Jump to content

Talk:European Union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

three pillars?

I couldn't follow this article. What are the three pillars? Where does the EC (EEC) fit in?

Hope it is clearer now. At present the article mentions a lot of obscure legal and historical points, which probably should be moved into seperate sections. E.g. an introductory article which outlines what the EU is, and a more detailed article with all the legal and historical technicalities. -- Simon J Kissane

right to reside

Someone wrote

Citizens of member states have the right to reside in other member states for up to three months. This can be extended by applying for a residence permit, which must be automatically granted in some cases, e.g., if the person is employed in the state or has means to survive without government support. Some states (only the United Kingdom?) waive the requirement for a permit or any requirement to report to the local police.

IIRC there is no need to apply or hold a residence permit for EU or EEA citizens. EU and EEA citizens are basically free to live anywhere in the Union they want, provided they can support themselves; they don't need permits. Only non-EU/EEA citizens need to. -- Simon J Kissane

No, you are mistaken, Simon. In order to get tax and social security status in Luxembourg, you need a residency permit. This applies to other EU countries (France, Netherlands are for sure). sjc

The principle of the EU rule is that any EU citizen can live and work in any EU country. Some EU countries still issue residence permits even to EU citizens, which are always granted because they have to be under EU law. The only reasons why EU countries still make EU nationals go through the tedious and bureaucratic application process are probably 1) reluctance to give up xenophobic national habits, 2) the need to check whether the condition that people can support themselves is met. By the way, under EU law, being able to support oneself does not necessarily mean you have to have a job. Every EU citizen looking for one is allowed to move to another EU country and to apply for unemployment benefits there (I know several people who did that). There may be a time restriction though (3 months?). -- Herman

But what happens to an EU citizen that doesn't apply for a permit? What can be done to them? I think the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence on the freedom of movement is rather liberal -- SJK

They can be fined at least. Maybe kicked out of the country too: I don't know. There was a court case in the Netherlands a while ago where a lawyer was prosecuted for giving an Englishman a false job, so he could get a residence permit. Without a job, obtaining a permit may be difficult, since "provided they can support themselves" in practice means that they need to prove that they have an income of some arbitrary amount (depending on the country) per year, or meet some other condition such as family/student/pensioned.

If I might weigh in with personal experience -- as far as I know, everywhere requires a residency permit, because everywhere requires an ID. Except, of course, the anti-EU UK. The UK doesn't have a national ID requirement, and it requires a lot more rigamarole than other countries, while pretending it isn't in the EU except when convenient. Case in point: I'm American (US), living in Germany (at the time), marrying an English resident of Germany in London, intending to return to Germany, where we both live and work.

At Heathrow, I explain I am there to get married. The Immigration (Customs?) agents says, "you know that doesn't mean you can live here..." I explain that my born-and-raised in England to English parents husband and I live in Germany, where we work. He repeats that he just wants to make sure that I understand I can't expect to be allowed to live in the UK. I explain that it's not an issue. He replies by telling me I will need to apply for a residence permit, but it's not guaranteed.

So, I get married. The marriage license is in English only (despite there being an EU regulation that legal documents have to be in several EU languages).

Is there? Can you quote me which regulation this is please? -- GWO

They are not available in other languages. I have it translated and notarized for the Germans, who demand that people follow the rules. I take it, 50 marks, my passport and new passport pictures, and my husban'd residence permit to the Immigration office in the German city where we live. The civil servant (normally unpleasant in the way civil servants tend to be) smiles hugely, congratulates me on my marriage and, 15 minutes later, hands me my residence permit. I mentioned my surprise at the ease of the whole process -- the civil servant replied that Germany was in the EU, my husband was an EU citizen, and legally, I was entitled to EU rights, despite being an American. Why should there be a question?

Every time I go to England, I get the same hassle, though. Funny thing is, I know a lot of UK citizens living in Germany. Many of them have lost their jobs, sometimes several times over. They aren't asked to leave...just given more training and stipends to get them through until they are employed again.

My point? I think you'll find that each EU country applies the rules somewhat differently, but that the UK tries to evade as many of the rules that threaten its insularity as it can.

The UK is specifically exempt from some of those rules because of the fact that it is an island, and probably the most sought after EU locations to live and work in (for some reason). Freedom of movement in continental Europe relates to the Schengen Pact. --Sam

EUobserver.com: Moving within the EU to get easier --Ann O'nyme 00:44, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The right of abode and work and freedom of movement are two different issues. EU citizens have the right to settle and work in any EU country as long as they're not public charges, that's one thing. Whether they have to show passports/ID when crossing borders is another. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The right to settle would be liberalised somewhat by the commission's proposed directive COM(2001) 257 (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/printversion/en/lvb/l33152.htm). The EU Parliament voted in favour of it in early 2003, with various proposed amendments, including that the date of introduction is delayed until 1 July 2004. See http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=10629&LEVEL=3&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N for the parliament's report. Hans Zarkov 11:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as the EEC is concerned I thought it was the European Economic Community which is what the UK signed up for after its referendum. The EEC was (and I'm a bit too young to know this all) basically a free trade zone with now tarrifs and a common agricultral policy. Since then the EEC has evolved into the EU (The European Union) and moving to more political union (social chapter, central bank, euro etc...). Of course I await my correction :-) -- Alex.

