Talk:European Union

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

New Super Power Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a superpower.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superpower, postmodernist and image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passposrt Picture

I noticed that the picture in the single market section uses a Lithuanian passport as an example of the the "standard passport design", as this encyclopedia is in english wouldn't it make sense to have a picture of a British passport so that people looking at the page can read it? 124.187.132.77 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say "no" because it doesn't really matter about what it says but now that I think of it... it is the English speaking page and it would mean that English speaking readers would see and be able to understand more clearly what the standard member state passport in the EU looks like. I suppose we take forgranted that people outside of Europe might not really get it if they can't understand it. Certainly very few visitors will speak Lithuanian. Not such a bad idea from the anon IP actually. --Simonski (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, a British, Irish or Maltesse passport would in my opinion be more suitable due to the details being in English. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also tending to say no, as an English language passport might indicate English as the offical EU language. But then I looked at the passport and could not figure out what was European about it. To be honest, I think it might be interesting to show 2 passports to show that colours, position of texts and coat of arms is the same, but actual texts and coats of arms are not. If that is too complex, an English language passport would probably be best. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd scan my British passport but with all the wear and tear, most of the 'gold' on the coat of arms has rubbed off rendering it useless. What might be interesting is the cover next to the third page, where 'European Union' is written in all of the different languages of the EU. That would show the diversity of the union. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In my Dutch passport this is on the back of the hard plastic identity card and in rather fine print, but yes if you can scan that legibly that might be an idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of a Gibraltar Passport on commons that is used in the passport article. I don't think it's a great picture though, the gold is kind of reflecting funny. TastyCakes (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, there are many passports shown on the European passport page, including British, Cyprus and Irish ones with English text (among other languages). The Maltese one does not have English on it. TastyCakes (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I've scanned pages 2 and 3 together in a very high resolution (warning: file is 25Mb). I've Photoshopped it to remove my passport number for obvious reasons. I have never uploaded an image before, so if anyone wants to email me via my userpage I can send it to you. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a picture of an Irish or Maltese Passport as they are also in English and because wikipedia is meant to be be representative of all English speaking people not just Americans and British people. Can I change it to either Maltese or Irish then please? IJA (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my only arguments against this would be that the British passport is the only one with just English (the Maltese one doesn't have English on it at all in the version I've seen). Also, the UK's passport is used by over 10 times as many people as the Irish one (many times more than Cyprus, apparently the only other EU passport with English on it). So it seems to me that the UK passport is a better representative of an EU passport than these two, and the best representative if we require the example to be in English for this page. TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

British is logical, no point in putting up Maltese just to be representative for a small number of people. Lets not be too PC.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish? IJA (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? I mean, I know I am talking from a British perspective but what is the reason? Surely "being representative" is to either pick all or the one representing the largest number of people. If we were on the French wiki, would be be saying, hey, lets use a Belgian passport rather than a French one! No. Well, the French can be like that anyway but my point is I think people are arguing for Irish/Maltese passports because they don't think the UK is representative on the political side. Granted, but lets think logically.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf suggested two side by side: we could put both the British and Irish passports, thus portraying the two countries that use English, showing that the passport cover varies by nation and favouring neither. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, Malta is also in the EU and has English as an official language ;) So, "thus portraying the two countries that use English" would not be correct. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 21:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do we need to avoid favouring either? Surely the practical solution would be just one. If we are putting two up, then the other ought to be from another, non-English speaking, country. Otherwise we are being biased towards English speaking nations no?- _J.Logan`^t: 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But again, English doesn't appear to be used on the Maltese passport cover. TastyCakes (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Île flottant: I meant "use English on the front of their passports" not the two that "use English as an official language". In general, personally I am not that bothered if we use a British Passport, Irish passport or both, though I admit that the previous choice of Lithuanian stuck me as somewhat odd on en-Wikipedia. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we have two, I suggest one English (Irish because it has two languages) and one non-English at totally random selection. Well, as random as we can be. So... (I'm throwing blue tack at a map) the Czechs. How about that? Irish and Czech? They both follow the same kind of format as well (not like the adventurous Portuguese of Swedes).- _J.Logan`^t: 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Euro page

Hi, can someone who knows something on the monetary agreement situation lend a hand here please?- _J.Logan`^t: 13:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nato Membership

User Lear21 reinserted a this text Twenty-one EU countries are members of Nato in the introduction reinstalled longterm standard content in introduction / please discuss major changes at the talk page first with the edit summary "reinstalled longterm standard content in introduction / please discuss major changes at the talk page first"

I argue here that this text is not standard in the context of the EU; and should therefore be omitted.

1. It is indeed standard that countries list all important international treaty organisations they are member of in the lead.
2. I agree we should list all important international treaty organisations the EU is members of, even if it is not a country
3. In fact we do list all the important international treaty organisations the EU as an entity is member of, or has representation with: having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport controls between many member states which form part of the Schengen Area
4. In all these organisations the EU as an entity has a role e.g. an observer seat labelled as EU. The EU as an entity has no role whatsoever in NATO (even if many of its member states are full members).
5. Hence there is no official relation between EU and NATO
6. As there is no official relation between EU and NATO, there can never be standard content for a Wikipedia article related to such a relation
7. Hence the line is NOT standard content and should be deleted.

I am pretty sure Lear21 disgrees with this reasoning, if you comment, please be specific where you disagree. Arnoutf (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is important from a geopolitical point of view, but considering the connection is weak and the EU is not party (in fact, relations between the two are rather troubled) then it does seam more trivia than important. I'd say it is work keeping if a better point can be made of it, for example an official document stating that NATO is responsible for the defence of Europe and hence this is not covered by the ESDP.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your argument has some merit, but does not warant inclusion in the lead section; and only emphasises that this information is far from standard, wich seems Lear21's most important argument for inclusion in the lead.

