wikipedia, just not here). Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic and political union

I don't think "political union" should be linked. An economic and political union is quite different from a political union as defined in the linked article (i.e. a compound noun referring to a state formed from the union of two or more countries). Linking to political union is equivalent to stating that the EU is a "political union" as defined in the article, which would require a reliable source indicating that the EU is a state. Linking "political union in this context would be misleading, somewhat like "black and white horse".--Boson (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is gibberish, not to mention a logical fallacy: does such a union imply a state? And, which sort of state, merely a sovereign one, or a set of institutions with authority? A polity (or political entity) needn't be a sovereign state. We have an article on 'political union' (which is in need of update) and the EU is described as such in a number of sources -- there is, unquestionably, a degree of political unification among the members into some sort of organisation, hence it being the European Union. It is also noted as an economic union, which directs to 'single market' -- do you also deny this? If we can't link to the respective articles and the terms are possibly misleading in this context -- i.e., the lead of this article -- then why even note it as such in the lead? Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking economic union to single market counts as an Easter egg link. Wikipedia's article on political unions describes a very different arrangement to what people mean when they use the words to describe the EU. We would need to write an entirely new article called Political union (European Union). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems I am not the one hunting for eggs that aren't there. The fallacy continues: 'economic union' redirects to 'single market'. As well, the EU is insufficient to merit such an article, given that the various terms equitably (arguably) describe what it is; in fact, such an article would constitute a POV fork and I would nominate for deletion as such. Regardless, you are drawing inferences about what a such a union is without regard to other meanings and without citation. Perhaps something else needs to be linked to. Or, per prior discussion, maybe the lead should instead describe the EU as something else: polity, organisation, entity, association. But to delink those terms for stated reasons, plus the illogic of not linking to verbatim articles, is hogwash. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bosonic dressing, I hope linking political union isn't your way of making a WP:POINT, because it certainly looks like that. If you think we should use other words to describe the EU, make your case. Don't just make links that don't make sense and won't help readers.
• This article says that the EU is a "political union". This does not count as original research as the ref is sourced. But Wikipedia's article on political unions say that a political union is a state. linking political union implies that we believe the EU is a state. Now that is original research.
• It is not hypocritical to believe that words have different meaning in different circumstances. Have you ever read a dictionary? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are in fact a lawyer (I don't care either way), I am perplexed why you continue with the illogic of equating a such a union with a sovereign state. In fact, I made a prior case to change the lead, but others preferred the current wording: it is ironic that I am defending links in the lead for words that I do not favour. I didn't link those items in the lead (at least initially), so someone else appears to be making a point, no more so than the various publications that describe it as such a union. To not link the terms, as you propose, is rather circuitous: an absence of links makes even less sense and is disadvantageous to users. Wikipedia's article on the topic, nonetheless, is unsourced and in need of revamping. And, yes, I have read a dictionary; have you? If so, practice what you preach. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are making a WP:POINT then! I don't agree with the wording either but I'm apparently not so keen to play games as you are. As is plainly obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The first sentence of Wikipedia's article on political unions says: "A political union is a type of state which is composed of or created out of smaller states." I'm not equating the EU with a sovereign state! You are! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me: I am not playing games, and have other better things to do than to waste my time quibbling minutiae with you. I challenge the illogic of not linking terms to a verbatim article on the topic. (Please consult the talk page history: the beginning of the 3rd paragraph reflects my stance on the issue.) I am no more making a point than you are in drawing an erroneous conclusion with little sensible basis and wasting our collective time. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could this not be sort by swapping the word order to get rid of "political union". "The EU is a political and economic union". If there is a desire for links then perhaps linking to the section on the details in this article would suffice. Failing that link economic to economics and political to politics surely that can't be argued with (except as superfluous) Scroggie (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a word swap, but linking as such would still beg the question as to why 'union' is unlinked ... and I'm sure there would be objection to simply linking it to 'union', which is currently a lengthy disambiguation page. There is an article about 'supranational union' which the entire phrase can be linked to, but I'm unsure of the authority/legitimacy of that term. Bosonic dressing (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Supranational union is hardly a commonly used term and appear to have been invented by a group of academics solely for the purposes of describing the EU. My main objection was always with the word union itself. No matter how often the might be used, it doesn't really mean anything. The EU decided to adopt it as a name but that shouldn't mean we have to use it as a description. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I support the revised wording, but do not be surprised if you are reverted by others, since it may go against the consensus established or iterated to date -- see here. And it still avoids the linking issue. Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that the EU is an association of sovereign states. It is clarly not a political union as defined in the wikipedia article of that name - just because a citation uses the same words does not mean that they have the same meaning. Its powers are exclusively those that the member states have delegated to it: it has no authorities beyond those which its members have declared by treaty that it can have. --Red King (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me regarding what it should be described as. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I completely agree with the comments of Blue Haired Lawyer and share his take on matters here. --Simonski (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All fine and good, but I would like to point out the apparent hypocrisy in your behaviour: per link above, "I would oppose any changes to the lead as I think the way it was was absolutely fine and am not convinced by any of the arguments raised." If the argument above was any more or less convincing than prior protracted discussion (and I'd like to point out that I originally provided the Oxford ref), then certain editors are definitely fickle and fairweather. Y'all can play games; I'm truly done with this issue Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The present Oxford Dictionary of English uses the term "union". The reference previously given was older, 2001. It does not give a justification to change the previous presentation using the term "union". Incidentally, the EU is also described as a "political union" in the CIA World factbook .Gpeilon (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about which issue of the OED, or which other 3rd party publication to use, I've used the EU's own words: "economic and political partnership" David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic, not convinced by any of the arguments you raised in the previous debate, yes - Blue Haired's were on the other hand correct and well informed. Not much I can do about that. --Simonski (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh: I'm sure. You haven't really done much to begin with, and zero times zero is that. Anyhow, play amongst yourselves. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue Haired why do you impose (while asking to go on talk before doing any change) the term "association"? You use an American dictionary from 2005 while the reference I gave from the online Oxford English dictionary (updated in 2009) uses the term "union". As I said, the CIA Worldfact book also use the term union. I don't see why this term association should be used rather than union. There is clearly not strong external evidence. If you don't like union, and if this term is not favored by other editors, if anything we should use "partnership" which was written on the EU website. To be honest, I think there should a serious debate on this question as I feel that some may have an aversion to the term "union" because of a fear of a "super state". Though the fact is that the EU includes the term "Union" and if the Wikipedia page opt for a different term there must be a strong case. It is true that it is not because it is written "Union" in EU that it is a "political union", though the wording "economic and political union" is a bit more fuzzy. Even the term "political union" is fuzzy and on this point it is the Wikipedia page Political union which is faulty by being too restrictive.

If we want to opt for a term different from union (which was the long term choice on this page and which seem the default one given the name of the EU), there need to be a proper discussion using external sources, like academic and legal text discussing the best way to describe the political link between the different countries. For the moment I will put back "union" with the OED reference. Gpeilon (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I should make a simpler case. It is clear that the EU is not just about the economy, it has political institutions and foster joint positions from the individual governments. In addition it is officially a "union" as it is what all the member decided to call it when they chose the term union rather than "community". Now nobody here says that writing "economic and political union" means that it is a supranational state. The term "union" is a normal default. If there is a disagreement over this because some fear that it is giving a false impression of a kind of federal state, then that could be precised in the lead. If you look at the CIA world fact book it does not hide the difficulty to define the exact institutional nature of the EU. Imposing a term like association does not seem to me a good option. Gpeilon (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I have done some research to help the discussion on this point. As I said above the fact that the notion of "political union" is fuzzy. The economist Paul de Grauwe who worked on the effect of a closer political union on the economy of the EU says:"[there is a] lack of clarity about the meaning of political union. There are many dimensions and many gradations of political union. [...] EU has developed whole set of institutions to which the member states have delegated part of their national sovereignty. [...] The transfer of sovereignty has been very unequal [across different domains]" (excerpt from a talk he gave about the euro in 2008). Otherwise in an interesting review of a series of books on the political nature of the EU, the politist Pollack states: "Complex, multilevel governance. First, and most important, the EU is more than just a forum for intergovernmental bargaining. It is, rather, a complex, multilevel system of policymaking, featuring supranational actors such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice, as well as the intergovernmental Council of Ministers. In this system, the member governments retain the ultimate power to negotiate legislation in the Council of Ministers, but they do so in response to policy proposals from the European Commission, which has the sole right of initiative and hence a key agenda- setting role. The European Parliament, once powerless, has recently received new powers to amend or even veto EU legislation, making it an important institutional actor alongside the council. The European Court of Justice, finally, has gradually built a rule of law in the European Union, establishing the supremacy of EU law over national law as well as the direct effect of EU law in national ju- dicial systems. In short, power in the EU is dispersed among a number of supranational and national institutions, not unlike the U.S. federal system."(The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), p. 1204). Clearly there is not an easy ready made solution to our discussion because of the complex political nature of the EU. It has clearly suprational political institutions, but it is not a state in itself. I think that the fact that the notion of "political union" encompasses a large number of different possible institutional arrangements justifies that we can use it in the lead in the term "an economic and political union" because it does not distort the reality. If anything it is the Wikipedia on Political union which needs to be amended.Gpeilon (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the linking of "political union", I think there should not be link, except if the page Political union is changed as it does not represent the situation of the EU. I don't see any reason why there should be a link as each individual term is clear: economic, political, union. It is a union with a political as well as an economic dimension which is a broad and vague definition. The precise description of how this union works is in the article. Sorry to have been so long. Hope it helps. Gpeilon (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the use of "economic and political union", but the second part of this phrase should not be linked.