The United Kingdom agreed to these evolutions, including by signing the Maastricht Treaty. You may of course disagree with those actions of the elected British government. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alex: IIRC, the UK joined the European Communities (the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and EURATOM) in 1973, before the referendum, under a Conservative government. Then Labour was elected, who at first said they were going to quit the EEC, but then said they would hold a referendum and let the voters decide. In 1975, the UK electorate voted to remain a member.

The European Union (and the social chapter, the euro, etc.) was established by the Maastricht treaty in 1991. But moves to political union weren't new -- the European Defence Community and European Political Community were proposed in the 1950s, but they never got off the ground. And Jean Monnet, the originator of the plan for the European Coal and Steel Community (which started the whole process off), always intended it to be the first step along the road to political union.

Of course you might say that is not what the British electorate was told, and you are probably right. The attitude of European governments towards the EU has always been ahead those of their electorates: constructing something like the EU is inherently an elite project, not a popular one. -- SJK

Eob: the figure you gave for the European Union, is that the whole EU or just the metropolitan EU? Some, but not all overseas territories of its member states count as part of the European Union: e.g. French Guyana is part of the EU, but Greenland isn't. -- SJK

sui generis

What is "sui generis"? Could we have a definition or a link for this term please :) - MMGB

"sui generis" is legal jargon for "in a class of its own"

Members section

Just testing out layout for the section on members. Is this clearer than the current formatting? -- Tarquin 00:40 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

At present, the European Union comprises 15 member states. In 1950 the six founding members were:

Nine further states have joined in successive waves of enlargement:

Negotiations are currently underway for the enlargement to a further 12 member-states: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus; the initial admission of new states is expected around 2004.

Yes, that is a bit clearer. Don't forgdet to keep the Turkey bit as well. -- SJK
ok. I'm putting it on the article. -- Tarquin

Map

Hey all, do you think the map is too big? I also have a smaller version as image:Europeanunion-small.png, but the text isn't as clear. --Brion

I think the current size is fine, as long as the image isn't floated: that makes the text to one side far too narrow to read. -- Tarquin
I think the colors are not good: The three colors are not easily distinguishable. They are too similar. Why not use a soft green, red, ...?

Applying Country template

I have a crazy idea: How about applying the template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to this page?
Think about it, the EU has a flag, a capital (Brussels), a national anthem (the "Ode to Joy"-bit from Beethoven's ninth), a currency (well, more or less..), and it's ranking in population and area is already given in the article. Granted, it is not by any definition a country per se, but it still has a lot of things in common with large, federalized countries. Is this (the template) a good idea? Would it be highly inappropriate? --Gabbe 15:27 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Not crazy at all, I say go for it. --Brion
Go for it! --Kaihsu 17:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

it needs to be re-worded abit, i know one dya Europe will become one big super sate its al;ready beginig to happen, but the wording of the table make it look to much like a country. -fonzy

I would say I'm against trying to force applying the template on something it was not meant for. The EU is not in any way, shape or form a conventional country nor is it a federation, a situation likely to remain for quite a few years to come. The work so far on the table (now moved to European Union/Temp) demonstrates this, many fields are incorrect or misleading. We can certainly take certain elements from the template and use it in the article, but trying to force the template on it is a bad idea, IMO. -Scipius 19:47 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Accession votes

I am checking the related pages to Hungary's vote for joining the EU on April 12, 2003, and just realised that there is no "status" about the future members, which one voted already, which said "NO" (and how many times :-)) and what's the next step and when. (In case of Hungary, for example, the next step is signing in 2004 since both the country and the EU accepted the deal.) --grin 12:28 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've added a status list on the referenda. For Hungary, Slovenia and Malta I think the issue is now a done deal, as the treaty has already been signed on April 16. It's true that the treaty won't be valid until ratified, but that's a technicality if the referendum was in favour. -Scipius 14:55 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Mangled Map

The list of members by the map is slightly mangled on my computer(800x600 resolution). Can anyone fix this? Thanks. -netcrusher88 1:17 Jun 9, 2003 (UTC)

Territories not in EU

I'm going to delete this bit: Spain: Balearic Islands (Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza, and Formentera) in the Mediterranean, Canary islands in the Atlantic Ocean, Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa. All these territories are integral parts of EU, with no special status. Marco Neves 13:57, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

