Talk:Member state of the European Union

do u guys think we should add an S to states at the name of the article?

IsraeliIdan (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes we should, I don't know why it doesn't have a S, there's more than 1 state in the EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by HayHoHereWeGo (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus at this time for the move, as proposed. The fact that both sides are citing WP:PLURAL in their arguments should be convincing enough arguments that there is no consensus here. On a strict nosecount, the supporters may appear to have a one !vote edge; however, in evaluating arguments, it's important to consider what this article is about: a list of member states of the European Union or an encyclopedic article on a member state of the European Union. Looking at that article, it seems it's trying to do both things. It's unclear what this article is, so until that's sorted out, which could, potentially, involve a split proposal, the opponents, perhaps, have a slight edge, but even that's not totally clear. Thus, a no consensus result is the most reasonable here. Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Member state of the European Union → Member states of the European Union – More than 1 state in the European Union & confirmity with every other "Members states of" articles on Wikipedia. This article is the odd one out and gramatically doesn't make sense. HayHoHereWeGo (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PLURAL. Plural is appropriate for "Articles on groups of administrative divisions (states or provinces), such as States of Austria, States of Nigeria, Provinces of Sweden." —BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Will bring it in to line with other similar articles. Elshad (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as it does not appear that the impact has been considered. I suspect that this proposal has more to do with better tidiness than increased usefulness.
  • There are many articles that read something like Belgium is a member state of the European Union. Obviously a page move will generate a redirect so it will still work but will it cause confusion?
  • The article is substantially (and, IMO, should be exclusively) about the rights, privileges and obligations that being a member state brings. It is not about the states collectively (that is covered by European Union).
  • There is a risk of WP:FORKing the European Union article.
  • No doubt there are more. --Red King (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BarrelProof. I don't find the objections above convincing: redirects from a singular to a plural form and vice versa are very common and hardly confusing, much of the article is already about the member states as such rather than simply the condition of being a member state, and I don't see any additional risk of forking the main EU article given that I doubt tweaking the title is going to open the floodgates to extra content. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURAL. The concept of the article is in the singular, it is about what it is to be a member state, not about the group of member states collectively, and as WP:PLURAL says, [i]n general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles; for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is Dog, not Dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well. We say, for example, that the UK was a member state of the European Union, and not that it was a member states of the European Union. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This proposal has already been made and rejected twice already (see Archive 1). No new arguments have been made that justify raising it again. Time wasting. --Red King (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The last time (in 2011), no consensus was found on the singular/plural issue. No Consensus is not the same as a Rejection. As stated in WP:MOVED re-requesting a move is not considered bad form, if the previous outcome was No Consensus. There does not need to be a new argument for that. --AntiCedros (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support There is not a single other article in the English Wikipedia starting with "Member state of", however there are quite many starting with "Member states of", such as Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, Member states of NATO, Member states of the United Nations, Member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Member states of the World Trade Organization, Member states of the League of Nations, Member states of the Arab League, etc. I currently do not see, why this particular article should be any different from the others I have mentioned. --AntiCedros (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Those are all list articles: this article is about a status in international law. --Red King (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I would agree that this article's title should follow the conventions established in other similar articles, noted by AntiCedros. However, Red King has rightfully pointed out, this article isn't a mere list of states which are members of the EU, but rather mostly about the EU Member State status in international law. Has anyone considered splitting up the article, such that the international law content goes under some other title, perhaps "State membership in the European Union"? Then leave the list here to bring it up to the same form as the other "Member states" article and rename it as such. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURAL. No reason to create an exception here, and clearly "member state of the European Union" is a valid concept in singular as well as in plural.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table in Member state of the European Union#Current members is unwieldy - could it be cleaned up?

The table in question currently has 16 columns. I don't think I've seen any with this many on any other article, and It makes navigating it difficult, even on a desktop PC. Would people be open to removing some of the columns from the table? The ones I think that could most easily be done away with are those that are unuseful for making direct comparisons. These are: Native name, code, and capital. Furthermore, I think 'territories' could be better integrated in the table, and flags positioned to the right of the country's name rather than as a separate column. I have indicated with Cyprus and Denmark in the table below how the this might look. Domeditrix (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! All of this stuff is in the country articles, so only 'comparison at a glance' is needed here. I would lose

• List of countries by GDP, it tells you that Germany has the largest economy and Malta the smallest shock. GDP per capita is the useful comparator.
• Languages
• Territories