This is quite a normal linguistic phenomenon. When an adjective precedes a noun, the two words sometimes retain their normal meanings and sometimes the combination forms a compound noun with a meaning of its own. So "political union" can mean a union of a political nature. If it were really thought that the reader would not understand the normal meaning of these words, it might be appropriate to link to the individual words political and union. Used like this, other adjectives like "economic" can be added, giving a union of an economic and political nature. But, a compound noun (which is what you would expect as the title of a Wikipedia article) can have a meaning of its own: "political union" as a compound noun with its own meaning normally refers to a (sovereign) state, as for instance the United Kingdom of Great Britain, created by the Treaty of Union. Where there are two adjectives joined by 'and' ("economic and political") it is obvious that the compound noun "political union" is not intended. This test to distinguish between composite nominals and compound nouns is described at some length in "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", 2008 (pp 448-451).

Similarly, you would not write "An exhausted and feverish canine is a very tired and hot dog". --Boson (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with this point, nicely supported by a funny Reductio ad absurdum. Gpeilon (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal. We link "economic and political union" to a new specialised article discussing the style of EU integration a comparative perspective. Thereby we keep the phrase and side step the issue of the content of what existing articles we link to by linking these specific terms.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a worthy proposal to solve this issue. There is an important question though. If such a page was to be created, what would be its title? I don't think we should create a page "Economic and political union" to discuss the specific EU institutional nature. The expression "economic and political union" is not a concept in itself. However, I fully agree that a page about the institutional nature of the EU would be welcome. The term "economic and political union" could link to such a page (even if hidden links are not the best). The page European integration is not specific to the EU, and I could not find a more appropriate page. I think that we would have to think carefully to get a relevant title. Gpeilon (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be more useful to say 'political and economic union', to avoid inappropriate wikilinking. The problem is that USA is true political union, but the EU is not. Let's not throw bait to the europhobics. --Red King (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though it stresses more on the word political, while it could be argued that the "union" is more economic than political. Gpeilon (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the term "economic", I think this can be linked to single market as argued above, which is clearly representative of the EU, while this case does not qualify as an easter egg (economic union redirects there), even less so if the terms are reversed. Concerning political union, the reductio ad absurdum is too exagerated: economic and political union can just as well be a shorter way of saying economic union and political union, but I agree that a wikilink is not so straightforward, in most part because of the incompleteness of the Political union article (maybe a section could be added there for the EU). I might add that the European political union is sui generis... uhm, or unique in its kind. Antipastor (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Other opinionating notwithstanding, and I will refrain from commenting on this point hereafter, I generally concur with this comment: the reductio ad absurdum was, itself, absurd as a valid 'illustration' or comparison. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that my example with the hot dog was not especially designed to be absurd, but to illustrate the point talked about in the Cambridge Grammar. It merely happened that "hot dog" was the first term I thought of that was a compound noun written as two words. The difference in meaning between different uses (as a composite nominal and as a compound noun) is less striking with terms like "economic union", but the difference is there. Another test is to use the "and" with two nouns, rather than adjectives, as in "political unions and associations"; if you interpret "political unions" as a compound noun, then you are talking about all associations, not just political ones. It might be possible to interpret "economic and political unions" as shorthand for "economic unions" and "politcial unions" but that would not be normal English usage, in my opinion; and by linking to the current "political union" article we would be enforcing the interpretation of a single state, which would be original research and unsourced (and incorrect). Perhaps a more apt example illustrating the difference between a compound noun and a composite nominal would have been something like "the strong and united states of the North Atlantic alliance - or even "the strong and United States of Europe". --Boson (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in reply to Gpeilon, it would in effect be the main article for the EU section of the European integration page. As for a title, just something like European Union-style integration to get it up and running, and it can be changed once it takes shape while the European integration page could be changed to Regional integration in Europe to distinguish it more.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what about a page called Economic and political integration of the European Union? It is a bit long as a title, but it would be a relevant page to link to "economic and political union". This page could contain the material of the section "EU" of the page European Integration. In addition, it could feature a more general discussion about the specific institutional nature of the EU mixing supranational institutions and inter-governemental cooperation. The page European integration could stay as it stands. Gpeilon (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-participant territories of member states

If I knew the answers, I would write it! I think that the Member states section (or perhaps later?) needs a section on quasi-autonomous [overseas] territories of member states that are not themselves members. For the UK, the list includes the Isle of Man, the Channel Isles and Gibraltar. For Spain, it includes the Canary Isles. For Denmark, Greenland. For Portugal, Madeira?? (guessing). What is the legal context that makes these possible? --Red King (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC) ^

This might be best dealt with by a brief sub-section summarizing and linking to Special member state territories and the European Union.

While we are at it, I suppose we could possibly add headings to make sub-sections for the information on withdrawal and enlargement. That might make it easier for people to find the information. --Boson (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea with the subsections. I think this would really help with respect to the issues raised two sections above. At a first glance, though, it is not obvious to me how to implement this (i.e., which passages to factor out), but this could certainly be solved. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

map

shount north cyprus be in lighter blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the situation is the following: The whole of Cyprus is the member state of the EU. However, EU laws does not extend into Northern Cyprus. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the article

The articles content has not significantly changed throughout the last year. The edits though of unregistered accounts conducting vandalism acts seem to be frequently every day. Could a permanent protection of the article be helpful to avoid this ? all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While personally I would be happy to have all Wikipedia articles semi-protected, this is not what the community decided for - and we would know if consensus had changed on this one. Therefore, this question is somehow relative. How frequent is the vandalism really; does it outnumber constructive IP edits; how sensitive is the content; etc?

I do not really feel that this article is under extreme attack. I did not count, but I guess there are 0 to 5 vandal attack per day, the average anywhere near 1 or 2. It is not a biography of a living person, though highly frequented. According to what I have seen so far, I feel all this is not enough to justify semi-protection. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Lear. The article is stable, there is a community of editors knowledgeable who update it when necessarily. I don't think that it benefits a lot from unregistered accounts who are useful when the topic is new or in rapid evolution. On the other hand there is a strong debate on the EU now, and this leads some unregistered account to make unappropriate changes here and there. So as cost-benefit analysis: I think the protection could be beneficial for the article. There for instance is an anti-EU campaign in British newspapers and this will naturally foster vandalism from some here and there. It is the fate of any article on a controversial issue. And anyway, is it so hard to register? Gpeilon (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of the 900 watchers of the article, I agree with Lear. As Gpeilon says, it is not difficult to register and with 900 people currently watching the article, there must be a broad enough spectrum of opinion to ensure that neutrality is maintained and that the article is developed to cover any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Tomeasy here; justification for (semi)protection is usually based on edit warring, not on long term stability. In any case, the need for protection seems rather low at the moment with many editors following this article, making sure vandalism, or ill-informed edits are reverted almost immediately, while through the divided workload none of these many editors has to spent overmuch time and effort to do so.

So in my view, there is no reason within the Wiki policies to (semi)protect the article at the moment Arnoutf (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection is usually based on frequent vandalism acts and is installed by many of the most read articles. The EU being among the Top 500. I agree with Gpeilon that a cost benefit analysis is rather favoring a semi-protection here. After all it is a mature article which benefits more from being more protected. @Tomeasy: I don´t get your stance. You personally favor semi-protection, but not here? Who other than you can decide? Protection should not be decided on longterm attitudes but on necessity and on current developments. Right now, every day non-sustainable edits are conducted. Lear 21 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I interpret the common agreement within Wikipedia to sparsely protect articles such that it does not apply to the EU article. Personally, I would like to change this policy, but as long as it is in place I comply with it.

Your move is not to change the Wikipedia protection policy, to which I would agree (however, not on the talk page of the EU article). You are arguing that under the current framework, protection of this article is justified. With this, I disagree. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparable articles of the same length, theme, degree of maturity, and visitor frequency are semi protected. These are USA, UK, Canada, Germany, NATO, UN, France and Japan to name only a few. There have been 8 unregistered IP´s in the last 7 days conducting non-sustainable edits. A semi protection seems rather urgent, because this development doesn´t seem to stop. @Tomeasy: I still don´t get it. You are defending a Wikipedia internal recomendation which you are not agreeing with, right? Anyway, please reconsider the stance on the base of current developments and on cost benefit calculations. The article is momentarily under frequent attack. This could be easily avoided and would not harm the stability or future improvements. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not defending the policy, but I want to comply with the rules that bring us together here. Anyway, if again you did not understand yet - drop it - you don't have to.

I do not know about the other examples, but Germany is at much higher vulnerability. You have actually seen that when semi-protection was removed about a month ago. 8 vandals in 7 is nothing there.