Ceuta and Melilla are mot part of the EU. [1]. --Ann O'nyme 14:31, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Cheers! Sorry, but they are: the map you've linked to shows little lines which indicates that Ceuta and Melilla are part of the EU. But that's not the proof, of course, that's an informal map. In fact, nothing in EU treaties excludes those two Spanish cities from EU, contrarily to what happens to other territories (none of them Spanish). I've been in Ceuta and European flag is everywhere, just as outdoors anouncing the use of EU money and declaring that Ceuta is a part of EU (even if it is in Africa). Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain and there is no reason to exclude them from EU - in fact, the Spanish Constitution would forbid such exclusion, since there is no difference between mainland Spain and those two cities. If you have any legal basis to declare those cities as being excluded from EU, please, indicate them. I base my opinion on these fonts: EU treaties (which do not exclude Ceuta and Melilla from EU), Spanish Constitution (which treats them as Spanish territory) and on-site observation of the actual effects of EU membership in one of those two cities. Thanks, and cheers! :) Marco Neves 00:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves
I think you're right. [2]. --Ann O'nyme 09:28, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Bearing in mind thes sections of the EC Treaty:

'Article 299' 3. ... This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list [annex II of the Treaty]. 4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. [...] 6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs: (a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands; (b) this Treaty shall not apply to the sovereign base areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus; (c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

Wouldn't Gibraltar be considered a part of EU? Because: (a) In spite of being excluded since it is not mentioned in the list of Annex II quoted in the above section 3, it is included in EU by section 4 (in fact, Gibraltar is one of the few territories that this section seems to apply). (b) Gibraltar is NOT mentioned in section 6., which excludes some European territories from EU membership, which would be granted under section 4. So Gibraltar is considered part of the EU by section 4. of art. 299. Moreover, Gibratarians will vote in the next European Parliament elections. So, why is Gibraltar considered not part of EU in this article of Wikipedia? If no good answer be posted here, I'll take the responsability of changing the article my self in a few days. Cheers to all!

Marco Neves

Gibraltar (like Ceuta and Melilla) are in the EU, but not the custum union. [3] [4].
--Ann O'nyme 09:30, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, Gibraltar is not in the EU. Ceuta and Melilla, IIRC, are integral parts of Spain(that is, they function not as external territories, but just a part of the same country. The same applies with French Guinean in South America).
--Joe
Please, Joe, read my comments above about the treaty treatment of Gibraltar and try to find legal sources proving your assertion that Gibraltar is not in the EU. Cheers to you! User:Marco Neves
Okay, I do see what you mean. However, I assumed that as it was not part of the UK, it was not part of the EU, considering no other UK territory is part of the EU.
-Joe

FYI: JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999, that force the UK to organise vote for EU parlement in Gibraltar. --Ann O'nyme 02:51, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gibraltar has to adopt the EURO the same way the British bases of Akrotiri and Dekhelia in Southern Cyprus have done.


History of EU

How about moving past enlargement, European Coal and Steel Community... to History of EU or in a new section of History of Europe? --Ann O'nyme 05:15, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Isn't there already History of the European Union?
Be bold ;-) Fantasy 08:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've added a link to History of the European Union. I'm also creating a separate page Enlargement of the European Union which will include all the current stuff about enlargement plus some more details. -- Cabalamat 19:37, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:European Union/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good article by now! Certainly with deficits. Lear 21 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Culture section

The first part of the culture section deals mostly with European culture and lacks a clear link between the EU and the culture of Europe. I think it should be reworked or removed. Yakikaki (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Overview of EU Institutions

I've just looked over the "Overview of EU Institutions" section. It's bad. Very bad. it oversimplifies to the point of being misleading. EU explained (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

The sentence "The European Union accumulated a high portion of GDP as a form of foreign aid than any other economic union" is ungrammatical. The use of the word "high" is probably a typo and "higher" is the intended word. Seewalker (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Brezno 3:24 Falow

185.9.115.249 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Athletics

please change ((athletics)) to ((Sport of athletics|athletics))

Done: Benign, minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The religion map and diagram colors

Could the colors for the corresponding religions be made the same? For example, on the map, the Protestant areas are marked as deep blue, and the Orthodox areas are teal, but in the diagram, it's the opposite. Could they be swapped in either case?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The coudenhove-kalergi Plan

The EU as it is now was planned long before the 1953 mention. It was designed a book called "Practicher Idealismus". And I think it deserves an entire section, as they previously handed out a solid gold, tax payer paid award called "The Charlamagne Award". Yoi can look it up. Its awarded to whom has caused the most removal that yeat of the white natives religions and race. Before you call me racist, look it up. They dont even hide it anymore, Now they just renamed it The Kalergi Prize. 

It 100 percent needs covering.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi. Now, look at his page and tell me why he isn't mentioned. He came up the anthem, 40 years before we in Europe were told it was a trading bloc. You have not talked about the true start and reason for the EU. DoctorDecker (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Lisbon Treaty

Two nations were forced to retake this until a yes answer was given. Why is this not mentioned? It also meant that all military forces belong to one unelected official as of April 1st this year. Why do you think Brexit happened on the 31st March (the signing of Article 50). The UK did not want an unelected official taking The UKs nuclear weapons and entire army. DoctorDecker (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my spelling erors. I meant to say "years", in the top section. DoctorDecker (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ode to Joy lyrics?