But maybe best if you do your proposals first (which I support) and then consider mine as they are maybe more controversial. But in the meantime, I suggest a change to the GDP column title in case we must have it, to GDP (US$M) [I have done this below but not in article]. --Red King (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the table in the main article. I'd also support removing languages and GDP. Domeditrix (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have pasted back below your revised (live) version. It really does look a lot better now, it fits on a reasonable (25cm) laptop or tablet screen. So let's let it stand like that for a week to see if anyone has further comments. --Red King (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

We could make it even slimmer, and more compliant with Wiki guidelines by removing the flag icons per MOS:FLAG. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to that, it's still a large table by most standards. Domeditrix (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is just clutter. If it were a list of UN members, flags provide a quick access method but here it just cruft. --Red King (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to confess I've just added ISO3166 codes into the table. Tables are data, and means of linking data together between tables is useful. Wikipedia is a general reference source, used widely by many people. Is the 'Czech Republic' referenced in this table the same as 'Czechia' referenced in another source? The ISO3166 code verifies that yes, it is. It may reasonably be argued that one of the two columns is superfluous, but (in my opinion), they cannot both be. There may be an argument for having a more comprehensive table as a separate page, with only a subset of its columns on this page, provided there is a link to the more comprehensive table. Simon standingstone (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Country name	Accession	Population	Area (km²)	GDP (US$M)	GDP per cap. (PPP)	Currency	Gini	HDI	EP seats	Languages
Austria	1995	8,792,500	83,855	437,582	53,558	euro	29.1	0.908	18	German
Belgium	1957Founder	11,365,834	30,528	534,230	49,529	euro	33.0	0.916	21	Dutch French German
Bulgaria	2007	7,101,859	110,994	55,824	24,595	lev	29.2	0.813	17	Bulgarian
Croatia	2013	4,154,213	56,594	57,073	27,729	kuna	29	0.831	11	Croatian
Cyprus	2004	854,802	9,251	23,263	41,407	euro	31.2	0.869	6	Greek Turkish
Czechia	2004	10,467,628	78,866	205,270	38,834	koruna	25.8	0.888	21	Czech
Denmark	1973	5,743,947	43,075	342,362	53,882	krone	24.7	0.929	13	Danish
Estonia	2004	1,315,635	45,227	26,506	35,853	euro	36.0	0.871	6	Estonian
Finland	1995	5,577,282	338,424	272,649	47,975	euro	26.9	0.920	13	Finnish Swedish
France	1957Founder	67,024,633	632,833	2,833,687	47,223	euro	32.7	0.901	74	French
Germany	1957Founder	82,437,641	357,386	3,874,437	53,567	euro	28.3	0.936	96	German
Greece	1981	10,757,293	131,990	237,970	30,252	euro	34.3	0.870	21	Greek
Hungary	2004	9,797,561	93,030	136,989	34,047	forint	30.0	0.838	21	Hungarian
Ireland	1973	4,774,833	70,273	250,814	83,399	euro	34.3	0.938	11	Irish English
Italy	1957Founder	61,219,113	301,338	2,147,744	40,470	euro	36.0	0.880	73	Italian
Latvia	2004	1,950,116	64,589	31,972	31,402	euro	35.7	0.847	8	Latvian
Lithuania	2004	2,847,904	65,200	48,288	36,701	euro	35.8	0.858	11	Lithuanian
Luxembourg	1957Founder	589,370	2,586.4	65,683	108,951	euro	30.8	0.904	6	French German Luxembourgish
Malta	2004	440,433	316	10,514	47,405	euro	25.8	0.878	6	Maltese English
Netherlands	1957Founder	17,220,721	41,543	880,716	58,341	euro	30.9	0.931	26	Dutch Frisian
Poland	2004	37,972,964	312,685	547,894	33,891	złoty	34.9	0.865	51	Polish
Portugal	1986	10,291,027	92,212	340,715	33,665	euro	32.1	0.847	21	Portuguese Mirandese
Romania	2007	19,638,309	238,391	199,093	27,998	leu	31.5	0.811	32	Romanian
Slovakia	2004	5,435,343	49,035	99,869	36,640	euro	25.8	0.855	13	Slovak
Slovenia	2004	2,065,895	20,273	49,570	38,462	euro	31.2	0.896	8	Slovene
Spain	1986	46,528,966	504,030	1,406,538	41,592	euro	32.0	0.891	54	Spanish Galician Catalan Basque
Sweden	1995	10,080,000	449,964	570,591	54,628	krona	25.0	0.933	20	Swedish

