Talk:European Union

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

EU superpower

EU has the status of superpower that you should add in the presentation.If EU hasn't the status of superpower (check datas) Usa is neither a power.This should be written in the EU presentation and in the articles of Wikipedia "Emerging superpower" and "Superpower"(The same Wikipedia warns about the low level of the articles).These articles are so ridiculous to set Wikipedia in a very low level.Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles).Now and for the next years the majority of scientists and writers consider EU the main superpower.The problem is that EU people is quiet,while US people set in Wikipedia a lot of PROPAGANDA.Anyway liars have short legs!151.60.118.143 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously support the EU 100%. --Boson (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm objective.And you? In this crisis EU (also after the Yes to Lisbon Trarty in Ireland in Fall)is the only superpower .Check datas and everithig suggests that or EU is the main superpower or EU is a simple superpower and Usa aren't anymore a superpower.I travel and studied a lot.The US PROPAGANDA has legs shorter and shorter ,the theatre is fallen.151.60.117.188 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

evidence (in the form of reliable sources) please. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It only needs to see the datas in Wikipedia.In the majority of the lists you can see that EU is superior vs Usa.It's so clear that only a guy that isn't able to read can't understand.It's very evident.151.60.118.176 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to a reliable source describing the EU as a superpower? I can read just fine, but if I, as an editor of Wikipedia, describe the EU as a superpower it would be original research - we need a reliable third-party to describe the EU as a superpower, so we can cite them. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And even that may not necessarily suffice. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia presents mainstream accepted scientific view. If there is a debate in the academic world whether the EU is a superpower we cannot say more than that there is disagreement whether to label EU superpower or not (and that statement alone does require a scientific source for both positions). Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of writings on EU as superpower.One of them is "The United States of Europe:the new superpower and the end of american supremacy" written by T.R. Ried J.J. Myers ,December 2004 This is an example .The guys like you if they look for reality and not for other things should look for bringing up to date the data of EU vs the world.The EU is without doubt superior to Usa if you check all datas.Only the presentations in Wikipedia ("Superpower" and "Emerging Superpower") are stedy in the past.Propaganda is now made only by Usa presentations.That's sure!Nobody fight US PROPAGANDA and this isn't honest.If you need more books for set EU as superpower i can suggest you much more.I've seen that usa are considered superpower with only 1-2 references in "emerging superpower" of Wikipedia.151.60.116.96 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our role here isn't to "fight US propaganda" (living in the UK I tend to focus more on fighting British propaganda - like "our elected representatives deserve swimming pools paid for by the tax-payer"), but rather to report verifiable claims. If the mainstream view is that the EU is a super-power, we'll cite those sources that make that claim. If you can provide references from the mainstream media that would be great. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

EU is considered as superpower also in US media such as CNN.Many writers and the majority of scientists consider EU the main superpower today.I can suggest you also more books as references:i don't like propaganda for EU and i also dislike Us propaganda.I want only to set the things as well (not to me ,as other people do in Wikipedia very easily).I'm not able to set directly here the references,anyway i'll set them if you need as soon as possible with the help of my friends.Anyway you can ask me at the moment also more books about EU as superpower.151.60.116.96 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a two claims above: 1) CNN considers EU a superpower. Please link to the article by CNN with that exact quote. 2) The majority of scientists consider EU the superpower today. There are several million scientists in the world. Please provide a reliable majority vote of these (And to be fair, I'll let you off the hook and only ask for a majority vote of all political scientists (still probably over 100,000)). Without such references your remarks are only dogmatic ranting. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll set the references as soon as possible .Also you could look for them to set in Wikipedia a real situation.I wrote that i'll set the references.Instead of criticizing like a disruptive NOMAN (you say your "no" before and this is not good for your ojectivity) help in the work otherwise you're unuseful.Be aware to be not offensive or sarcastic. Anyway you must wait as i wrote for references ,are you blind? Can you show me the references and the criterias that allow Usa(THAT EU OVERTAKES IN THE MAJORITY OF WORLD RANKINGS) to be a superpower at the same time?I want to read a joke!At the end with some criterias only Us people will read Wikipedia in english.Anyway my main aim is to make clear a situation not very clear at all in some Wikipedia presentations.151.60.119.253 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to read sources on the point and come to a view on whether it should be included then. I think that summarises the position of most editors here. If you want to make claims such as these you should come equipped with the evidence to prove it BEFORE you expect people to go along with it. Also, your talk of US propaganda/lies and whether the US is a superpower are irrelevant here and undermine the strength of your argument. This is not a place to dispel what YOU perceive to be US propaganda. You also make sweeping generalisations such as "Nobody today (except US citizens trust these articles)", which make me doubt your unverified assertions elsewhere. I am not a US citizen, and I have no reason to distrust these articles.