The lyrics that play when the Ode to Joy media is played are incorrect. Those are the lyrics to the 20th century American gospel tune "Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee" ("Hymn of Joy"). The only thing they have in common with Beethoven's Ode to Joy is Beethoven's melody and the word "joy". The lyrics here (being an American religious hymn) would be unrecognizable to Beethoven and probably most of the EU. The hymn is popularly known in the US (outside of religious circles) mainly because of its inclusion in the movie Sister Act 2.

The lyrics should either be removed or replaced with something more recognizable. The EU anthem is officially an instrumental, but the original Schiller lyrics are often used, or some language adaption of them. Using an American gospel contrafactum is ridiculous in this context.

I agree. It's a total lie!!!! We all know it here, so who are you appeasing? Think we will forget when The EU falls? Did Der Stermur staff get kept on after Ww2? Or the Pravda press for Stalin? This is NO different. DoctorDecker (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no coverage of European Identity because they want us dead!! Look at the damned motto. You think I joke???! DoctorDecker (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

EngvarB?

Considering the United Kingdom is (presumably) leaving the EU in a few years time, should the continued use of BritEng on this article be reconsidered? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if the UK leaves the EU, British English is still European English. As a French, I don't know why I should contribute to this article with a version of English coming from another continent. Azerty82 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well my angry French cousin. We haven't left the continent. Europe IS NOT the EU. And dont worry. We will be back, in about two years to help you out...again. We do it the third time because you are family. Just keep Normandy clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDecker (talk • contribs) 07:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC) DoctorDecker

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi chose the song. It's his "finale to The Gentile Race". Read his book! DoctorDecker (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Brexit was won by "A slight number".

I quote that. It was the biggest voting turn out in Britains 4789 year history. And it was 17.2 million people more. That is as big as a few countries populations combined in Europe! Nevermind The EU! (Which is not Europe). DoctorDecker (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

An election is won by the number who vote for the winning side minus the number who vote for the losers. in this case the difference was about 1.2 million, which is not that many. Britmax (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section is needed and the explanation is ridiculous

Many articles have criticism section why this should be any different? second, the excuse of "there is no support section either" is plain stupid. There are many articles with criticism section and no support section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A section which simply discusses why things are bad, even if it includes counter arguments, is not neutral. This article doesn't flaunt the benefits of the EU. It mainly explains what the EU is and what it aims to accomplish. If you want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various aspects, do so in their relevant sections. I don't think anybody opposes that. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

Change "political and economic union" to "country" because the member-states of the EU do not have sovereign autonomy from one another and share a common government and currency. 70.168.37.88 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: A political and economic union is made up of many different countries, and cannot be a country in itself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Useful?

I wanted to link a student's sandbox to see if anything useful could be pulled from it: User:Cchigoche/sandbox. They created a draft, but didn't add anything as far as I can tell. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The UK will not have left the union untill 2021

There seems to be a common misconception that the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. This is untrue, however. The UK and EU will start a transitioning process for the UK to leave in 2019. This process will last to and end on December 31 2020. Meaning the UK will officially have left the EU on January 1 2021, if everything goes as planned. [5] 92.220.75.86 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No - the termination of membership takes place on 29 March 2019. If no agreement is made between the EU and the UK then that's it. If a transition arrangement is agreed, then membership has still ended but certain mutual arrangements will continue, if they can be agreed. The framework agreement settled recently includes an obligation for the United Kingdom to contribute to certain pre-existing programmes in the budget for a short time after termination, with the proviso that during that period the United Kingdom may still participate in those programmes as if it were a member. Hogweard (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

fn.144

Links to wrong article, which can be found here and at other places. Don't want to fix it myself, as the fn has a bunch of text included and could be difficult to reformat.-Shtove (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Member countries

Quote: 'The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located "primarily" in Europe.' The word primarily is superfluous as ALL member states are in Europe.

Also I saw no mention of the Marshall Plan which initiated the idea of a United States of Europe, and the development of this superstate is not dealt with; for instance no mention of plans for Nuclear armed EU Army. The position of other member states as well as the UK having substantial numbers wanting to leave, roughly the same percentages as the UK vote, and the likelihood of several major players holding referenda in the coming years. With current challenges to the stability of the EU and the safety of the 'open borders' question, there is a possibility that the EU will break apart in the future as first one then another vote to leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetePassword (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the map in the section Member States has links embedded that take you to the respective country’s article – nice! Only Croatia doesn’t have such a link yet, and I don’t know how to fix that. Any pointers?--Geke (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

this line?


or this one? 174.82.196.148 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GDP

The source cited for GDP seems dubious to me in this context because it an IMF forward projection, not a factual record. Can someone find a better source? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing information

Some piece of information are missing here.

A support section could be added. It could include, for instance the support could be expressed as “Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.” by Margaret Thatcher and the invention of single market bt herself[1].

