Talk:Western European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Opening intro and merge[edit]

The opening paragraph looks rather alarmist for an organisation that in reality is generally believed to be defunct and irrelevant. "...an obvious remilitarisation of Europe"? "...a military takeover"? For NPOV, any conspiracy theories about the WEU ought to be later on in the article if at all, rather than forming the introduction.

I couldn't agree more. There is a lot of conspiracy theory amongst Javier Solana as the antichrist about the WEU and some 10 horn prophecy. I removed the first paragraph, and will sniff around the article a bit more. I have removed the neutrality notice but will put it back on if i think the article is still not neutral. --SqueakBox 03:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey wrote the controversial bits, and I have now reverted it; it was some of her worst writing; shame noone else spotted and reverted, which is what our friend 131.111.193.22should have done. Well spotted! --SqueakBox 03:33, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

No reason to merge the treatu of Brussels with the WEU in my opinion, two different topics heavy enough to get own articles. Theodore W. 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theodore Itake 15:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my merge suggestion, then, and await with pleasure some robust and accurate content in both separate articles from Theodore W. and Itake. If the articles are not improved after a month or two, justifying their separate existence, I'll just merge them anyway. --Wetman 02:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If you gentlemen wish, I can redirect any questions to the appropriate authorities. This article is seriously out of date, but to cut to the chase, WEU is now a very small cadre principally maintaining a legal power to ensure the mutual defence of Western Europe, and providing the only official forum for Parliamentary Defence and Foreign Affairs Committes of the National Parliaments at national parliamentary level. Thoughts to replace this with powers in the Treaty of Lisbon were discovered to be misguided, and so there is every possibility it may continue for some time. Contact rahere at skynet dot be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.130.104 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Distracting blank spaces[edit]

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Extinct[edit]

I think this organisation is now defunct. I will check. Chelsea Tory 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still active: http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/agencija/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=2&NrArticle=48094&NrIssue=223&NrSection=10 It's really time they merged it into the European Union, though. —Nightstallion (?) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, the reason it was not integrated at that time was that the French National Referendum which rejected their ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht left the European Union without any legal self-defence authority other than that enacted in WEU in Article 5 of the 1955 Treaty of Brussels. It was not therefore possible to close WEU until a replacement Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, was fully ratified, and once that had happened, the UK, desperate to save every penny possible in public bodies expenditure in the wake of the 2008 recession, denounced the Treaty immediately.
Previously to that, certain subsidiary bodies remained in WEU's care, pending the transfer of their competences and practices and, in many instances, staff, to various corresponding EU Agencies. Rahere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.174.34 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Denmark[edit]

The part of the article dealing with the Observer countries says "Observer countries are members of the European Union, but not of NATO.". Well unfortunately this is wrong because Denmark is in NATO (and indeed a founding member), so that will have to be reworded, or Denmark put into a different category or something. --Hibernian 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:European Defence Agency logo.svg 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 09:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Rahere (former senior WEU staffer). I note, however, that the logo has now disappeared. Should I discover copies of the WEAG/WEAO insignia in my archives, I will post them: they are different from this.

Incoherency of map and list of countries[edit]

I've noted that the map of the WEU countries is not adequate to the list of countries on bottom of the article. I don't know what is the present state of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwys0 (talkcontribs) 02:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In what manner is the map inadequate? All countries listed are shaded on the map, each country is shaded the appropriate color. Khajidha (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless you meant the navbox at the end of the article, THAT is seriously messed up. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix that. Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Figured it out and fixed it. Khajidha (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

France and NATO[edit]

It is incorrect to say that all the member countries were members of NATO since France left NATO in 1959. I suggest modifying it to: "All Member Countries were both member states of the European Union and NATO at the time of their accession to the treaty." 143.229.188.103 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

France has never left NATO entirely. It did, however, withdraw from the military command structures of NATO. Sounds silly, but that is what they did. --Khajidha (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

The organization of sections in this article seems weird. I would expect the section "Participating states" and "Organization" to be incorporated into one section (or at least successive sections) while the abolition section would seem to be the obvious place to end the article. Perhaps a short section on how the WEU influenced later developments in the EU and/or NATO. Given that this group will soon be defunct, this is a good time to consider rewriting the article. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Operational Activity 1993-2001[edit]

As a former senior WEU staffer, I find it regrettable you make little or no mention of WEU's operational activity in the years 1993-2001. You will find details on WEU's website weu.int, which is still up.

In practice, WEU's Council also played a strategic role designing and implementing the diplomatic and defence planning of Western Europe, and in particular led the accession of the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, from the Ministerial Meeting at the Egmont Palace in Brussels on 23-5 April 1990, which agreed the principal of their future accession, to their initial welcome as partner states and then accession as full member states, allowing them to gain the background and experience necessary to join NATO and the EU.

One aspect of the Assembly that you may perhaps underestimate is that it considered until the very end that its function as the sole forum for the Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committees of the primary National Parliaments (indeed, the only place the Parliaments ever came together in their own voice) should continue after 2011. This has not happened in practice, but as several European States do not accept the full plenipotentiarity of Europe over their national legislatures, I think you must reflect the presence of the lacuna in the European democratic structures. At the time that I write this, the European Court has decided the UK's rider to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, whereby it precludes legal pursuit on these grounds against its decisions as a plenipotentiary power, has lapsed, in terms which suggest all European Legislation may have primacy over the UK legislature. As the vast bulk of the UK population finds that unacceptable, according to population censuses, and a clear majority currently wishes to leave the Union, this abrogation of the UK's National Plenipotentiarity may exacerbate the debate: several motions are in preparation in the UK Parliament to advance the Secession Referendum from 2017, which the UK's Prime Minister David Cameron has currently committed to, to 2014. At the same time, Europe considers that the secession of the UK would be disastrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.174.34 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)