But hey, for the reasons mentioned above, I do not want to be the spearhead to resist your motion. So, I will lay back for a while ... Tomeasy _{T C} 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tomeasy. No strong feelings about protection of this article either way, other than that it does not seem to fit with WP at the moment. I will not be involved further as I am basically neutral towards the outcome of this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Though semi-protection would make life easier, I don't think vandalism has reached the level where it is necessary - nothing like the level you get at Germany (whenever it is unprotected), or Treaty of Versailles (when schools in the USA are apparently doing it in History). I think we've had more problems with edit "wars" (more like skirmishes) by registered users, and I don't think we've often got to the level where administrator action would be appropriate. --Boson (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I would support semi-protection here but would admit that it wouldnt be the end of the world if it wasnt granted. I'd also suggest that we again look towards possible FA status for the page if it wasnt for the fact that we would probably not get it again, after all we had some ignoramus last time tell us we were relying too much on the websites of the institutions themselves. Seems we have reached a happy medium with most of the content on the page now anyway, bar the odd issue that arises. --Simonski (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaders

the table for leaders now should read like this;

-  European Council Herman Van Rompuy (EPP)
-  Parliament Jerzy Buzek (EPP) 
-  EU Council Fredrik Reinfeldt(EPP, Sweden)  
-  Commission José Manuel Barroso (EPP)

dont you agree?--Melitikus (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the table for leaders should be changed because in a Press Release from the European Union from November 19, 2009 Announced Herman Van Rompuy (EPP) as the new President of the European Council, and Britain's EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton as high representative for common foreign and security policy. EU Press Release at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/96/323&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

ShanaMcM 12:39, 23 November 2009 (NAEST)

Disagree. Van Rompuy is not going to take office in November. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process ?

The above is a line currently disputed between User:The Spoorne and myself. Since we have both reverted twice on this today, I think, it is necessary to bring this topic to a discussion here, so to avoid anyone is going to violates Wikipedia policies.

My point is that the statement is:

1. not supported by the reference that concludes the sentence
2. as strict as it is not true. Ministers of most national governments of parliamentary democracies are not elected but appointed.

Tomeasy _{T C} 13:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It is a point of view, stated as fact, apparently based on original research, without explicit reasoning. One could also argue that it contradicts the preceding and following sentences. --Boson (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a point of view. They are appointed by democratically elected officials. Even if the European Commission President was directly elected, they would still be nominated by the European Commission President. What is true is that there are concerns about the lack of direct democracy in the nomination of high EU officials like the European Council President and the European Parliament President. However this criticism is often disingenuous as it is often raised by eurosceptics who in the same time oppose more direct democracy because it would increase the power of EU top officials. An interesting analysis on this was made in the paper "To Euro or Not to Euro": "British objections against transferring sovereignty to European supranational institutions are usually justified on grounds of lacking democratic - meaning parliamentary - accountability. That this argument has more to do with collective national identity than with concerns about democracy in Europe becomes obvious when the same British leaders routinely object to strengthening the powers of the European Parliament."

To sum either the article has a serious discussion about the concerns for lack of democracy or not, but the kind of sentence proposed here are implicit and insidious point of view which should be avoided.Gpeilon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spoorne (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)This is the reference upon which I base my comment, it is not even my own reference but the one which already existed in the article:

The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the Member State governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission.

When 500 million people choose one person, this is democracy. When one person chooses someone from 500 million, this is not democracy. It is the opposite. The President may be chosen by democratically elected representatives of the member states, but the commissioners who the President then goes on to choose himself are not. Therefore, the commissioners do not gain their posts through any form of democratic process, they are chosen by the President, who was in turn chosen himself. This is not a point of view, it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spoorne (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see yourself that the sentence you are trying to introduce says something different than the one you are citing? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, there is no contradiction, it is a continuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spoorne (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you that the commission is not elected through direct elections (as your statement "When 500 million people choose one person, this is democracy" seems to ask for).

However the claim that this process in not "any kind of democratic process" is a fallacy.

Following your demand that the people should choose a person, then no prime minister in Europe I know of is chosen through "any kind of democratic process"; nor is in fact the president of the USA. As TomEasy explains above, these people are appointed by someone who has been democratically elected; so are EU commissioners. (PS please sign your posts) Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between EU commissioners and Ministers of democratic parliamentary governments does not bear the simplest scrutiny. Ministers belong to political parties and are directly elected by the citizens of their respective nations, they must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post. So in this system one person who has been directly elected appoints another person who has also been directly elected. EU commissioners, on the other hand, belong to no party, sit in no parliament, and are appointed by a person who was in turn appointed themselves. So I think it is a fair and reasonable comment to make that EU commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process. It is a factual statement, and I see no reason why it should not be included in the article. The Spoorne (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You make several mistakes there. "Ministers ... ... must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post.". This may be true for the UK system, but it is not the case in the Dutch system (and to my knowledge many other European systems), where non MP's can become minister.

"EU commissioners, on the other hand, belong to no party" they tend to belong to parties. For example Dutch commissioner Kroes is member of the VVD and has been nominated by this party for the post (VVD was at the time a government party in the Netherlands)

"a person who was in turn appointed themselves." Commissioners are appointed by the council (or the future EU president - which in turn is elected by the council) and have to be approved by EU parliament. The council consists of (democratically elected) ministers of the members. The parliament is elected by EU citizens.

That leaves exactly none of your counterarguments. PS I agree, there is a lack of transparency in the process, and I would prefer more direct democracy; but having this system with indirect demoacracy is not the same as "not any kind of democratic process". Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ministers belong to political parties and are directly elected by the citizens of their respective nations, they must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post. Just for the record, UK ministers (and even the prime minister) are not directly elected, and they do not have to have been elected as MPs, either. In practice, they normally are, but in practice there is more to the appointment of commissioners, as well.--Boson (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One principle of democracy is the separation of powers. Form that point of view, it is good if ministers are not MPs. From a democracy theoretic aspect, this is a point that always raises criticism that most of the members of the executive are also member of the legislative, in most countries. I am flabbergasted to hear that the personal separation (instead of personal union) of legislative (EU parliament) and executive (EU commission) raises criticism that is disguised as a democracy theoretic criticism.

And yes, most of the commissioners are a member of a political parties. Again, I am surprised to hear that this shall be good from a democracy theoretic aspect. In any case, it is a fact, and your argument wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language problem here, you have all picked out particular snippets from my previous comments without seeing them in their full semantic context, and then pronounced them 'wrong'. I shall try to explain more clearly. When I say that EU commissioners belong to no political party I am talking strictly within the confines of how they gain their posts. Please remember this is the reason why this talk page has been created. When the electorate is aware that a particular candidate is a member of a particular party, then they may cast their vote for that party in order to show support for that candidate. In this context EU commissioners do not belong to a party when they gain their posts. They are chosen by the President of the Commission based upon their perceived abilities, party membership is immaterial.

Under the British system ministers are taken from MPs, these MPs have gained their seats by being a member of a party which the electorate has had a direct opportunity to vote upon. I have never argued on this page that cabinet ministers are voted for directly, (so please stop criticising me for doing so). But as people who represent their citizens they have stood directly before the electorate. The same cannot be said for EU commissioners because they are chosen not elected.

It is fair to say that the President gains his post through a form of democratic process because the Council consists of elected representatives of member states. I agree with you all, this process is akin to how British cabinet ministers gain their posts. But the method by which the 27 Commissioners become commissioners is too far removed to be called democratic – being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens. It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic.

As for the Council and the Parliament conferring any democratic mandate upon the Commissioners when they adopt and accept them after the President has chosen them, this is severely mitigated against because the Council need only agree by qualified majority, and the Parliament is limited to accepting the Commissioners as a job lot – all 27 or nothing. For people who wield such power and perform such an important role within Europe their lack of accountability is nothing short of shocking. It is not a case of lack of transparency of democracy within the system, it is patently a case of lack of democracy.

This is not a matter of being either 'pro-European' or 'anti-European'. Cannot you all see that the political institutions which are carrying forward the work of achieving greater European cooperation are woefully ill equipped to do so with any legitimate mandate? It is surely counter productive to attempt to do so before they put their house in order. This is precisely the concern which the German Constitutional Court recently expressed.[2] The Spoorne (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

'But the method by which the 27 Commissioners become commissioners is too far removed to be called democratic – being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens. It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic. '

Above statement is the core of (what's left of) your arguments. However that statement is (a) not what you previously argued and (b) even worse your remark is utterly invalid as it is at best original research but more likely your subjective opinion; so we are back at the top of this thread but now with evidence from your own statements. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[3] The Spoorne (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that but following the link

The Member State governments agree together on who to designate as the new Commission President.

The Commission President-designate is then approved by Parliament.

The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the Member State governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission.

The Council adopts the list of nominees by qualified majority and communicates it to the European Parliament for approval.

Parliament then interviews each nominee and votes its opinion on the whole team.

Following Parliaments vote of approval, the new Commission is formally appointed by the Council, acting by qualified majority.