Also the artcle could include the mention that “The EU was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2012, in recognition of the organization’s efforts to promote peace and democracy in Europe.” as Britannica does.

Britannica also deal with Single European Act and foreign policy.

Britannica also says that “A variety of legal, technical, fiscal, and physical barriers continued to limit the free movement of goods, labour, capital, and services”.

Britannica also says that:

  • “the countries of western Europe have achieved an unprecedented level of integration and cooperation.”
  • “The degree of legal integration, supranational political authority, and economic integration in the EU greatly surpasses that of other international organizations.”
  • “Indeed, although the EU has not replaced the nation-state, its institutions have increasingly resembled a parliamentary democratic political system at the supranational level.”

There are also missing critics: “In the debate on the future of the EU, fundamental institutional issues are – for the first time since the signing of the Lisbon Treaties – again under discussion. Should the Presidency of the Commission and the European Council be merged? Are “Spitzenkandidaten” and transnational lists needed for the European Parliament elections? And how can national parliaments be strengthened in the European context?” — Jacques Delors Institut – Berlin [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.27 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory content in the "Competences" section

Someone seems to have copy-pasted a report on the UK leaving the EU in the competences section, and it flies in the face of proper Wikipedia formatting / style. Doubletriplereversepsychology (talk) 2016-06-24 18:31 UTC

Kind of lack any competence too. How about them turning us into a war zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDecker (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics for a Good Article

It looks like very few information is missing for this article to be rated as Good Article.

My proposal of sections to add is as follow:

  • a photography of Jean Monnet;
  • Only the 2011 budget is shown, not the 2019!
  • Competences section should be at start of the article, first because this explains which regalian competences are in the EU scope, and which are not, but also because this provides some kind of natural plan for the article;
  • Currently, there is no map of candidates countries;
  • How much Internal imports and exports have been increased by the EU? (compared to imports and exports with third countries)
  • Foreign trades (such as the CETA or the Japan EU partnership) are not dealt with...
  • Citizenship is very few discussed;
  • Road traffic safety is not discussed, while the EU is involved in transport, and in monitoring the member state monitoring for road safety.
  • Mobility
  • Map of countries that have exited the European Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.216.24 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • List of political parties at the European parliament.
  • Interactions between sovereign member states and the EU, in topics such as migration, or country debt and deficit.
  • Graphics missing to compare the EU to some zones with similar size (populatiopn, GDP, area, ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.27 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Superpower?

To assert that a club of sovereign independent nations (who have agreed to act as one in some areas, notably excluding defence) is an "emerging superpower" is controversial at best. Great claims need great evidence and one book by one person [whose notability and competence is not demonstrated - is he one of the list at John McCormick and if so which one?] is not sufficient. More importantly, material in the lead section of every article should summarise the major themes in the article (see wp:lead) so one should expect that there is a substantial section in the body that amplifies that material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the issue but I have heard the claim that the European Union has the potential of becoming a superpower many times. I doubt that the real problem is how it is sourced. So, what is the actual reason why it should be removed? Eleventh1 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
There is even an article devoted to the European Union as an emerging superpower, whose only link from this article is in the deleted sentence. Supporting and contrary views are presented in that article along with several references. I'd say a single reference and a link to a more comprehensive article is enough for inclusion. chi (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
JMF spelled it out: if it's not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. This is a simple and fundamental principle. EddieHugh (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not automatically what WP:LEAD advices : see the paragraph about scope of article. The sentence about the EU as a superpower sends to another article (European Union as an emerging superpower). It is where it is developed and explained. Now, if you really want to add one or two sentences about that in the body of the article, why not but I don't think that it is absolutely necessary... Eleventh1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The original challenge was that it should suddenly appear on the scene and go straight into the lead. I for one would be very happy with a solution that added a new subsection summarising that article (with Main link) - and then the sentence in dispute being restored to the lead. (And John McCormick needs to be identified, otherwise it might look like a book promo). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's within the scope of this article: this is the main article on the EU! I support JMF's suggestion immediately above this comment: it's how things should be done. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, so who will create this new subsection ? And where should it go ? Toward the end of the article ? With Foreign relations? After History ? I could do it myself but only later in the week... Eleventh1 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Offer grabbed with both hands! - thank you. If all else fails, just copying the lead of the subsidiary article would not be far wrong, though maybe the "oh no it isn't!" view needs to be developed. After Foreign Relations seems best to me.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

When did the EU come into existence?