Notes

References

Splitting proposal

I propose that section(s) Member state of the European Union#Membership be split into a separate page tentatively called either Member states of the European Union or List of member states of the European Union. This article seems like it's trying to be both, and mostly, an encyclopedic article on the structure of the European Union in the context of a member state and a comprehensive listing current and former members of the European Union. In short, it's trying to do two things at the same time, and splitting this section, and any other off-topic sections, would help to improve the quality of the article overall. Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nom Comment If the latter name is chosen, that "list of lists" will need to be retitled or disposed of, if desired. Doug Mehus T·C 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

* It seems a bit nit picky to me, since it is just a fairly small table and it is useful to this article to show which are the states that participate, but I would accept (reluctantly) List of member states of the European Union. (stricken per my reply to Dmehus below)
I strongly oppose Member states of the European Union because of almost certain confusion with this article, a fork of it and a fork of European Union. --Red King (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Red King, It's not a content fork, though, as Pinchme123 and even yourself noted in terms of what this article is about. This article should focus on the structure of the European Union member state, as you noted in that move discussion. Trying to return to FA status by retaining off-topic bulk is a fool's errand, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:, we seem to be a bit at cross purposes here, so let me clarify. To omit the table of member states from this article is not a significant issue, forget I raised it, I have stricken it and added a 'Support' tag below. By far my bigger concern would be for us to have two articles, one called Member state of the European Union and one called Member states of the European Union, because that way madness lies (or is just an underhand way to reopen the failed RTM above). If the proposed article is called List of member states of the European Union, there is minimal risk of a fork given its unambiguous raison d'être. If anyone wants to read about the member states collective actions and status, then see European Union. --Red King (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Red King, I disagree that there would be a content fork. Arguably, there is other off-topic content from the singular article that should be moved to the plural, no? You've said yourself in the previous discussion that this topic should be relating to how the member state relates to the European Union, not about more contemporary changes to the various member states. Doug Mehus T·C 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:, I suggest that the evidence for forking is already with us, given the current presence in this article of "other off-topic content from the singular article that should be moved to the plural". Such content actually belongs at European Union, not a new article. --Red King (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Red King, Maybe, but European Union is a very long, unencyclopedic article. That's intimidating. I have no interest in reading that article. The answer to return to FA status is not necessarily the preservation of article length, but on quality. There's probably some content that should be cut entirely from this article, I agree with you there, but, equally true, European Union needs pruning and/or splitting. Doug Mehus T·C 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the references section of European Union. Is there any way to split that into a separate article? It's gastly long. Doug Mehus T·C 17:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:, that really is not a good enough reason and smacks of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. We are dealing with an important principle here, not the practical issues of implementing it. It may be boring to do but it is not insurmountable. --Red King (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Red King, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just an essay, not a policy. Moreover, WP:PAGEDECIDE essentially lets the prevailing consensus of the article(s) in question should be written, as long as facts are verified and the topic is notable (which there are no concerns with). So, in such cases, the consensus really comes down to !votes of the regular editors, since there's no policy-based prohibitions. Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus:, indeed it is. It is advice to stop and think (and it applies to me too) whether the proposal or opposition is influenced more by personal values than by best-efforts objective analysis. Please remember also that Wikipedia operates by broad consensus, not by a simple majority of whoever happens to notice a debate on a particular page and on a particular day. Please observe too that that there have been three failed attempts to move this article to States (plural). --Red King (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(apologies for length) Ok since those previous moves have been referenced so many times, I've gone back to read them. The first had the suggestion of a move to "Membership of the European Union" introduced. When that whole request found no consensus on anything, the second was opened suggesting this specific move. It had exactly two participants, and was closed with no consensus. The third move did not reconsider this proposal, but instead focused on capitalization and pluralization and at this point the discussion remained focused on what the content of this current article is, which is not primarily about the member states themselves, but rather what membership is via international law. That brings us to the recently-closed fourth move request that just finished, with largely the same focus as the third request.