Fairly close to the UK system, replace member state government with MP (although a member state government allows for coalition while in the UK one single MP takes it all and is hence probrably a less fair representation of the population). Replace commission president with Prime Minister and Members of the Commission by Minister and there you are. Indirect democracy. Arnoutf (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of expressing a personal opinion when I said that EU Commissioners gain their posts by 'being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens' The link is to the official EU website describing how commissioners become commissioners, it exactly bears out my description.

By the way, your analogy doesn't work.The Spoorne (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim of personal opinion or original research referred to your conclusion "It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic.", which did not, I believe come from the official EU Web site. If I am mistaken, please quote the text containing that claim. Are you conversant with WP:OR? --Boson (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

What Arnout quoted five posts above is also what I understand as the essence of your position: (1) From the objective description of the process, you make the case that the (s)election of the commissioners is very indirect (with respect to the electoral). (2) From your point of view, it is too indirect to be called democratic. (3) This brings you to state that the commissioners "do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process".

Allow me to ask you to review this line of thought with me in view of how we are supposed to work here:

(1) Many would probably understand the process as such. However, this understanding is kind of vague, and our articles are supposed to be factual instead. So, it would be perfectly fine if you added lines describing the indirectness of the process by simply stating facts about the process instead of being judgmental. That's why I asked you in one of the revert comments to stick to the reference where this is done.

With (2) you make a subjective conclusion, i.e., WP:POV. I call it POV, because I might very well agree with you on the first point but, in contrast to you, now claim that the process is not too indirect to be called democratic, because instead I might think that it is still direct enough to be democratic. Or (another option), I might think that indirectness does not harm in a representative democracy. People here also refer to this step as original research, because you derive from a description of a process that this process is undemocratic. While exactly this conclusion is not presented in the reference cited, you think that it is an obvious logical conclusion that is understood without mentioning in the source. Well, the fact that so many people do not agree with you is a clear indication that this logic is not so obvious. Since there are no reliable sources presented for your conclusion it remains your very original/personal thought.

Statement (3) eventually is so strictly formulated that it is not even supported if one followed your line of thought up to this point. I still wonder how you can support it yourself. If you say that the current procedure is "too far removed" from the electoral, than you bring the judgment about democratic or undemocratic to a relative level, i.e., it depends on the degree of directness. If so, than any indirect procedure will still be democratic to certain degree democratic, yet less democratic than a more direct procedure. So your judgmental statement is anything but balanced, but it is one of our core principles to present balanced articles. That's why upon my initial revert I commented that you can't really say that.

I know that I assumed to know a lot about your line of thought. I hope, I am not too far off the mark, and you find yourself a little bit in the steps 1, 2, and 3. If so, try to understand what this means with respect to writing an encyclopedia rather than an opinion piece. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on the principles by which you work here, it is so much more productive than the sometimes rather senseless and personal criticisms which have been leveled against me on this page.The Spoorne (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, with the Spoorne argument, the French PM is not democratically chosen either. He is picked by the President and can be without any prior elected position (and it happened several times). And what about Belgium, where the King has real leeway to chose the PM and is not due to pick the leader of the party who last won the elections? The "undemocratic" criticism is not wholly unfounded as it is for sure questionable how much the preference of the citizens is respected when there are several layers of elections in a democracy. However, stated like it was, it is simplistic and misconceived. Gpeilon (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern about authority of EU commissioners is a very real issue. Spoorn is voicing the point expressed by many European citizens, politicians and insitutions - and you all are giving her/him a hard time. The exact wording is biased and should be changed, agreed, but criticism in thread goes far beyond the wording and expresses biased on both sides. You say the article must be ballanced, so the description of EU institutions should reflect genuin concern about these institutions, and this article has nothing like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludeczka (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The way to put the appointment of commissioners into perspective is to compare the EU process with the US process. In the EU, the government of each member state has the right to appoint one commissioner – in the US secretaries of state (who have the same function as EU commissioners) are appointed by the President. I understand that in both cases they nominations are ratified by a popularly elected body. Martinvl (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your stance Ludeczka, as I said there is a real debate about the democratic nature of the EU institutions and I am not against this debate being mentioned. However it is a complex debate, because formally the EU institutions have a democratic legitimity. The Parliament is elected by the citizens and the Council is formed of democratically designated Head of States. Contrary to what can be heard here and there, the citizens decide, in each country you have pro-federalist or pro-nationalist parties. If all the citizens wanted to form a federation or to leave the EU, they could vote and their views would be respected (a European Council formed of UKIP-like Head of States would decide peacefully to dissolve the Union). The problem however is that this democratic nature is a bit more complex in practice. The question of the problem of having several layers of elections to determine those taking decision is not new in political science. When the leader of a country or organisation is not directly elected by the members/citizens but by a layer of intermediate elected people, it often blurs the debate about the nomination of the final leader and the final choice may reflect not appropriately the preferences of the members/citizens. It is this debate which exists in the EU, with national leaders being designated on national elections where the EU is a minor topic and after make critical decisions in Europe which are not always much debated nationally. There is therefore a real question about the democracy in EU institution. However the simple criticism about the lack of democracy is often simplistic, formally wrong and disingenuous (the same who criticise the lack of democracy in the EU institutions oppose direct election of EU officials). So my point is that a discussion about the democracy of the EU institutions must be serious and not used as a tool just to convey a negative image of EU institutions.Gpeilon (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to all this, or at least it is all interesting and very balanced what you say Gpeilon. I just do not know what to do with all this knowledge in regard to the article we discuss. I guess we have consensus here that the very strict statement initially proposed by Spoorne is unsupportable. Now, some of you feel, however, that something (more balanced) needs to be said. What is that something - let's be specific.

I have my doubts that the interesting opinions presented, can be formulated in a way that facts are conveyed rather than points of views. You might find it boring, but our task is to describe precisely the process that makes up the commission and it is not to judge how democratic this process is.

There have been many discussions in the past whether or not to have a criticism section. I feel that our discussion is drifting there. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. With the amount of material that needs to be included, there is not room for the explanations necessary for the debate on the alleged democratic deficit. There is an article where this discussion belongs: Democratic deficit in the European Union, which is also in need of urgent attention. Even there, of course, Wikipedia policies, in particular neutral point of view need to be adhered to, so there is no question of stating editors' personal value judgements as fact. There should, however be room for a balanced treatment on the alleged democratic deficit, taking care to discuss mainstream views with appropriate weight, describing those views as opinion, not as fact. The views presented should, of course, not give undue weight to views held by people in particular countries. This is very tricky, so inexperienced editors might be advised to read the policies carefully and, possibly, discuss proposed changed on the talk page. --Boson (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Tomeasy, I take your point. You obviously have a lot of experience writing encyclopaedic entries and using very precise phraseology (a lawyer by profession, by any chance?). I agree that the word ‘any’ presents a particular semantic problem. Were I to substitute the phrase ‘any kind of’ for ‘a direct’ in the sentence ‘EU Commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process’, it would, if I understand your arguments correctly, go some way in allaying your objections.

But to move on, the point I was trying to highlight, of which there is no hint in the article, is the amount of disquiet felt over the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU institutions. The selection of the Commission being a particular case in point. It is a multi-layered process which you may think ‘is still direct enough [your italics] to be called democratic’; but this is just as much your personal opinion as it is mine to say that it is not.

What there does seem to be a growing consensus about on this talk page is the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, by which the will of the electorate is expressed in the appointment of EU officials.

I cannot quite see the relevance of the comparisons made with American Presidential elections by various contributors above. We are not comparing apples with apples here. Any democratic deficit in the USA affects its own citizens alone. The USA is not a supranational institution requiring other nations to cede sovereign power to itself. But the EU is. And if member states are, even in theory, to cede such powers, the institutions of the EU must not only be democratically legitimate, but must also be clearly seen to be democratically legitimate by the citizens of those member states.

I most certainly am not alone in bringing this legitimacy into question - either on this talk page or elsewhere. On the question of democratic deficit, I quote from a ruling by the German Federal Constitutional Court on 30th June 2009:

‘The extent of the Union’s freedom of action has steadily and considerably increased, not least by the Treaty of Lisbon, so that meanwhile in some fields of policy, the European Union has a shape that corresponds to that of a federal state. In contrast, the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain predominantly committed to the pattern of an international organisation.’

And on the subject of how effectively the citizens of member states can express their will through the institutions of the EU, the court further ruled:

‘No uniform European people...can express its majority will in a politically effective manner.’  

I sincerely hope that on this occasion, I have been able to more effectively communicate my position.The Spoorn (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You make your point in much more detail indeed. However, as you see by the amount of text needed the point is not a very simple one. If you want to elaborate on this I think Bosons suggestion to do so on Democratic deficit in the European Union is probably the best place; as adding all this would inflate this page, which tries to be a factual summary of the EU.

Your suggestion to rephrase would lead to a line such as "The EU commissioners are appointed in an indirect democratic process" or something similar. I am not sure that adds anything of interest.