Could somebody help, I am trying to determine exactly when did the EU come into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2018‎

EU was established on 1 November 1993 through the Maastricht Treaty. --Glentamara (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent Human Development Index results

I believe somewhere in the article it says 27/28 countries have a 'very high' HDI; the new results have been out on the 14th of September 2018, and I believe 28/28 are very high now. Maybe this can be accentuated earlier in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy@ACS (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

New infobox for EU member states

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United Nations membership
MembershipFull member
Since24 October 1945 (1945-10-24)
UNSC seatPermanent
AmbassadorKaren Pierce

Could and should we create a new infobox similar to the one shown above but for EU member states? It could have on it the date of accession, the number of European Parliament seats and also the permanent representative as well as the current Prime Minister and President As member of the EU council. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC))

European Union - United Kingdom bilateral relations article

Can a article please be set up to show not only current bilateral relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom but for also when the UK leaves the EU in 2019, I know the UK has not left the block as of yet however a article should be started anyway being as perceptions of the EU are very different in the UK to that of other EU member states. Also such a article would help to show where the UK has opted out of various projects of the EU such as the Euro and etc. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC))

It is not a good idea. The latest sources write about plans to repeat the referendum and also the option of omitting brexit is considered. So, a separate article of brexit is enough, especially since it is likely that brexit will only be unfulfilled plans. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
As a UK citizen myself I can tell your facts are not quite correct, yes there are groups advocating a second referendum with the option to stop Brexit however to assume that 100% that Brexit won’t happen is simply not correct. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC))
these are not only "groups", this is the current government policy. Besides, I did not write "100% that Brexit won’t happen", I wrote only that these are only plans that may not happen. Therefore, there is no need to write about it in the main article of the European Union. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Let be be straight and correct you, currently a second Referendum is only policy within some of the main UK opposition parties. It is not and I repeat not the current policy of the current Conservative Government to have a second referendum on EU membership at this time. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC))
You're wrong. In addition, there is no need for a second referendum. A referendum is only the public opinion, the government has a decisive opinion. There are too many pressures from the EU and within UK (including disintegration of UK: Scotland and Gibraltar announce disconnection from UK, many companies and banks have announce leaving the UK). UK government policy in 2016 and 2018 is different, currently, most politicians and citizens are willing to stay in the EU. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
A referendum in the United Kingdom May not be legally blinding but it’s generally seen to be politically blinding. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:C9B5:A9C7:C4A7:E7AF (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC))
What does this discussion have to do with the idea of setting up a bilateral article about relations between the UK and the EU? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC))

This discussion seems rarher pointless. We already have the article History of European Union–United Kingdom relations. Dimadick (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, maybe it could be changed if and when the UK leaves I rest my case. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC))

The relevant policies are wp:crystal and wp:recent. When it happens and it is clear from reliable sources what has happened, then we report it. It must be obvious that relations will be very different depending on which of the possible outcomes actually happens. Meanwhile, we must wait and see. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits

I only edited myslef to make it much better, but you "don´t like", apparently, any of them, so i would like to ask in each case why you don´t wanna let me edit myself and why you are against each change. --BernardaAlba (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

1. I am not against ALL of your edits, but I think is important to show EU-US cooperation in photos such as meeting with Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker with U.S. President Donald Trump.
I am fine with that, altough i don´t see it neccesary to have 2 of them. For example, a good compromise would be keeping one of them and mantaining the nuclear deal with iran photo, one of the main focuses of EU diplomacy service and that happened in Austria.
ok, keep one of them
2. Do you think is important in this article to show photo of Goran Bregovic and the Wedding and Funeral Orchestra performing during ARTFILM film festival in Trenčín? This article reading around 10 000 people everyday, and I am not sure for how many people is this photo important.
Of course it is, we are talking about european culture, and he is the biggest representative of both music and cinema because of the bso in the whole balkans. It is very representative of european folk-pop music and cinema. He represents one of the most worldwide known european artists from the 90´s. And if he is in a festival, way better.
I disagree with this. For this article is really not important to keep this photo, in EU lives many more other artists who deserve to have photo here. As I know, he didn't do anything for EU, as for organisation.
I appreciate a lot the way we are getting a consensous, so i accept not including this one i suggested.
3. You changed vehicle registration plate from Slovak to Latvian. I am from Slovakia and I suppose you are from Baltic state. I dont care of it, I dont wanna fight for this thing, if you wanna Latvian there, change it.
I am not latvian, i just think it is an eassy way of represent the whole union.
Whatever, right now is there Romanian, let's keep it like this.
Let´s mantain the original slovak one, if you are fine with it.
4. The port of Tallinn is one of the busiest cruise and passenger harbours in Northern Europe with over 10 million people passing through in 2016. This is not important here. Again you wanna highlight Baltic country, but in the part about Economy of European Union is photo of Port of Antwerp container terminal - second-largest seaport in the European Union.
I don´t want to highlight anything, and i am as further away from the baltic countries a european can be. Antwerp is one of the ports in europe used for goods transportation bussiest. Nothing to do with showing an important infraestructure that contact 2 EU member states, i find that point very relevant.
ok
5. The stamp is dedicated to Lithuania's presidency of the European Union. Again Baltic?
You are a bit obssesed with the baltic thing. There is only at least one pic of each state, and i don´t see you sayaing "again benelux"? And of course from big countries there are more for obvious reasons.
I am not obssesed, but after your edits, you looked like you trolling and you want highlight Baltic countries.
There were any of any of the 3 countries, that anyway are very diverse between them. But i wanna reach a consensous so... what do you think about this? for me it is important for a small state to hold the presidency of that institution, particullary one of the 2004 enlargement. But i want to know your opinion.
6. Why did you change German version of an European driving licence to Croatian?
Something was wrong with German?
Why not? i think it is an eassy way of widerepresent the whole Union.
Why every EU country must have 1 photo? Germany represents huge part of EU population and they did for EU more then Croatian, so, they should have more then 1 photo.
Germany appears in the ECB builgind in Frankfurt, the one of the ESA headquarters and the Berlin Wall in history. That is why i thought it would represent the true diversity of the union better the (f.e.) croatian one