Being rude to people who are simply asking you to prove what you assert is unpleasant and is unlikely to improve your argument. Lwxrm (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My dear the same Wikipedia warns you about these 2 articles about superpower.I heard novels when i was a child. In Wikipedia there are a lot of things presented without objectivity ,above all when we talk about presentation linked to today policy.People aren't stupid to understand it.Anyaway i'll set here the references about EU as superpower.Which are the criterias to write that Usa is a superpower? In the majority of ranking lists EU is ALWAYS superior vs Usa.The rest it's only lost time to speak.Buy $ for next years,and you'll have a lot of paper in your pockets!No idea.My aim is to set these references.151.60.118.161 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence. No point Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this is not US wikipedia article. Nor is it the superpower wikipedia article. Nor is it a forum for rantings about currency. It is the discussion page for the EU article. You have raised a point and been asked to verify it. Until you add some new argument or produce the references to it I will not respond further here. Lwxrm (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So how can you define if EU is a superpower or not? How can Usa be declared a superpower?Which are the criterias? If we talk about EU we must know also if it is a superpower as lot of people say or write.The same must be checked in the articles.I wait my friends to set the right references.Now wait please.151.60.117.72 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop feeding this troll? TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to stop me in setting references.You are without doubts a Us citizen. I wrote to wait.What do you want ?151.60.118.82 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Time to archive? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to me and the most of part of EU people that aren't Us propaganda man like you.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

100% EU people that aren't "Us propaganda man" are all one indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer, with a penchant for trolling, particularly making uncited claims, then promising supporting references that never quite seem to materialise. Blaming US propaganda on their inability to get anyone to agree with them is another aspect of this strange character's nature. The sock puppet investigation referenced above ("Time to archive?") gives more details on this recurring pest. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an old way (not very clever in the long time) to stop uncomfortable people by continuous and disruptive sentences.You're talking about something or somebody that i don' know .I prefer to talk about article "EU" instead of losing time with you.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have anything you'd like to discuss about improving the article? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No because i've seen your partial position in the other edit about EU spuperpower.It means that also many other people think similar to me .It's a defeat for you and official Wikipedia partial ideas ( at the source controlled by US citizens).Your nation doesn't matter and you can't prove the real nationality of everibody.That's all.151.60.117.41 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's pointless. If you have nothing to say then say nothing (i.e. don't post). Incidentally, you do realise that the vast majority of regular posters here are EU citizens? I'm not; I'm a New Zealand citizen. Sorry to rain on your conspiracy-parade. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Dictatorship?

With all the rules that the European Union states, it seems like a dictatorship. If you do not follow the European Union rules, you cannot be a member. For example: No EU member is allowed to have the death penalty. How can a "union" like that claim to be democratic? Democracy means creating rules that most of the population agree with. NOT something that a few politicians decide on. Now a few politicians make all the rules... nay... laws... for an entire continent? If that is not dictatorship, then I do not know what is... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I think you have no idea what dictatorship is. If the EU decides democratically death penalty should be allowed it will be, but for now it has been democratically been decided that the death penalty is illegal in the entire EU. If a country wants to be a member it has to underwrite the existing charter; i.e. not allowing death penalty. But that is obvious, the same goes for each and any membership organisation. Once a country is in, it can try to change the rules; according to democratic principles; nothing dictatorial there.

In any case western democracy is not as simple as "the majority at any moment X decides everything". Representatives get a multi year mandate. Constitutions often require super-majorities for change. Systems like that in the UK and the US do not use the 1-man-1-vote system but a district system allowing (in extremis) for a 25.1% fraction to gain absolute majority (50.1% of votes in 50.1% of districts). We call all these systems democracy, and so is the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The US won't allow individual states to provide religious eduction to their citizens, New Zealand prohibits its citizens from working with nuclear weapons, and Australia forces its citizens to vote. Democracy is a funny thing ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider the ban of the use of the death penalty like a federal law in the US. All EU laws are passed democratically through our parliament.--Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The EU is democratic, but not necessarily through the existence of the talking shop that is the European Parliament (it certainly was not the European Parliament that decreed that the Death Penalty is incompatible with EU membership). You could simply argue it is democratic because it is an organisation sitting on top of 27 democracies... it is therefore by definition democratic, no? --Simonski (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Spot on, indeed, Simonclamb! --Île_flottante~Floating island (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The European Union's political structure resembles that of the U.S.S.R. The European Parliament is elected by the people, but is very similar to the Central Committee in its actions. The Council of Ministers is not unlike the Supreme Soviet, but also shares similarities with the Central Committee. The Commission bears a remarkable similarity to the Politburo. Certain individuals have used that point to make the suggestion that the E.U. is a dictatorship that does not know that it is a dictatorship, with the suggestion that a European leader might at some point. Currently, these same people point out that 75% of law in E.U. member states 'comes from Brussels'. However, Brussels has no direct authority over the armed or police forces of any member state, or any other direct authority for that matter. Nor does the E.U. charge direct taxation, it charges indirect taxation via the member states. There is no direct parallel with the Secretariat, and no equivalent to the General Secretary. Essentially, the E.U. is a quasi-dictatorship with no dictator. It could also be described as an oligarchy.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If we start these comparisons here come the USA:

• Central Committee / Parliament: USSR 1 party; USA 2 parties; EU dozens of parties
• Supreme soviet / Council of ministeres : USSR Bicamerial system with region (either based on people voting or equal share per republic) representatives very similar to the USA Senate / House of representatives; EU, on representative per state (similar to US senate)
• Politburo / Council of ministers: USSR Leaders chosen by single leader; USA ministers appointed by President; EU each memberstate sends the relevant minister to the meeting

Out of the 3 topics you compare the EU with the USSR; for the first and the last the USA and the USSR are clearly more the same compared to the EU and the USSR. For the second it seems the USA and USSR are also more similar (but that is not as clear). (Note also that the US president has powers not unsimilar to those of the General Secretary in the USSR system). Hence your comparison, for whatever reasons goes not beyond: The EU and the USSR share some similarities that are present in many federal states (such as the USA). What point did you want to make here?

Following up with calling the EU a "quasi dictatorship" witout dictator is rather empty. I.e. it is no dictatorship.

And finally ending with "oligarchy". I agree the EU is an oligarchy to the same extend that every modern democracy is. To be able to act in the political system we have you need some attributes that not everyone has (money, charisma, pragmatism, being a good speaker, etc etc). These requirements make any such system by definition somewhat of an oligarchy.

So what is exactly the point you try to make above, and how would this help the article? Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Another anonymous American who opposes the EU and loves the death penalty. Wikipedia is not a forum for your personnel ignorant opinions. Ijanderson (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the anon 86.... IP is registered in the UK. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to IP 68 who is editing from Florida US. She/ He started this pointless discussion which I may delete as it not constructive towards the improvement of this article and because this discussion resembles a forum. Ijanderson (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh leave that poor American alone. Almost everything we achieved is commented from over the Atlantic with envy or (growing) hate. Our medical system? They say it's Stalin like. Environment policies? They say we have none. Death punishment? It does not matter what it is: the U.S. are a trembeling giant, soon to stumble, they know it and howl like kicked dogs. Poor americans. --84.141.41.129 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does this relate to improvement of the article? Ijanderson (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the EU is not a dictatorship because there is no dictator, but has a structure similar to one in some ways. It is also not a democracy, since the Commission is not elected. The Council of Ministers is appointed and not elected (the U.N. General Assembly would have been a better comparison) but it is still neither democratic or totalitarian. The U.S.S.R. is recognized as a dictatorship and bears certain similarities, but the resemblance is superficial. However, if the E.U. is not a dictatorship, what the heck is it? The U.K. Independence Party have called it a dictatorship, which may or may not be relevant to the article. And, yes, I am a British Eurosceptic.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? Why are you telling us this? Ijanderson (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially as it is wrong. The Commission consists of Commissioners who are nominated by the democratically elected governments of each of the member states; the Councils of Ministers each consist of the relevant Minister who is a member of the same democratically elected governments; the European Council consists of the prime ministers (or equivalents) of those same democraitically elected governments. This is a total red herring that does nothing to improve the article, indeed to include it would make the article laughable. --Red King (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I think it would be ridiculous to label it a dictatorship in the article since it appears like a fringe opinion infrequently held and heavily disputed. Even mentioning that some people say that is giving undue weight, in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

n/a infobox

Do the infobox need to have the n/a, when the list of countries have EU listed? Jørgen88 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to use an archival bot for this talkpage

I propose that we get a bot to archive this talkpage automatically. Using the following config:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(2m)
|archive = Talk:European Union/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 24
|maxarchivesize = 175K
}}

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To proposal. Yes please

194etc. Why oppose? These scripts only archive threads that have been inactive for a while; moving inactive discussion to an archive is generally accepted, and necessary to keep a talk page operational. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support--Boson (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I added the bot a couple of weeks ago. I used a 90-day waiting period, so the effect hasn't been drastic.

