Talk:European People's Party (European Parliament group)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject European Union (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Number of member states[edit]

It is written "the European Council, where 14 out of 27 heads of state", but there are no more 27 heads of state but 28 (since July 1st 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.255.87 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Are the Tories members of the EPP? john 04:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. They are members of the ED. -- Kaihsu 10:56, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)
So what is the difference between the European Democrats and the European Democratic Party? --Henrygb 09:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

they are associated members and do not have to follow the epp wip. also isnt the logo of the epp-ed a heart with the 12 stars within it?? Wild ride 04:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Associate members and observators[edit]

What is the distinction between the status of Associate member and the statute of observator ?

Revas 01/06/05

i think associate members of the ED and observers are parties in non-eu states but are members of the council of europe Wild ride

UUP[edit]

well in that case why not have the conservatives preficed with England, Scotland and Wales as they don't run in Northern Ireland? there is no reason for the inclusion of Northern Ireland there. Traditional unionist 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Yes there is. I agree with it, it mirrors the division used for the Belgian parties. —Nightstallion (?) 17:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

template for grouping?[edit]

I just noticed that I added a party template for a parliamentary group, probably not the best format. I am going to leave it for the time being however, because maybe it's a good idea to have a template for groupings as well? Any ideas anyone...? Gryffindor 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted for now, as EPP-ED certainly ain't a party. ;)Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

Someone has to fix this box. Thank you. --Rokbas 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:European Peoples Party–European Democrats logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:European Peoples Party–European Democrats logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:European Peoples Party–European Democrats logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:European Peoples Party–European Democrats logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The coalition no longer exists[edit]

The EPP-DE is now just the EPP with the creation of the European Conservatives and Reformists. --Triwbe (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal continuity of groups and their treatment on Wikipedia[edit]

I've reverted a change of Fentener van Vlissingen (and for good reasons), but there is a point to his version, so i want to talk about it here.

Groups continue to exist as long as they have sufficient MEPs and countries to meet Rule 29: when they slip under the threshold, they cease to exist. The centre-right group currently called "EPP Group" is one of the three that have (I think) never slid under the threshold. It has changed its name several times, but there is legal continuity. So despite the name change, it is the same group.

Now, the question arises on how we treat groups on Wikipedia: when they change their names (which they do with a depressing regularity), do we create a new article? We haven't done so in the past for the EPP Group under its various different incarnations because (amongst other reasons) they are legally the same entity (I'm trying desperately to avoid a Doctor Who analogy here). Ditto for the socialist group. But we do have separate articles for the first and second Rainbow groups, and I'm not sure the latter wasn't the legal continuation of the former (possibly ditto for EDD->IND/DEM). So there are precedents either way.

As things stand, Fentener's proposed separate European People's Party–European Democrats article has no real justification: it is not a legally separate entity, and there's nothing on it that isn't in the European People's Party (European Parliament group) article. So I've reverted it to a redirect.