7. Why did you change French version of European Health Insurance Card to Slovenian?

Something was wrong with French?
Same argument
Same argument
same argument
I appreciate good faith, just imagine, everyday every editor will do so many changes like you. Thats really not important.
Of course. But i think i have explained well my point of view for creating an stable page
When u doing so many edits, write something to Edit summary. No only for me, but many users wants to know why u changed some things. After your explanation here, I understant better why you did this kind of changes in this article.
thank you a lot. i appreciate this working together
--Peter1170 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2018 (CEST)
--BernardaAlba (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And about the other 3 changes:

8. Congress of Vienna.

The text itself mentions it and says why it is relevant.
ok

9. Finland lake.

Finland is the country of lakes. It is more relevant to put one, also it is an eassy way of widerepresent the whole union.
no problem with this, but Sweden is also in the Union and Sweden haven't any other photo.
the bridge between denmark and sweden

10. Environement Agency in copenhague.

It is mentioned, it is relevant, and it is an institution.
ok
--Peter1170 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2018 (CEST)

Romanian plates

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=next&oldid=863995859 It was an edit war between Slovakian and Spanish plates, I didn't liked the reverts on this. So, the compromise solution is to have Romanian plates.

It NEVER was an edit war between slovakian and spanish plates. It was slovakian, and i was fine with it, but i changed it into lativan because i added something else about slovakia. I reached a consensous with the other person not to include the new slovakian thing, so it was decided to mantain it like it was on the first place, slovakian. --BernardaAlba (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no edit war here, we reached a consensous with BernardaAlba and we keep Slovak as it was before.
--Peter1170 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2018 (CEST)

Have to make some corrections

In the EU Page the percentage of religions it's wrong. Please correct. Livone (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a clear edit request and references. Île flottante (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"Conceptual criticism"

I tried to find a good definition for this particular term that is used in the FAQ above about why is there is no criticism section, but I cannot find one, neither in dictionary or google sources. RexImperium (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you come up with a better way of saying in three words or fewer "criticism of the whole idea"? Or indeed "support for the whole idea"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"A separate criticism section would focus on overall, conceptual criticism on the whole idea of the European Union."
In that case I think the term 'conceptual' here is redundant and slightly confusing. The line 'overall criticism on the whole idea of the European Union' would suffice. (RexImperium (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC))
Looks like whoever maintains the template agrees and has updated it accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


BREXIT MEAN BREXIT UK IS OUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.93.231 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

The "Media" sections doesn't adequately reflect the current situation in the EU. How free the news media of most countries in Central Europe are is up to debate, considering Concentration of media ownership etc., however in large parts of Eastern Europe the situation is really bad: The state owns lots of media outlets, strong limitations on free speech, intimidation of free media and much more. This is also reflected by the Freedom House scores, which rate some countries in Eastern Europe as "unfree". The section should appropriately reflect restrictions placed on the media in large parts of Eastern Europe. 2003:CD:7F0C:3900:7054:98B2:51FF:604E (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new start to the second line

I propose the second line be edited to start as below. The reason being: after basic facts should come origins and achievements. At the moment origins are missing. I suggest that the second World War was a clear differentiator in the ideas of forming a European Union and that Churchill's 1946 address was the earliest significant/influential address covering the subject.

Proposed edit: The EU... originated in ideas of federation, confederation, or customs union such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe[2]" and... 14:44, 24 January 2019‎ 2400:4070:3640:c100:d900:5382:736a:422a

It is a good idea in principle but as can be seen from the history section of United States of Europe, Churchill's contribution was not unique nor obviously pivotal. IMO, the key psychological threshold was the Europe Declaration (1951), made at the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1951) that estblished the ECSC.

"By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour."[3]

This seems to me to be unequivocal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/21/margaret-thatcher-backed-single-market-in-draft-bruges-speech
  2. ^ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/united-states-of-europe/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Der Schuman Plan. Vertrag ueber die Gruendung der europaeischen Gemeinschaft fuer Kohl und Stahl, p21 Ulrich Sahm mit einem Vorwort von Walter Hallstein. Frankfurt 1951.

"Background" should at the very least contain some reference to Hitler's dream of a united Europe

The section that is as follows...


"In 1929, the latter gave a speech in favour of a European Union before the assembly of the League of Nations, precursor of the United Nations.[41] In a radio address in March 1943, with war still raging, Britain's leader Sir Winston Churchill spoke warmly of "restoring the true greatness of Europe" once victory had been achieved, and mused on the post-war creation of a "Council of Europe" which would bring the European nations together to build peace."