—WWoods (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

90 days puts us in early May. The last manual archiving was more recent, so the bot should not have yet kicked in ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has ... 65k worth. page history: /Archive 23 —WWoods (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aargh stupid me. Of course with the bot in place there should not be stuff older than 90 days........since that is what the bot archives. At least I didn't notice the bot as something bad (if at all ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now I see. The oldest stuff on the page is from May. Given that the page is still rather large what about trying a 45 day period instead of a 90 day one? If the archiving is going to work properly it needs to keep the page at a more managable size. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A shorter period makes sense to me. I put it at 90 initially 'cause I figured that was so long as to be uncontroversial.

What does 194x... think about reducing it to 60 or 45 days?

—WWoods (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

45 days sounds good to me. 1 1/2 month inactivity on a talk page as active as this one should be a sign of a dead topic. Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Good, I've set the interval to 45 days. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Considering the negative nature of the EU and all the criticism that exists regarding it one has to ask if the whitewash that it receives in this article is appropriate and if it shouldn't at least have a criticism section?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See: Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions Arnoutf (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• SupportSTRONG!!! SUPPORT Adding a criticism section to the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose critisism section per the arguments somewhere in the archives, and summarised in the FAQ section. I.e. my vote is to maintain long standing consensus not to add a critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Criticism sections can sometimes be OK if they are focused, but if criticism is of a general nature, over a range of different issues, it is best to parcel the critical coverage out to the different sections. I am also questioning whether the request here is being made in good faith in light of the diffs [2] and [3]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think there should be a criticism section (just as there is no "criticism" section of Canada despite many Quebecers wanting to separate) but I think there are important elements that fall out of the criticism that may warrant mention. I'm thinking specifically about countries not ratifying the constitution in popular votes and such. TastyCakes (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: is it wrong to consider supporting this proposal purely because of this? (looks innocent, slinks away). Seriously, though - don't agree with a criticisms section (per WP:UNDUE), do agree with incorporating notable "flak", per TastyCakes. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose critisism section. It is very probable that it would become a troll magnet. The issue has been discussed at length. See the result of the discussions in th FAQ.--Boson (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This "it's been discussed throw a FAQ at em" attitude is most disturbing. Just because the section wasn't agreed upon at some earlier time doesn't mean that we can't agree to create it now. As for these troll magnet predictions they are not really appropriate. I realize that the editing of this article is dominated by proEU people but I do not really think that the existence of the EU is justifiable and I know that there are many people out there that feel the same way as I do, should our voices simply be silenced because of political correctness and corruption? How would that be in any way fair?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the FAQ is that regular contributors get fed up with going over things again and again and again. Please read the archives and the Wikipedia page on criticism sections. I won't repeat all the arguments here, because they are already there if you can be bothered to read them. --Boson (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict Boson) Comment - recomment. It is not that the section was not agreed upon earlier - it was actively decided that critisism should be topic wise and not a stand alone section.

All your following comments show that you are out there to give an anti EU view; how is that neutral?? To maintain neutrality of view is exactly why there is no critisism section. Following the same outlook "do not really think that the existence of XXX is justifiable" a critisism section towards the USA or Israel (or any non muslim country for that matter) from Taliban/Al Qaeda point of view could be suggested.

This issue has been discussed in depth. It has even been deemed important enough to preserve the outcome as FAQ to give new editors like you an overview rather than an even less satisfactory "Find it somewhere in 1 megabyte of archive". It is not the task of established editors to repeat a discussion, it is the task of a new editor to familiarise oneself with the history of the page (i.e. read talk page archives).