From the point of view of the countries who are member of NATO, their membership is important. From the point of view of the EU, the fact that many countries are member, but not all, and that EU-NATO relations are troubles is of some interest. But in my view, not to the level that it requires inclusion in the lead (and certainly not following the argument it should be because it is standard information to list membership of international organisations; as EU is not member).

Europe is not the EU, and it is unlikely that the NATO has a mandate to defend Europe anyway (Moscow is in Europe!). As far as I know the NATO is only responsible for the defense of its European members, including (non EU members like Norway and Iceland); but that it has no mandate regarding the defense of non-members (like Sweden and Finland).

In summary, this is all interesting and worthy of some discussion but is in no way standard information, and should be listed in the foreign affairs or military section, not the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well through implication and practical reality when you say defence of Europe you do mean the EU, even with Austria outside you can hardly say that Austria could be invaded by Russia without NATO coming into play. Regardless though, I agree it is not standard for the lead and hence it could be lost.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful in distinguishing between Europe and the EU here. For example Ukrain and Georgia (parts of) are in Europe, and so is the European part of Russia. In any case, I think this is a very complex issue. Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Two member states at least (Sweden and Ireland) are very sensitive about their neutrality and have gone to great lengths to put clear blue water between the EU and NATO, in terms of clauses in the treaties. The fact that some members happen to be members of both has to be regarded as coincidental. I strongly oppose inclusion of this factoid. --Red King (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pending agreement on this, I have moved it to the end of the Defence section. If it has to be mentioned at all (and I admit that it is not entirely irrelevant), it should be at the end of the section and not in the lede. --Red King (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence already makes it clear: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states". Because the vast majority of members and almost up to 90% of the respective EU population is involved in NATO security alliances it is a matter of relevance to mention this fact in the lede. Lear 21 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the relation EU - Nato is of some significance. In my view this is however not sufficient for ede as the EU itself has only limited relations to the NATO. I am willing to discuss whether is should be in the lede and accept if a consensus develops for placement in the lede.

The argument that this is standard information remains irrelevant as the EU as a legal entity is not member of the NATO, so please do not use that to try convince me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 90% correspondence cuts it. In comparison all EU member states are members of the Council of Europa and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, but these aren't mentioned. In order to be included in the lead an organisation should have a specific EU element, such as a delegation from the European Commission as in the WTO and the G8. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note of interest: [2]- _J.Logan`^t: 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting indeed.

Anyway, playing the devil's advocate; the somewhat schizophrenic situation of the EU in relation to the NATO (some EU and NATO members, some EU members strongly claiming neutralaty) is of some interest. It may even be sufficiently interesting for the lede, but the issue of individual countries being member is not really a topic (note that >10% (UK, Malta, Cyprus) of EU members are also member of the commonwealth of nations, so why not mention that). Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, though the Commonwealth - regardless of how many members are in it, is an irrelevance. A better example might be the likes of the OECD or similar? NATO is important, just not in the lead. As a fact on its own it shouldn't be there, but in the interests of compromise, anyone okay with something like this?;

"The EU has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the WTO, G8 summits, and at the UN. Though, although it has an increasing military role, defence is still the preserve of members and NATO (which most EU members are a part of)."

That way the fact is included, but as a side note to a more relevant fact.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The longtime established sentence is accurate and relevant. It focuses the fact that the "member states" are part of NATO. Nothing wrong with it. For the first time reader this knowledge is important to assess the security situation in the EU as a union of several partly souvereign countries. Lear 21 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Lear I don't think you've actually addressed the points people have been raising and there appears to be a consensus against its inclusion right now so I've reverted your last edit.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JLogan here. To repeat my point:

This is, and has never been about whether the information is accurate, or even whether the topic is relevant as part for the larger article. (I agree)

The discussion is about whether the relation EU-NATO is sufficiently essential for understanding of the EU as a single, united, functional entity (i.e. not the separate countries but the EU as a whole) to justifie inclusion in the lede (which is a summary of the main points of the larger article).

I think it is not important enough for inclusion in the lede; in other words I challenge your (so far unsupported) statement that this fact is sufficiently relevant for inclusion in the lede. Please provide convincing reasons why it should be added to the lede and I might reconsider my take on this. Arnoutf (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article focuses on both the EU as a supranational institution / organisation and as a territory where 27 states ruling intergovernmentally. The strategic, geopolitical NATO membership for most of the member states is a relevant fact and important to understand the security situation in the region called EU. Lear 21 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are the only one who believes that this fact is critical enough to appear in the lede. You sould not have reinserted it given the clear consensus that it does not belong there. I have reverted; please do not reinsert it until you have persuaded a clear majority to your point of view. --Red King (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides agreeing with Red King that your statement is a minority opinion, it is even more problematic. Your argument does not lead to your own conclusion. If we are talking about 27 states intergovernmentally; subsets are by that definition excluded (however many states participate); your definition even excludes any organisation all EU members are member; but the EU as an intergovernmental organisation of countries has no relations with. Arnoutf (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lear, the information is still in the article, just not on the lead. We just don't think it is of the same importance. This is one line in the lead, not even the removal of the fact, is this really worth you starting another one-man fight about?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the debate, but would support the consensus for its removal from the lead and placement elsewhere Lwxrm (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good points, okay how about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsidiarity

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

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

Sui generis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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