Looking back at that first move request discussion, the support for "Membership of..." was more widespread, but only few of those individuals returned for that second move discussion. NOTE: Red King, you were one of those who expressed support for an article split, where the content of "Membership of..." would be [w]hat are the criteria, which states qualify, what is the procedure, what is the glide path, what are the consequences (link to the four freedoms, the euro, maybe Schengen if only to say it is not consequence, and so on). (your comment can be found under the break, you began it with a bolded "Comment"). In the most recent move request, your vote included the explanation, The article is substantially (and, IMO, should be exclusively) about the rights, privileges and obligations that being a member state brings.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does this mean you think the article with this title should be about those already in (and perhaps formerly) the EU, and you think a separate article would be about the process of becoming a member? Or perhaps, are these two (IMO related) subjects appropriate for one article, and perhaps that article could be titled "Membership of...", "Membership in...", "State membership in..." or something similar?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify then: the article contains material about the European Union that should not be here, it breaches WP:CFORK. So yes, I support splitting it out. What I do not support is to make that material into just another fork of the main EU article unless it is clearly designated as a summary-style spin-off, such as might introduce an article that is combined list of lists. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No, this article should be about the rights and responsibilities that a state took on when it joined the ECSC, EEC, EC, or EU as the case may be, and how those changed subsequently. What is the status of a member state in the Union, in international law, perhaps in domestic laws, jointly and separately. If anyone wants to know about the member states collectively, we already have an article for that. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok for this described content, what about a title, "EU member state" (or some variant of the capitalization/acryonym-or-not, but in this order)? I'm basing this off of U.S. state because that is the example that jumps to mind, where this content isn't a part of the overarching article about the political entity. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have neutrally notified only the participants of the most recent page move discussion of this splitting proposal, as there was some discussion in terms of how the current article is topically. If anyone is aware of regular editors of this article, they are most welcome to notify them as well using {{Splitnote}}. Also, regarding the semantics of the split, note that this is just a preliminary proposal...other sections can be added to the split; it is about separating the article topically. Doug Mehus T·C 23:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I added a note of this discussion at talk:European Union after talk began of decision by majority rather than by discussion leading to a consensus. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support this split with the first title suggested, with support for a name change of this article sans-list once the split has been made. "Member states of" articles are, to my knowledge, primarily lists of nations/nation-states and I do not see a compelling reason to go against the convention in this case. The concern will be what to do with the redirect from "Member state of..." once these two articles exist though, which will need to be worked out. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  I have no object to that modification, Pinchme123, and would support the titling of the proposed split article when consensus has been found. Doug Mehus T·C 01:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I support a split of the material to List of member states of the European Union (actually it needs to say by what criterion, since this name is already used to disambiguate lists by various criteria). --Red King (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support split with the first suggested title. AntiCedros (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support It should be split off into List of member states of the European Union, however, since that article's name is similar to an already existing article, the contents of Lists of member states of the European Union should be moved into a differently named article in order to remove any possible confusion between the two. boldblazer 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I do not see what clarity such a split would bring. It's a list of just 27 entries (if 27 is enough to be comprehensive then that's a short list). It neither overwhelms this article, nor feels like it is lacking in items that could be expanded upon in its own list article. It is not doing two things at once for the article to list member states and describe their function. There's no evidence the inclusion of the list is impeding the quality of later sections. Rather, it provides very useful context. On policy and guidelines, I would expect, per WP:NATURAL, that a reader coming to the article Member state of the European Union would expect to see who is a member state of the European Union, and so some form of the list would have to remain anyway. On splitting, this article is nowhere near large enough to merit WP:SIZESPLIT considerations. There's nothing stopping the rest of the article being improved with or without the list being present, so this feels like a solution in search of a problem. CMD (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Terms of reference for the establishment of the Member states of the European Union

Further to the discussion with Red King, and to prevent giving carte blanche authority to the proposed Member states of the European Union article split, please list below the type(s) of content that can occur in the split article, Member states of the European Union. After everyone has added or refactored these terms, we'll have a separate !vote adopting the terms. Such terms could only be amended by the a consensus majority representing two-thirds in support of both Member state of the European Union and Member states of the European Union. This would alleviate any concerns of content forking. Anyone trying to inappropriately fork the content of Member state of the European Union in Member states of the European Union can be taken to other, erm, venues.