In short, just accept there will not be a separate critisism section. Arnoutf (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to compare those who oppose the EU to Al Qaeda members or members of other terrorist organizations and I hope that this is not the general opinion of the EU supporters that edit this article. You do however make some valid points but I nor anyone else is obliged to accept that there will not be a criticism section, this matter is now under discussion and we'll see how consensus evolves.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information. Standing consensus is that there is no critisism section. You will need to organise consensus (and consensus is preferrably anonimousunanimous) there should be such a section. As it stands now 4 editors explicitly are against critisim section; a fifth prefers parcelling critisism out per topic; but has not explicitly stated being against (nor in favour) of a critisism section (as it is currently done, and discussed as such in FAQ) and only 1 (194x..) in favour. To achieve true consensus the supporter will need to convince all of us. That is very unlikely, so I would suggest to close now. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous consensus you say? Well in that case on behalf of my anonymous friends I hereby vouch for their support regarding including a criticism section into the article and seeing as their numbers are greater than 4 the consensus now leans in favour of including the criticism section.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! You're forgetting my anonymous friends (all opposed). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer consensus to be unanimous, but there's often one who disagrees with everbody else.--Boson (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the article should contain criticism, not a criticism section. A criticism section is normally just a good sign of a bad article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blue-Haired Lawyer puts his finger on it precisely. --Red King (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above - Blue-Haired Lawyer - practice is no criticism section as magnate for loonies, disperse into relevant sections (that way, also kept relevant to article, rather than irrelevant twaddle by IPs).- _J.Logan`^t: 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto above. This is just a redundant slippery slope. There is no "support" section either. - SSJ ☎ 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per same reason as editors above. A section about criticism would be biased, we don't have section about support of the EU. Not having sections about criticism and support is more NPOV! Ijanderson (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets wrap this up. 9 opinions against adding a critisism section 1 in favour. Seems clear standing consensus (that there should not be such a section) is not changed. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual error?

According to Intergovernmental organization, they have a legal personality. But the EU doesn't have a legal personality, so the EU is not a intergovernmental organization. Right?--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the EU is a legal person in relation to its treaties. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the EU per se is not a legal person until Lisbon enters into force. Today, only the European Community (one of the EU's pillars) has a legal personality. Therefore, the EU isn't formally a WTO member, but the European Community is. I personally think "a mix of a supranational system and an intergovernmental system" is a vague and not particularly good description of the EU, but it's certainly a catchy and convenient label. - SSJ ☎ 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, without Lisbon, the EU (in contrast to EC) treaties are pretty scarce ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the Lead

It should be trimmed a lot, way too much for an intro. Because its a complex isue, generalise the language to fit the general idea in some sentences. No need to mention the commission, court ect... Don't metion too much detail, its just an endless source of conflict. So everybody can read what he whants.

a first draft:

The European Union (EU) is an association of 27 sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of there competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate there policies in a number of areas, without however constituing a new state on top of the member states. Under international law, the EU respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituing treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.

then a little list, in prose, of important competences, fisheries, agriculture, common market... A lot can be recycled here.

--217.112.177.214 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the intro is too long. For an article of this size, I think we need 4 full paragraphs; it could perhaps even be slightly longer.

As for the first paragraph, I agree that it should perhaps be improved if we want to get back to FA status, but I prefer what is there now over what was proposed, though the multiple references should be consolidated or pruned and "primarily", though necessary, should perhaps be put in parentheses (or in a footnote).

I think the remaining paragraphs do a reasonable job of summarizing the article, but improvement is, no doubt, possible.

I think the major institutions and the four freedoms are significant, so I would not like to remove those bits.

I think the two sentences about intergovernmentalism etc. (An international organisation sui generis,the EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. In certain areas, it depends upon agreement between the member states; in others, supranational bodies are able to make decisions without unanimity. ) should be moved to the article body (e.g. the Governance section).

--Boson (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with Boson. Per B.'s last point, though, I do not concur since those two sentences more specifically identify what the EU is and its basic operation, and those are important enough for the introduction. It's also a counterbalance to the minimalism of the lead sentence. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is not too long, it is about right for an article of this size isn't it? (according to WP guidelines)- _J.Logan`^t: 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd agree with the points Boson makes - the issue of the lead isn't going to go away - as we saw very recently every now and then somebody is going to want to tweak it. Shortening it would certainly have the positive influence of removing the amount of material up for constant debate. It may actually be a sensible move to remove the Supranational/Intergovernmental discussion from the lead and allow the reader to find out the information in more detail elsewhere. On a side note, I'm still unhappy with the open ended "regional integration" phrase in the lead and will be trying to address that in the near future. --Simonski (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Timezone

Why does the timezone list UTC 0 to +2? What about the overseas departments that are integral to the EU? They should be included no as they are just as part of the EU as the mainland.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think it would get quite messy adding all the overseas departments. Would adding a footnote be enough? TastyCakes (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, its just accuracy you know.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for entering this discussion on a different note, but I was just thinking, do we even need a timezone entry for the EU infobox? Is it really that relevant? I mean there are so many timezones found across all the EU countries that to me it seems like another instance of this article being used to make it seem as if the EU countries have another thing in common when clearly here they dont? Can somebody convince me here that we need the timezone entry? --Simonski (talk) 11:02, 9 August 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: [4]- _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)