Finally a minor content issue, international treaties always yield some sovereignty to the treaty organisation. The EU has probably more democratic checks and balanced compared to most international treaties our countries are member of (WTO to name but one). Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with Arnout and Boson who are pointing the content, which is about perception, to a more directly related place. This article has to cover everything that is to say about the EU, and it is also too long. So, if we deviate from presenting factual statements than it gets out of hands.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your reflection. The substitution proposed in your first paragraph any versus direct indeed addresses one of my major concerns about the initial post. Arnout improved it again by formulating positively (i.e., what is rather than what is not the case). One might still argue whether in Arnout'f formulation democratic should be in for the same reasons given before. But if we leave this out, then what are we actually saying. As Arnout said, it would have reduced the content so much that I would know why to include.

To your second paragraph: Yes, they are both opinions, as you say. that is exactly what I meant. Perhaps, you misunderstood me in so far that I wanted to give prevalence to the possible opinions I presented. That was not my intend. None of them appear acceptable to me. I just wanted to show that there are valid other opinions, and if you presented just one as a fact in the article, that would not be OK.

I agree that EU versus US comparison are always questionable, and you got a point in saying that for the US it is one country who decided to determine its key leader in a rather undemocratic way, whereas for the EU it is decided on top of countries. However, understand our viewpoints that it would be imbalanced to describe something as undemocratic here, which is totally accepted in all country articles.

The quotes from the German Constitutional Court certainly can find their place on Wikipedia to give evidence to the things you want to state. However, as I said in my first paragraph, an article dedicated to viewpoints might be more relevant. Here, there is just not the space to present different perceptions. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue of the "democratic deficit", as discussed by the German Constitutional Court, is mentioned where it is particularly relevant, in the article on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, and where there is more space for a more detailled discussion that is not distorted by the necessity for brevity, in the article Democratic deficit in the European Union. It is clear from the judgment of the German Constitutional Court that the legitimacy of the EU institutions is not questioned ("the Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon (Zustimmungsgesetz zum Vertrag von Lissabon) is compatible with the Basic Law."). What the German Constitutional Court pointed out is that procedures based on intergovernmental concepts of equality do not [and cannot] provide the democratic legitimacy that would be required if the EU were a federal state (which it is not). For this reason, the level of (national) parliamentary scrutiny provided by certain accompanying German laws was not compatible with the constitution. There have been similar debates in the UK, resulting in various "EU Legislation and Scrutiny Procedures". National parliamentary scrutiny also needs to be discussed when discussing democratic legitimacy. --Boson (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoorne, I am glad to see that you backed on that really not encyclopedic comment. What you write now is very good, and it is just what I think the article is lacking. It is ballanced and informed. Maybe this can be put in but not in same place about Commissioners? To the rest of you I want to say, that the subject brought out by Spoorn is so important that the space for it must be found. Encyclopedia is for readers (not writers) and small piece about EU debate in Europe will make article much more interesting for readers. Ludeczka (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Template for articles affected by Lisbon's entry into force?

I noticed Swedish Wikipedia have made a template for all articles affected by Lisbon's entry into force. I think this may be a smart idea as it could more easily prevent out of date info across tens of articles. The template would of course be deleted when Wikipedia is à jour on post-Lisbon EU. Do people here agree? - SSJ ☎ 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea (for readers and editors), especially the addition of a maintenance category, which could also serve as a sort of work list. --Boson (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very good idea. I personally don't have enough free time to take up such a job myself, but I hope someone does! --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here it is. Let's use it. The category is called Category:Articles in need of adjustment due to the Treaty of Lisbon - SSJ ☎ 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Lisbon Treaty update}}

Presumably it should read "will need to updated". December 1st hasn't happened yet! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the aim of the European Union the creation of a single state?

It should be included in the first paragraph that the ultimate aim of the European Union is the creation of a single state. This is declared in unambiguous terms in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 1957 DETERMINED to create an EVER CLOSER union between the peoples of Europe.

This line was removed as being POV, however how can an EVER CLOSER union be defined as anything else? The ultimate conclusion of ever closer union is by definition, unification ie One state (uni-meaning. one).

No. 'Ever closer union' is an aspiration. It could be a confederation, it could be a federation, it could be none of these, it could be less than it is at the moment. It is not for Wikipedia to guess the future. The single state idea is a windmill for europhobes to tilt at as it is complete fantasy: not even the USA is that. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the EU remains an association of sovereign states that chose to delegate to the Union certain matters that they believe will happen more effectively together than apart.--Red King (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, its a deliberately vague phrase which no doubt each member state would have differing interpretations on. Off the top of my head I can think of about 10 countries alone, if not more, that would not accept the interpretation put forward by the anonymous user. And Red King indeed it may well be the target of Eurosceptic ranting, but whilst there remains still a relatively significant minority out there that would like a single state, there will always be room for justifiable concern. --Simonski (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By definition an aim is also an aspiration so were one to write the aspiration of the European Union is to create a single state would this be a significantly different sentence?

Ever Closer Union is a state of unification ad infinitum. So the ultimate conclusion of ever closer union, can only be unification. Whether this is a fantasy, or is realistic is besides the point it is still the aim of thr European Union as stated in black and white in the Treaty of Rome. Having a single supreme court, having a single currency etc is strong evidence of this intention.

The issue here is that the Treaty of Rome clause should be allowed to be in the first section as it most succinctly shows what the creating treaty wanted; hence it was in the preamble. Why should it not be included? Cabinotto (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact on the European Union's own website it says under the OBJECTIVES section that the aim is closer unification —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinotto (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can assume that if they had unambiguously meant the creation of a single state they would have said so. Musing on what the signatories meant by "ever closer union", barely a decade after the War, and stating one's conclusions as fact is at best original research. If we are going to infer "ever closer" means without limit, why stop at a single state? --Boson (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you cannot unify more than creating a single state. Uni means one. As is shown in the link above to the European Unions own website unification is stated as an objective. What ia ambigious about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.103.89 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

union does not always mean unification of different bodies into one, it can also mean united such as different bodies UNIted on things working togther but still be independent indiviual bodies, look at the United Nations they are united in tryin to help sercure world peace but the members are still independent nation s and that goes for the EU (minus the world peace bit) Pro66 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The aspiration of an "ever closer union" would seem to hark of a similar one in the US constitution preamble, in which people of the US seek "to form a more perfect union". So, comparison (and concern) seem somewhat valid. Nonetheless, I do believe the lead already notes this aim implicitly with talk of regional integration, without erroneously implying anything else (e.g., United States of Europe). Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

About the conclusion that ever closer union implies a single supranational state: This is clearly just one interpretation and, stated as a fact, original research. The proponent of this sentence argues that uni means one, thus no other interpretation is possible. Then how come the European Union is currently not a single supranational state. Or the United Nations are not one nation. The aspiration indicates that the Union currently existing is intended to be deepened. The details are not spelled out. My original research says that they are not spelled out just because there is no unique interpretation. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To help the proponent: If the proposed conclusion is so obvious to you, then why do you not content yourself in stating something like the aspiration of the EU is to create an ever closer union. Not that I am saying this would see consensus to go into the lede paragraph, but at least you could not be accused of OR, and probably there would be a place somewhere on Wikipedia for it. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Far from being unambiguous, whole books could be written about the concept. For instance, see this quote: Roland, Roland (1985). An Ever closer union: a critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. p. 8. ISBN 9789282552209. . . . An ever closer union. The term 'union' used in this evolutive manner, clearly covers a multitude of structures and modalities changing over time and cannot thus as suggested above, partake of a single authentic meaning. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)--Boson (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit back it was mentioned that "Because you cannot unify more than creating a single state" as an interpretation of the phrase "create an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe". Well I know at least one closer union between people: Marriage (or other family ties). I guess nobody seriously considers marrying each EU citizen to each other. In absurdum I could make the point however that this single family (or clan) tie is the ultimate aim of the EU, as it is a much closer tie than merely a confederation or nation. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it then be acceptable to say that one of the primary objectives of the European Union is unification as stated on the European Union website providing a link to the OBJECTIVES section where it specifically says unification? I think it is important to include this as it succinctly and accurately defines one of the European Union's most fundamental objectives whilst leaving the interpreation of the word unification open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.57.60 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would strongly oppose any such addition to the article and from what I gather I am not alone in this respect. I would also note there are numerous other, less ambiguous objectives of the EU which are not mentioned in the article. As has been stated already, ever closer union no doubt has differing interpretations between different national governments, past and present, and therefore the relevance of this particular "objective" is debatable. No doubt for some, it is central to the EU, whilst for others, it will be seen as simply a token ambiguous commitment of some sort. The idea for example that the newly free post-Communist states have just signed up knowingly to a commitment to eventually lose the independence they all so recently gained is borderline laughable. --Simonski (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on from defining the ever closer union. On the EU website in the Objectives section is says that one of the objectives is unification. Why can this therefore not be included. This is not some minor side issue but a stated important objective. Since it is stated on the EU's own website why would it be problematic adding this? As for countries signing up to lose independence, the proof is the pudding. Is not having one's supreme court in a different country with foreign judges overruling domestic judges not a significant loss of independence? Does China, USA, India, Russia, Brazil, Japan or any other major country outside the EU have its supreme court in a foreign country; no, and I think they would think it laughable if one suggested they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinotto (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not a single country anymore for which the supreme court is truly supreme. E.g. for all WTO members, these treaties take precedence over the rulings of the supreme court. States who signed the treaty regulating the International Criminal Court also give away indepence of their supreme court.