However, we have perhaps a fortunate coincidence here. User:Timrollpickering wants to go into detail about the plotting (probably wrong word, but there you go) undertaken by the UK Conservatives prior to their secession from EPP-ED. It occurs to me that a separate European People's Party–European Democrats article would be the ideal place to put it (although it might be a WP:COATRACK violation). So if User:Timrollpickering will commit to putting in the time to adding those details to this article, then this separate European People's Party–European Democrats article has a reason to exist. Otherwise there's no real point at the moment.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't create that separate article, but User:The Tom did. I moved the former European People's Party–European Democrats article to European People's Party (European Parliament group), and then The Tom created an article in the "European People's Party–European Democrats" namespace, that now had become a redirect. I agree with this, I see no reason to not have an article about former groups. It's also not a regular name change; the European Democrats, a Eurosceptic subgroup of the EPP-ED group left, which leaves the EPP as a very pro-European bunch. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't blaming you personally.
  • The article has nothing in it that is not already the European People's Party (European Parliament group) article.
  • It is not the first time that something like this has happened: when the Greens left Rainbow I, that was a massive change. When the Gaullists left the Liberal group in the 60's/70's, that was a massive change. Arguably, when the UK Conservative joined the EPP Group back in the early 90's, that was a massive change. When Forza Italia left Forza Europa and joined another group, that was arguably a massive change. Your statement that this is "not a regular name change" doesn't hold up - this isn't an exceptionalism. It's just another day in the Eurotrenches.
  • You are correct that the UK/Czech departure will change EPP: its coherence will rise. But its generally integrationalist (federalist is probably too far) stance will not change much, since ED were already functioning as a de-facto separate group. So again, this isn't an exceptionalism.
  • I agree that former groups should have their own article, especially since I wrote most of them. And it may be that in future somebody will take the time to fission EPP Group into its five distinct incarnations and bring each article up to spec. And that person will probably be me. But at the moment there's no real justification for having a separate article because it contains nothing that isn't on the main article and nobody is committing to bringing it up to spec.
  • In short, its present status is unsatisfactory because it's just echoing the main article, and there's no realistic prospect of that changing in the short term. So keep it as a redirect until somebody bothers to contribute enough distinct text (again, probably me) to justify a separate article.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Because my main sources are oncampus the details on the EPP & ED divisions and formation of the ECR will be slightly delayed. On the other issues:
Groups have often changed with the coming and going of members, but usually such change is gradual - for instance the EPP changed in the 1980s and 1990s as part of a process of attracting more centre-right parties, particularly those from an non-Christian Democrat tradition, who came in in stages - e.g. the Spanish People's Party came in in 1989, the UK Conservatives in 1992, Forza Italia in 1998, the French Gaullists in 1999. Some of these were really reflecting changes in the domestic politics of those countries with other centre-right parties either no longer vetoing the membership of a rival or being absorbed, rather than changes in the EPP itself.
Name changes are sometimes a usual marker point for separate articles, particularly if the change accompanies a big realignment, but often the change is really just a branding decision. We don't, for example, have a separate article for every different name used by the 1867-2003 party in Canada that ended up as the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada even though it used many (Conservative, Unionist, Liberal Conservative, National Government, Progressive Conservative) and its position on a lot of issues changed over the years (e.g. from pro-Britain, US sceptic, protectionist to forget-Britain, continentalist, free trade).
In this vein the 1999 EPP change was really little more than a branding arrangement designed to make membership of the group easier for the UK Conservatives to accept & sell back home. At most the ED was the equivalent of a platform within the EPP grouping.
It's not 100% clear whether it's accurate to say the European Democrats subgroup split from the EPP, or whether the individual parties left the grouping which renamed itself. This is further complicated as virtually everyone in the British media & politics (and perhaps others), regardless of their opinion on this issue, ignores the distinction between the ED and the EPP. I'm also not sure if the ED had much of a decision making mechanism. Certainly all the talk from the Conservatives and ODS has been about leaving their existing grouping and forming a new one, not about dissolving an EPP-ED coalition and changing the ED name.
In conclusionat the moment this article should cover a grouping that has been in continuous existence since 1953 inspite of the 1979, 1999 & 2009 name changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page move[edit]

This talk page got left at the EPP-ED article namespace when the article was moved, so I've remarried it to the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

mastella[edit]

one of the elected from people of freedom list, clemente mastella, is UDEUR leader. do you think it shpuld be kept with PoF in the table? --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

need to clarify the headline[edit]

Hi, the title of this article would be clearer if changed from "European People' Party (European Parliament Group)" to "EPP Group: Group of the European People's Party in the European Parliament". There is indeed a difference between the Group in the European Parliament and the Party itself. Thanks, Lada

need to clarify the headline[edit]

Hi, the title of this article would be clearer if changed from "European People' Party (European Parliament Group)" to "EPP Group: Group of the European People's Party in the European Parliament". There is indeed a difference between the Group in the European Parliament and the Party itself. Thanks, Lada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lada-Jurica (talkcontribs) 08:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)[edit]

Is the 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) an official member of the EPP?

--RaviC (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference #23[edit]

Seems to be a broken/unknown link when followed to the hosting page. Smsfrancis (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC) smsfrancis