• Note: Sign your name next to the item you add or modify. If deleting an item and not adding anything, make a good edit summary and sign it stating what you deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Membership section, consisting of current and former member state(s) of the European Union Doug Mehus T·C 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment#1: this material belongs in, and is already present in, the European Union article. --Red King (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment#2: In addition, we already have List of European Union member states by political system, List of European Union member states by population, List of European Union member states by GDP growth, List of European Union member states by average wage, List of European Union member states by health expense per person, List of European Union member states by minimum wage, List of European Union member states by unemployment rate so what additional criterion is there for another such list? --Red King (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would argue that this is all the more reason to have an article title without "List of" in it whose content follows the conventions for other "Member states of..." articles. Because there are valid reasons for each of those lists with their specific foci, but it is also valid to have a simple executive summary article. This current article is, as you've already pointed out, not an executive summary kind of article, but instead about international law surrounding membership in the European Union. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

      I would be happy to have an article that is just a limited-in-scope introductory 'executive summary' (as suggested at WP:CFORK) but am really concerned about the confusion that will arise from having two articles with virtually the same name (as permitted but cautioned against at WP:PLURALS).

      The reason that we have so many different 'list of' articles is that a table that contains all the data columns that everyone wants would need a 2 meter wide screen to display (see discussion above from last week about pruning the table in this article). So naturally people create new lists with selected data. I believe that these list articles are more useful standalone because the can be wikilinked but it is not a big issue for me. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

      Red King, We could combine each in to separate sections and redirect each to the respective section, so wikilinking wouldn't be an issue. However, I was thinking essentially have a limited executive summary article, have the membership wikitables, and then a table with links to each of the other tables and brief annotations on what each table contains. Doug Mehus T·C 13:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

      @Dmehus: yes, I had realised that. What I suggest now is that you do a sandbox version of a new article. Maybe I am overestimating the difficulty and you are underestimating it, so let's suck it and see. We may have to come back to the article name: I'm thinking along the lines of one or other being called Membership of the European Union but let's put that discussion on hold until after we agree your draft.--Red King (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

      Yeah, I concur with Pinchme123. I don't necessarily think this table should be deleted as it does encapsulate important data, but it's even more of argument to split it. As to those other lists, I would actually be supportive of merging those lists. Honestly! We're not statistics. Doug Mehus T·C 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

      Or, alternatively, have a combined Member states of the European Union that incorporates some of the details in those lists, as a sort of "list of lists." Maybe the Terms of Reference could be such that it be limited to a list of lists of data and information on/about European Union member states? Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

      I don't think merging them would be the best course of action. Instead, I would suggest we create a list of lists similar to Lists of U.S. state topics, which lists (among others) all List of U.S. states by _ articles (which are quite numerous) as well as U.S. state. Perhaps Lists of EU member state topics? -AntiCedros (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

      AntiCedros's suggestion looks good to me. The title of any new article has to begin List of ... and end with by ..., giving the criterion for the list. I also liked their mention of U.S. state, which parallels this article and I notice that talk:U.S. state#Requested move 5 February 2020 (which was based on [IMO] the same misunderstanding as evidenced in the discussion above) got very short shrift indeed. --Red King (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this is necessary. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality - withdrawal section

The following text under the "Withdrawal" section lacks neutrality of tone.

"The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT ending 47 years of membership despite (subsequently incorrect) allegations of electoral misconduct during the referendum and repeated calls for a second referendum by those seeking to remain in the European Union irrespective of democratic votes otherwise"

In particular: "irrespective of democratic votes otherwise" and use of "despite". Further the allegations of electoral misconduct are not entirely settled especially given footnote 31: Dan Sabbagh, Luke Harding, Andrew Roth: Russia report reveals UK government failed to investigate Kremlin interference The Guardian, 21 July 2020.

Better text would simply read: "The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT ending 47 years of membership."

Allegation of electoral misconduct during the referendum should be handled separately. It would probably require engaging with the Russia report mentioned in fn 31. Similarly the issue of a second referendum would need to be addressed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.247.124 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Repetition in Withdrawal section

The final para, which is a summary of the stages of withdrawal of the UK, repeats a lot of info from three or four paras earlier. Boscaswell talk 07:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ukrainian membership

Has the Ukrainian government been allotted a membership in the E.U.? Is so, when? This will change the life of millions of people for the better. Let’s dump Putin. Democracy rules. 2600:1702:1F30:1190:7439:47E3:2BD0:ACD6 (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)