And anyway, is a supreme court the only sign of independence. By borrowing money from other states you hand over a lot of sovereignty too (ask Iceland).Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that at the moment the majority (although not be a wide margin) opposes such an inclusion. Since consensus is needed for inclusion (consensus being much much closer to unanimity than mere 50%+1 majority) I have reverted the recent inclusion that referred to this talk.

A compromise should be proposed here and achieve consensus here before inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

changes explained:

1) ‘upon the foundations of the pre existing EEC’ changed to: ‘upon the foundations of the EEC’ reason: If something is a ‘foundation’, it must, by definition, have been ‘pre-existing’. This is a tautology, so I removed it. Just to make the matter clear I use the past perfect tense in the next clause – ‘which had been formed’.

2) ‘Committed to regional integration’ changed to: ‘with the primary aim of creating ‘an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe’.’ reason: Saying ‘committed’ does not necessarily equate to an ‘aim’, the EU may be ‘committed’ to something now, but this is not the same as expressly stating it as an original ‘aim’. The exact word used in the Treaty of Rome is ‘Determined’ (as a verb, not an adjective as you all seem to have confused). So ‘aim’ is lexically closer to ‘determine’ than ‘commit’ when describing the expressed intentions in the Treaty of Rome, and therefore better for an encyclopaedia entry. The changed version also contains greater accuracy by inclusion of the word ‘primary’ - as this is the first aim stated in the treaty. The link on the phrase ‘regional integration’ went to a page entitled ‘European integration’ – so wouldn’t it have been better to use this phrase anyway? Finally, isn’t it better to allow the treaty to speak for itself, providing the readers with a quote from the Treaty of Rome with a link to the original text?

It is a compromise because no mention is made of what the ‘ever-closer union’ was intended to mean, thereby circumventing the majority of the discussion above about single state/confederation/federation etc. We simply state what the Treaty of Rome says. If it is ‘not for Wikipedia to guess the future’, then why be ambiguous about the past when a direct quote does the job perfectly.The Spoorne (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is about the current EU, we should perhaps take account of the current (consolidated) version of the treaties, with the revised "objective":

"to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity"

--Boson (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds really snappy, especially in the second sentence of a lead paragraph. Anyway, it is just a rehash of the original primary aim in the Treaty of Rome, the wording is identical - 'an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe'. So why not include the original source? Also, as this article is about the current EU, as you rightly say, I don't see how you can legitimately use that as a reason for not including this quote. What the EU is now directly springs from what it was before. The article has for a long time described how the EU was built upon the 'foundations of the pre-existing EEC' - and you didn't object to that, did you Boson? So you obviously felt it was fine to include the EEC in the lead paragraph, but now object to a quotation from the Treaty which established the EEC. That does not make an awful lot of sense to me, and I dare say it won't to many others.The Spoorne (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does make sense to most of us, hence why you are in the minority with your suggestion with little sign of convincing anybody. As to your point to me I would only note that the ECJ is not infact a supreme court - if you were more versed with this topic you might be aware of the spirit of cooperation that is laid down within the Treaties (Art 234 EC) is the only basis on which the ECJ has been able to act in the manner of a "supreme court" without actually being one. Should the ECJ ever overstep the line then the Constitutional courts from all the Member States would stop respecting the ECJ's judgments, as has been noted by numerous, well respected scholars. The German constitutional court's recent judgment on the Lisbon Treaty was another example of this still being the case - a clear warning from the German courts to the ECJ that it is still willing to flex its muscles if it needs to. --Simonski (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear Simonski, I think you have confused me with someone else.The Spoorne (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Spoorne, you are indeed correct - this is probably because the other fellow doesnt seem to be signing his posts very clearly so I got mixed up. That makes more sense now. My comments were indeed aimed at the anon/other chap and not at yourself. --Simonski (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spoorne, I didn't say that it was snappy, and I didn't suggest that you use that text. I said you should take account of it (possibly by omitting your addition completely, which would make it even snappier), since, it is a direct quote from the actual source, i.e. the currently valid version of the treaty. The bit about "ever closer union" was moved from the beginning of the preamble to the end, and the bit about subsidiarity was added. This was, obviously, not done to make it snappier. Perhaps there was a reason for the change, which we should take into account. --Boson (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the original community consisted of 6 countries (including Benelux); we are now talking about a changed entity, with 27 member states, now including the UK, Latvia, Hungary, etc. --Boson (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Boson here - and again repeat my earlier point about the relevance of the ever closer union phrase being debatable. As I have pointed out (and I am hardly the first to do so in the sphere of EU governance/law/politics) and indeed Boson has alluded to, for some countries/governments it may represent something major, whilst for others it will simply represent a token commitment to something that on closer inspection isnt that solid at all. The Treaties are full of such token, empty commitments on the parts of the member states and I don't see whats to debate here. Taking something from the preamble of the treaties, the relevance of which is debatable, and shoving it in the lead of the article, is completely misguided. --Simonski (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Boson et al. In addition, I don't really see why one aim should be promoted above all others. Where is your authority (from the Treaty) that this is the "primary" aim, and thus deserving of specific mention? In fact, the Preamble would suggest otherwise: "Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples." If any objective should be mentioned (and I am not convinced it is that helpful to do so) it should be this one or all of them. Article 2 EC Treaty also spells out the aims of the Community, and "ever closer union" is not mentioned there. Similarly Article 2 TEU omits a reference to this phrase/aim. The new TFEU maintains the "primary" aim of improvement of living/working conditions. As Boson was pointing out the aim (if it is such) of ever closer union has been diluted somewhat by Lisbon. Relegated to the bottom of the Preamble, being hedged in by subsidiarity. Also there are counter indications within Lisbon about the one way direction of an "ever closer union". I heard these (rather convincing) reasons at a recent talk, so they are not my own but I think they bear repetition:

• The Treaties now with some degree of clarity define the relative competences of the Union. This suggests that any "closer union" will have some limitation
• The process of enhanced cooperation is solidified. This allows parts of the Union to work more closely together, but reinforces that this is not mandatory for all. Therefore, it is not an ever closer union for all.
• For the first time we have an option for withdrawal within the Treaty itself.

I think the article is long enough as it is, and am anyhow not convinced by the reasoning put forward. I am therefore in favour of maintaining the current position. Lwxrm (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate about the ECJ has totally departed from the question that has yet to be answered. Why can't a statement from the EU's own website be included? It is stated as a primary objective on its own website. None of the debate here has really focussed on the statement on the EU's website. In the objectives section of the Treaty of Rome the EU's own summary is this:

the functional construction of a political Europe and a step towards the closer unification of Europe.

Since this is the founding treaty of the European Union and is the EU"s own account of what the treaty was for in a very succinct form, would it not be sensible to include it? If not why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.39 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, the original question (as phrased in the title) was far too loaded and POV to be included. To the question: "Why can't a statement from the EU's own website be included?" I would answer there is no reason a statment from the EU's own website cannot be included.

I question why this particular statement should be given prominence. This is something I remain to be convinced on. Why is it that this particular aim should be included, but the others not? I don't see the logic in it. If you wish to include a list of all the aims somewhere, I am not so opposed to that in principle. The article is, however, already very long and I am not sure what it adds. Lwxrm (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why anon editor you don't just drop it already - despite quite lengthy discussion you are failing to convince anybody. I would suggest channeling your efforts into other parts of the article rather than concentrate on this issue which everybody has made quite clear they are against being addressed in the article. --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"The European Union is to Europe what the United Nations is to the world."

Is this statement at the end of the introduction true at all? --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I boldly removed it as it appears to be OR or at least was too ambiguous. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion, EU has many more duty and obligations and rights for its members compared to UN. I have never head this comparison before. Arnoutf (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Education" section needs % of Europeans with college degrees

Actually, all of the European sections need this. The US page says it (apparently 27% of Americans have college degrees) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clguy1234 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

they dont even have college in the american sense just university

Well, that would be a bit of a mammoth task. You see, Europe isn't just one country. Can't people just go to the pages of individual states/countries to see? (And yes as the above unsigned says, it's 'university', not 'college' here.) 86.16.135.174 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the anon editor. This is probably impossible for Europe, especially as not all degrees (used to be) similar (this is an ambition for the future but still under development see: Bologna process and Lisbon Strategy) so impossible to project on current situation, which is wildly different across member states. For example how do German Hochschule, English Polytechnics (now Universities), Dutch HTS/Hogeschool relate to college/university education? (and those are rather similar NW European systems close to the anglosaxon/US system I am familiar with). This might change in the future, but is definitely not relevant for the (majority of) people educated in the older systems. Arnoutf (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Schengen Area

The article about the Schengen Area says Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus have not yet implemented the agreement while UK and Ireland have decided to stay out. But the introduction here suggests that 25 members are already forming the Schengen space. Isn´t this a little bit controversial? Just a thought. And by the way, where is the Lisbon Treaty have a mention in the introduction ? Seniorfox (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

After just checking - there are indeed 25 member states committed to the full open borders in Schengen. The UK and Ireland as islands have never felt fully comfortable about joining - there is instead between these two countries a "common travel area" (ie. no border control between Ireland and the UK). Maybe I'm missing something but where is the controversy here? As for Lisbon, the tag on the page already highlights that the page needs to be updated post-Lisbon. In truth, the changes will not have to be drastic as not that much changes overall, and I think in the long term anyway people will see probably view Lisbon with just about as much significance as Nice, as opposed to say, a Maastricht --Simonski (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess, this edit fixes the issue. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I meant. Seniorfox (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign decision making

The lede contains this paragraph. It contains the unsupported assertion that I have highlighted. The lede is supposed to summarise the body: there is nothing in the body to repeat it, let alone expand it. Minimally, this needs to be addressed.