Very specifically goes from 1929 to 1943, leaving out entirely Hitler and Nazi Germany's stated goals of restoring the German Empire (which was based on the Roman Empire), establishing a single European currency and by-and-large succeeding in creating a unified European continent under Nazi rule.

I find it very telling that this dark part of history has been seemingly left out on purpose despite how relevant it is to the section. I think there should, at the very least, be some references to Hitler's obvious goals and achievements regarding unifying Europe. And if this does not change it will be reasonable to assume those in charge of Wikipedia want no correlation between the EU and Nazi Germany, despite their geographical end goals being exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:c024:9d00:bdf8:d73a:58f5:1dbb (talk • contribs) 18:05 29 January 2019 UTC (UTC)

Wikipedia only reports what wp:reliable sources and wp:notable people say. I know of no such source that supports what your opinion but if you can produce material that meets wikipedia's criteria, please present it here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

The 29 March 2019 needs to be changed to 12 April 2019 90.202.194.206 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
But I have done it in effect by deleting the date as not needed in the lead in any case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is the UK still 'in the EU'

Every time biased editors here find a new excuse. The last one was that it will be changed on March 2019. So now what the new excuse is? and for how long are some editors here going to be biased and violating the rules of Wikipedia itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid the editors of Wikipedia are (probably) not those in charge of whether the UK is in the EU or not. CMD (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Legislature

Possessing the sole power of legislative initiative, the Commission is by definition the legislature of the Union, as expressed here: [1][2][3] This is consistent with Wikipedia's established definition of legislature, as expressed in Legislature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaurnheart (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC) While Parliaments in national governments are typically the legislature, it is made clear that the European Parliament is a unique institution, unlike national parliaments. Given the lack of sources, it seems that assumption is the reason behind the legislature being labelled as 'European Parliament'.

Alternatively, in conformity with the Politics section, it may be appropriate to either label the legislature threefold (Council, Commission, and Parliament) or simply to link to the Politics section, as the answer is not a simple one.

Vaurnheart (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The European Union is not state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure.
The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority ["competence" in Eurospeak] to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise, and that quasi-confederation has
It does not have a conventional legislature, period, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into that model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio. There is no true European Law as the EU Directives (which are not 'orders from Brussels) have to be transposed into national law in each member state before they have legal force in that state.
The role of the Parliament in this is to give (or deny) political approval, or to require amendments.
No competent reliable source would say that either of the Commission or the Parliament is a legislature in the conventional sense. The EU does not have a Government with a capital G but it certainly does have government: see Institutions of the European Union. Thus there are some activities that are aspects of a legislature but it is just wrong to suppose any direct equivalence with the US House of Representatives, Senate and Administration (Office of the President).
All of which is a long way of saying that I agree with your final proposal: simply to link to the Politics section, as the answer is not a simple one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There may be another, more straightforward way to explain this. In the UK (and countries with similar systems), the Government has de facto (though not de jure) exclusive authority to draft and propose legislation. [Exceedingly few Private Member's Bills become Acts]. But it is Parliament that is the legislature, not the government: it can approve, amend or reject the government's proposals. Similarly in the EU, the Commission is certainly not the legislature. But neither truly is the EP because of the checks and balances that exist to respect the rights of member states. That is why it is complicated and can't be expressed in two or three words in the infobox.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see the point you make about Private Member's Bills, but I would disagree that it is equivalent, since their difficulty is a circumstantial one (composition of the House) and not a legally impossible one, as in the EP (which can only send non-binding recommendations to the Commission as per the Lisbon Treaty). There is no equivalent to the PMBs in the EU: nothing can pass without the pre-approval of the Commission, so long as they "inform the European Parliament of the reasons" (Article 225 TFEU). I also wouldn't equate the Commission with the Government in the UK, since the UK's Government is elected. I definitely agree with your decision to simply link to the politics section. The co-decision process is too unique to compare to other legislatures, and we should leave it to readers to make their own judgement. I don't think anyone could express this arrangement in only a few words! Vaurnheart (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Another matter is that there is a tendency in parts of Wikipedia to describe the EU's legislative system as 'bicameral', between the Parliament and the Council of the EU, with the Commission apparently unimportant. I have been unable to find any evidence for this description either within the EU or without. I would suggest that we remove references to it, such as the Council of the EU as an "Upper House", and "the other half of the legislature is the Parliament", in favour of a more direct explanation. Allegory doesn't seem to fit here, nor have any evidencial basis. Vaurnheart (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Legislative powers". European Parliament. Retrieved 13 Feb 2019.
  2. ^ "Parliament's legislative initiative" (PDF). Library of the European Parliament. 24 Oct 2013. Retrieved 13 Feb 2019.
  3. ^ "Planning and proposing law". European Commission. 20 Apr 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_1&oldid=1134314550"