As an international organisation, the EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, it depends upon agreement between the Member States; in others, supranational bodies are able to make sovereign decisions without unanimity. Important institutions and bodies of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by Member States' citizens, to whom the citizenship of the European Union is guaranteed.

When I challenged the underlined bit by edit comment and tag, a later editor gave the handwaving response "the ECB and ECJ are sovereign", without any justification. So, rather than just tag it again, I am posing the question again. Which "supranational bodies" are sovereign? Last time I looked, neither the ECB nor the ECJ were sovereign states. Both owe their existence to their founding treaties. Both are constrained to act within those treaties. They have delegated authority, not sovereign authority. Show me the reliable citations that say they are sovereign. --Red King (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree... what you've quoted confuses the intergovenrmental/supranational distinction with the soverign/non-soverign distinct... the power of EU institutions to make decisions binding on all member states without their unanimous consent does not make the EU soverign. Actually, what makes e.g. the member states soverign and the EU non-soverign, versus the US states non-soverign and the US federal government non-soverign, is a very interesting question. Is it the right of withdrawal? Arguably, pre-Lisbon, EU member states could not withdraw without the unanimous consent of their fellow member states. US states, post-Civil War, can withdraw with the agreement of the federal level (i.e. Congress and President). Is it a practical matter of distribution of powers? This is a hard question, even though the official answer is obvious. --SJK (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is moot, since the passage was removed long ago. Of course, "sovereign decision making" (if it means anything) does not mean that the EU or any of its institutions are sovereign, and this was not claimed. The member states pool their sovereignty in certain areas, and decisions made by EU institutions in these areas, presumably, constitute an exercise of this "pooled" sovereignty. --Boson (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Barroso

In the leaders section of the infobox, I think Barroso should be included as the head of the Comission. Anna Lincoln 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Anna Lincoln 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Rompuy, Ashton

Wouldn´t it be appropriate to have the 2 new officials instead of Reinfeldt and Solana? Seniorfox (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Reinfeldt is still the head of the government that holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. That one keeps on rotating between the countries. So, I can imagine to have both Romput and the political leader of the country holding the pressidency. This is probably going to be discussed in the future.

If Ashton took office already, her picture should simply supersede that of Solana. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, but Rompuy seems to be now the more important political figure. Probably only Barroso is equally important. Seniorfox (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is he only equally important? Rumpy is totally powerless and is a very low profile appointment. His appointment is a victory for Barroso as it confirms the supremacy of the Commission and the impact will probably be seen to be similar on the rotating presidency which still has most agenda control.- _J.Logan`^t: 06:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We should, at this point, avoid ranking the powers of the positions, as we have little proof for such judgments. There are only the official responsibilities written down in the treaties, and those we should present. We might change this approach when, after some time, there have been incidents of flexing muscles between the posts, and we can refer to their results to put something down about it.

Yes, Logan, it is believed that Rompuy's election intends to keep this post low profile, but it is not more than a believe, even though I agree with the interpretation. (Or, the political leaders did not want their institution to be chaired by somebody who sparkles brighter than they do.) And your opinion, Seniorfox, that the President of the Council will be of more importance than the Presidency of the Council of the EU is probably also based on speculations only. In this case, I even doubt it is true. After all it is the The Council of the EU which has legislative powers (in co-decision with the Parliament). Tomeasy _{T C} 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinfeldt vs. Malmstöm

With these two figures, we certainly have an inconsistency. In the infobox, we present Malmström (Swedish Minister of EU affairs) as the person representing the EU Presidency, while in the respective section we show Reinfeldt's (Swedish Prime Minister) image for the same purpose.

The core of the problem is that the Presidency of the Council is not held by one person but by the Swedish government as a whole. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, we attribute this to the Minister responsible for the country's relation ofwith the EU. I am not particularly happy with this decision, because I have not heard of any document licensing this approach.

So, if we really want to nail it down to one person, it should be the head of the government as they are truely primus inter pares - and not just because we think so. However, it might be better to discard the wish completly to attribute the Presidency of the EU to one person. Your opinions please. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see many points for both sides. How about we side step the issue and either have an image representative of Sweden/Swedish gov't or we have our new President of the Council.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just list the country that is hosting the presidency --Melitikus (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In text, absolutely. No names as it is misleading to claim there is a single figure all controlling. For images, we should use Van Rumpy.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Van Rompuy should be shown. The question for me was if the Presidency of the Council of the EU shall be acknowledged by making reference to a person, like currently in the infobox and in the respective section. I would agree with both of you that we should avoid attributing that presidency to a person. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not just an image update! The picture removed was a visualization pertaining to the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, which still exists.

I am a little disturbed, because I thought we were just discussing this question. However, I am fine with the edit and can also accept the underlying decision. So, we will not have a picture for the EU Presidency anymore, but instead one for the President of the European Council... Tomeasy _{T C} 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Bulgaria is in a very bad economic state since it joined the EU. It's economy was in a better state in 2001-2004. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources please, you may be confusing the European Union with the international financial crisis. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ile Flottant. (PS We could turn around the argument - the economy of all EU countries was in better state in 2001-2004, the current state only occurred after Bulgaria and Romania joined ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha ;) --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record. 79.132.31.212's statement has nothing to do with reality:).--Avidius (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance of information added to lede

Following the sentence

"Since then the union has grown in size through the accession of new countries, and new policy areas have been added to the remit of the EU's institutions."

there have been repeated additions and removals of the following:

Enlargement of the EU has occured through a process of accession of new member states, with more future members actively seeking entry. No member state has ever withdrawn from the Union, although some other territories have left, notably Greenland in 1985."

The first part of the addition repeats content from the preceding sentence. Is the other information sufficiently significant to be included in the lede (as well as in the section on member states and the sub-articles referred to there)? -Boson (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The repetition seems to have been avoided by trimming the first sentence. I think Greenland has no place in the lede; future enlargement (with wikilink) could be kept. Antipastor (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenland aside, I am frankly amazed anyone can think that links to the sub-articles on enlargement, future enlargement, and withdrawal, are not important enough to be in the lede. And as an aside, although I do not see it as important as these basic links, I do happen to think it is pretty notable that Greenland is the only major place to have ever left the union - I am quite certain that this fact is not known by the vast majority of readers, who quite often wrongly assume the EU is and always has been, just a geographically European, ever expanding, entity. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We may have different ideas about the function and purpose of the lede and sub-articles (by which I mean those articles that are created because of size constraints and are linked to by a {{Main}} template - and are summarized in an appropriate section (which, in turn, is summarized in the lede). --Boson (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody claim before that wp:lede advocates not linking to relevant sub-articles. If the sub-articles are so poor that the reader would be better served reading the relevant sections of this article first, before or until they move onto sub-articles, that is an entirely different matter, which is not really how we should decide what to and not to link in it. If someone reads the lede, and then decides they want to go directly to a sub-article about future expansion, instead of going on to read the main article, I have no issue with that. This is a wiki, this system of content organisation is somewhat second nature to most readers I am sure, and they are not going to simply forget about the existence of the main article just because they see a link in the lede. If I am wrong and this is explicitly stated some where that I have never noticed, point it out. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to linking to sub-articles from the lede, per se. However sub-articles (in the sense we are talking about) differ from other linked articles in that the content is functionally part of the overall article, unlike a "see also" or a normal related topic. They are created because of space constraints in the overall article, and the corresponding section in the overall article is written in summary style. The lede contains a maximum of about 4 paragraphs and the main purpose of the bulk of the lede is to summarize the rest of the article. This means that the lede contains a summary of a summary and, because of the scope of articles like this one, it is limited to the most important information needed to summarize the article. If we permit ourselves to increase the length of the lede, the information you want to add has to compete with all the other information that was already removed over time to keep the length managable.--Boson (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As with all other articles, the lede should summarise the content of the article. It should not summarise other articles. The content may summarise other articles, providing a {{main}} or {{see}} link to them. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Controlling length is one thing, not linking is another. Like I said, I have never seen anybody state that wp:lede prevents linking to sub-articles, effectively forcing people to waste time reading the main article even if they don't want to. Feel free to reduce the length if you feel an extra couple of lines on something so obviously important as expansion is not important to the summary, but I see no logic in removing the links in the process. And just why, for example, are all the other links to Schengen, CAP, fee movement, member state, citizenship etc etc etc not similarly considered violations of this idea about navigation, as they are all also sub-topics of the EU as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, who is supposed to be claiming that. --Boson (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Claiming what? MickMacNee (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to "I have never seen anybody state that wp:lede prevents linking to sub-articles", which I accept as true but took to imply that you were rejecting some claim relating to wp:lede and a prohibition on the linking of sub-articles. Otherwise I see no reason for your statement. Perhaps you could clarify the intended significance of your remark. --Boson (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you, or are you not, arguing that the lede should not contain links to sub-articles? MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that the whole addition should be questioned and, if there is no consensus for its inclusion, removed. The fact that the addition contained links to what you call sub-articles is secondary.--Boson (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Just to be clear, I am also not arguing that the lede should contain links to sub-articles. I would argue that otherwise undeserving information should not be added to the lede in order to provide a link to such articles. --Boson (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevance is simply self-evident. I do that from the position of a reader who came to the article, and whose first reaction on finding such sub-topics as expansion, future expansion and withdrawal, had the instinctive reaction to think, how is that not in the lede of the main article? I remind you, the prior version is: "Since then, the EU has grown in size". How? When? Why? By what process? Constant or all at once? That is the sort of ommission that is not a minor oversight, it is just glaringly obvious. Expansion and future expansion is infact often the only thing that anyone in the media ever talks about regarding the EU. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a glaringly obvious oversight. It is, in my opinion, a detail that should be explained later in the article (or possibly in a sub-article), though reasonable people can have different opinions on the subject. What is regarded as a detail that does not merit being included in the lede, of course, depends on the amount of information contained in the article, which needs to be summarized in a few paragraphs. My main reason for discussing this here is my belief that such changes to long-standing consensus should be discussed here if they are not immediately accepted. (WP:BRD)

This article deals with issues related to the EU and its 27 member states. It concentrates on currently implemented policies and captures the current status quo. In this light the recently added sentences have no relevance for the introduction. a) because the beginning phrase repeats content. b) because future candidates or developments are not integral part of the EU and therefore have no relevance (at least not in a summarized short intro) / not even the Lisbon Treaty is mentioned c)Greenland is not and will not be a member state of the EU (There is not even one of the other 27 members mentioned). I would very, very much appreciate that responsible editors remove this highly irrelevant content from the lede as soon as possible. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How is not relevant? It is frankly odd to claim past and future expansion of the EU is not relevant to the introduction of the article about the EU. By this logic, the entire paragraph dealing with History need not be in the lede either, as it is not about the current 'status quo'. Or are you just hoping that first time readers would not wonder at all at how the EU can just jump from 6 to 27 members? Maybe they will just assume it all happened by military invasion. You do not own this article, and you certainly have no right to infer I am an irresponsible editor for having such outlandish opinions for thinking this info is relevant. Or did you just assume I am just some crazy idiot who goes around randomly adding crap to articles?. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And where did you get the idea that the current version suggests that Greenland either ever was or ever will be a member state? You simply haven't even read the sentence, you have seen a link to Greenland and had some form of automatic reaction to it. And you are technically incorrect on both points regarding it anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mick that the enlargement process is both, important and interesting, to understand the EU as a whole. This is mirrored by the weight this topic gains in the media (as Mick has pointed out). We should think to give this complex a bit more weight in the lede as well. Since this is currently debated, I restricted myself to increasing the visibility of the discussed content in the Member States section. To further the discussion of the lede content, I want to propose the following to substitute the last sentence of the current lede:

Since then, new policy areas have been added and the EU has grown in size through a process of accession of new member states, with more states actively seeking entry.

This way we do not repeat the details (i.e., no member state ever left, Greenland) and we do not increase the length of the lede. However, we do mention the topics growth and the ongoing desire to join. I admit that the way I put the links may be a surprise to some of the readers. Improvements are very much appreciated ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 08:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording. But I don't think the links are necessary or helpful. --Boson (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --Red King (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Red King, you are happy with the wording and/or unhappy with the links?

I just changed the linking of the proposal above a bit. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lear 21

OK, I'm out. Lear 21 has serious behavioural issues it seems, not least with communication, respect, and ownership of this article, which are not going to change anytime soon by my analysis. He has made his fourth revert to the article while discussion continued above, and his one contribution to the talk page remains that gem above which came after his third revert, when he was clearly only concerned about not walking into his 10th block for edit warring, and not at all bothered about discussing the content or replying to other people, and simply arrogantly re-states his own opinion and requests swift action for my 'irresponsible' edits which he had not been able to otherwise purge himself. I don't particularly care about the article, so I am not going to do what should be done about him even though I should, but as a general message to all the regulars here (although extremely worryingly, Lear 21 is the leader by edits to it, by a mile - 1,050 changes, to 697 in second), if alarm bells don't start ringing for you when exhanges and behaviour like the above are the result of edits made to the article by experienced editors coming to the article reading it for the first time, (which is a failed FA no less), then good luck to you. The article certainly served no purpose for this humble reader, unusually I found what I was looking for after resorting to outside sources, having searched this article and its sub-articles for nearly 15 minutes (I was trying to confirm whether or not a member state had ever left the EU). For anyone who thinks this is just some n00b blowing off steam for having his change reverted, by a simple comparison, even though I regularly prepare new articles and major edits offline and don't do any repetitive edit stacking work like typo fixing or formatting, I have still made 14,576 edits to 4,323 pages in my time here, compared to Lear21's 6,780 edits to 541 pages, even though he has had 18 months longer to learn what is and isn't good behaviour around here, and to absorb general lessons about content, such as how to adequately summarise an article in a lede. And to think, I blew off going to a fireworks display tonight for this. Annoyed. Very annoyed. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is annoyance relieve:) Illuminating arts 5th November Lear 21 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I sympathise, I really do. I wanted to try to get this article up to FA but it is impossible with the likes of Lear around - that's why I don't bother comign here much. It is best to concentrate efforts onto other articles that aren't being sat on by his ego.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it seems that evey edits on this article, even the most uncontroversial ones, need to go through the approval of a board of WP:OWNers. This is most likely driving a lot of editors away since the efforts required to get an edit through are just not worth it. Laurent (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well my friends, this article here is already of a very comprehensive, well referenced, well designed and in the end of a very mature quality. This has been achieved by many highly knowledgable motivated editors over a long period. You just have to project serious focused commitment other than promoting "Greenland in the lede". BTW, half of the content proposals by MickMacNee are now included in the lede. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Lear may have been a bit short in discussion, but on the last point he reverted, I don't think it is unjustified. It is very interesting to know that Greenland has withdrawn from the EU but it is really a detail in the history of the EU which has no place in the intro. It think it is well where it is in the "Member state" section.Gpeilon (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we may think of Lear 21's debating style, I think things would be less acrimonious if an attempt to reach consensus had been made much earlier. The lede of a well-read article was changed (by someone who was probably fortunate enough to have missed previous lengthy discussions on the lede). Nothing wrong with that. It was then reverted, with a somewhat terse but valid explanation. At this stage - or at the latest after the second add-revert cycle - I would have expected some sort of meaningful discussion, even under the somewhat robust WP:BRD procedure. Which is why I started the discussion after a few more cycles.

On the substantive issue of withdrawals (or lack thereof), they don't seem to be mentioned in the ledes of articles like The Commonwealth of Nations or the United States - though I suppose you could regard the mention of the Civil War in the United States as indirectly referring to a similar lack of established procedures for withdrawal. --Boson (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are totally mad if you think my agenda here was simply to 'get Greenland into the lede', how you could even type that utter nonsense even after I posted here exactly why I made those changes, is beyond belief. If you think this article is mature and well designed, cleary you have never come to it looking for information about Withdrawal from the European Union, which I note is still pretty much impossible to find from this article, either in the lede, main text, and even in the much talked about section hatnotes, and Future enlargement of the European Union seems to be also be just as invisible. Simply having a couple of lines in the Member State section and leaving the reader no way to find relevant sub-articles, is anything but good design - this is a wiki first and foremost, and these are basic concepts which are second nature to most seasoned editors. Anyway, you are clearly a lost cause as an editor, and you can get lost if you think I'm wasting time here to 'show active commitment' before you will stop being such a dick, but if you are actively preventing others from improving this article as people are suggesting, then you need to be dealt with. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, we should stop talking about how we like or dislike other editors on this article talk page, especially when this leads to insults. I sympathize to some extent with the content related criticism raised by Mick and would like to continue this thread. However, continuing the mud-wrestling of this subsection helps nobody, and least the article. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

@M: Usually editors start considering me as a dick after several weeks or months, but not after the blink of 2 days :) Lear 21 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a skill that comes with experience. I reserve my good faith for people that demonstrate they deserve it. You quite plainly, do not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats the difference between you and me, I believe in arguments, in pro and contra, and on focused factbased discussions in order to estimate what is important to the article. So as long you do not intend to greenlandish every section you are allowed to lose as much good faith as you want to. Lear 21 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this, this has nothing to do with improving the EU article, and everything with personal dislikes. Use your own talk page not this one.Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just thought you might want to know that sockmaster Lear 21 (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked. Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a suspected sock and KJohansson (talk · contribs) is another confirmed egregious puppet who has edited these same articles and needlessly wasted so much of our time. I would suggest that you all keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since many of you probably know of some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)