Talk:European Union

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

Sovereign decision making

The lede contains this paragraph. It contains the unsupported assertion that I have highlighted. The lede is supposed to summarise the body: there is nothing in the body to repeat it, let alone expand it. Minimally, this needs to be addressed.

As an international organisation, 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 sovereign decisions without unanimity. Important institutions and bodies of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by Member States' citizens, to whom the citizenship of the European Union is guaranteed.

When I challenged the underlined bit by edit comment and tag, a later editor gave the handwaving response "the ECB and ECJ are sovereign", without any justification. So, rather than just tag it again, I am posing the question again. Which "supranational bodies" are sovereign? Last time I looked, neither the ECB nor the ECJ were sovereign states. Both owe their existence to their founding treaties. Both are constrained to act within those treaties. They have delegated authority, not sovereign authority. Show me the reliable citations that say they are sovereign. --Red King (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree... what you've quoted confuses the intergovenrmental/supranational distinction with the soverign/non-soverign distinct... the power of EU institutions to make decisions binding on all member states without their unanimous consent does not make the EU soverign. Actually, what makes e.g. the member states soverign and the EU non-soverign, versus the US states non-soverign and the US federal government non-soverign, is a very interesting question. Is it the right of withdrawal? Arguably, pre-Lisbon, EU member states could not withdraw without the unanimous consent of their fellow member states. US states, post-Civil War, can withdraw with the agreement of the federal level (i.e. Congress and President). Is it a practical matter of distribution of powers? This is a hard question, even though the official answer is obvious. --SJK (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is moot, since the passage was removed long ago. Of course, "sovereign decision making" (if it means anything) does not mean that the EU or any of its institutions are sovereign, and this was not claimed. The member states pool their sovereignty in certain areas, and decisions made by EU institutions in these areas, presumably, constitute an exercise of this "pooled" sovereignty. --Boson (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance of information added to lede

Following the sentence

"Since then the union has grown in size through the accession of new countries, and new policy areas have been added to the remit of the EU's institutions."

there have been repeated additions and removals of the following:

Enlargement of the EU has occured through a process of accession of new member states, with more future members actively seeking entry. No member state has ever withdrawn from the Union, although some other territories have left, notably Greenland in 1985."

The first part of the addition repeats content from the preceding sentence. Is the other information sufficiently significant to be included in the lede (as well as in the section on member states and the sub-articles referred to there)? -Boson (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The repetition seems to have been avoided by trimming the first sentence. I think Greenland has no place in the lede; future enlargement (with wikilink) could be kept. Antipastor (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenland aside, I am frankly amazed anyone can think that links to the sub-articles on enlargement, future enlargement, and withdrawal, are not important enough to be in the lede. And as an aside, although I do not see it as important as these basic links, I do happen to think it is pretty notable that Greenland is the only major place to have ever left the union - I am quite certain that this fact is not known by the vast majority of readers, who quite often wrongly assume the EU is and always has been, just a geographically European, ever expanding, entity. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We may have different ideas about the function and purpose of the lede and sub-articles (by which I mean those articles that are created because of size constraints and are linked to by a {{Main}} template - and are summarized in an appropriate section (which, in turn, is summarized in the lede). --Boson (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody claim before that wp:lede advocates not linking to relevant sub-articles. If the sub-articles are so poor that the reader would be better served reading the relevant sections of this article first, before or until they move onto sub-articles, that is an entirely different matter, which is not really how we should decide what to and not to link in it. If someone reads the lede, and then decides they want to go directly to a sub-article about future expansion, instead of going on to read the main article, I have no issue with that. This is a wiki, this system of content organisation is somewhat second nature to most readers I am sure, and they are not going to simply forget about the existence of the main article just because they see a link in the lede. If I am wrong and this is explicitly stated some where that I have never noticed, point it out. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to linking to sub-articles from the lede, per se. However sub-articles (in the sense we are talking about) differ from other linked articles in that the content is functionally part of the overall article, unlike a "see also" or a normal related topic. They are created because of space constraints in the overall article, and the corresponding section in the overall article is written in summary style. The lede contains a maximum of about 4 paragraphs and the main purpose of the bulk of the lede is to summarize the rest of the article. This means that the lede contains a summary of a summary and, because of the scope of articles like this one, it is limited to the most important information needed to summarize the article. If we permit ourselves to increase the length of the lede, the information you want to add has to compete with all the other information that was already removed over time to keep the length managable.--Boson (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As with all other articles, the lede should summarise the content of the article. It should not summarise other articles. The content may summarise other articles, providing a {{main}} or {{see}} link to them. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Controlling length is one thing, not linking is another. Like I said, I have never seen anybody state that wp:lede prevents linking to sub-articles, effectively forcing people to waste time reading the main article even if they don't want to. Feel free to reduce the length if you feel an extra couple of lines on something so obviously important as expansion is not important to the summary, but I see no logic in removing the links in the process. And just why, for example, are all the other links to Schengen, CAP, fee movement, member state, citizenship etc etc etc not similarly considered violations of this idea about navigation, as they are all also sub-topics of the EU as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure, who is supposed to be claiming that. --Boson (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Claiming what? MickMacNee (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to "I have never seen anybody state that wp:lede prevents linking to sub-articles", which I accept as true but took to imply that you were rejecting some claim relating to wp:lede and a prohibition on the linking of sub-articles. Otherwise I see no reason for your statement. Perhaps you could clarify the intended significance of your remark. --Boson (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you, or are you not, arguing that the lede should not contain links to sub-articles? MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that the whole addition should be questioned and, if there is no consensus for its inclusion, removed. The fact that the addition contained links to what you call sub-articles is secondary.--Boson (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Just to be clear, I am also not arguing that the lede should contain links to sub-articles. I would argue that otherwise undeserving information should not be added to the lede in order to provide a link to such articles. --Boson (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevance is simply self-evident. I do that from the position of a reader who came to the article, and whose first reaction on finding such sub-topics as expansion, future expansion and withdrawal, had the instinctive reaction to think, how is that not in the lede of the main article? I remind you, the prior version is: "Since then, the EU has grown in size". How? When? Why? By what process? Constant or all at once? That is the sort of ommission that is not a minor oversight, it is just glaringly obvious. Expansion and future expansion is infact often the only thing that anyone in the media ever talks about regarding the EU. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a glaringly obvious oversight. It is, in my opinion, a detail that should be explained later in the article (or possibly in a sub-article), though reasonable people can have different opinions on the subject. What is regarded as a detail that does not merit being included in the lede, of course, depends on the amount of information contained in the article, which needs to be summarized in a few paragraphs. My main reason for discussing this here is my belief that such changes to long-standing consensus should be discussed here if they are not immediately accepted. (WP:BRD)

This article deals with issues related to the EU and its 27 member states. It concentrates on currently implemented policies and captures the current status quo. In this light the recently added sentences have no relevance for the introduction. a) because the beginning phrase repeats content. b) because future candidates or developments are not integral part of the EU and therefore have no relevance (at least not in a summarized short intro) / not even the Lisbon Treaty is mentioned c)Greenland is not and will not be a member state of the EU (There is not even one of the other 27 members mentioned). I would very, very much appreciate that responsible editors remove this highly irrelevant content from the lede as soon as possible. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How is not relevant? It is frankly odd to claim past and future expansion of the EU is not relevant to the introduction of the article about the EU. By this logic, the entire paragraph dealing with History need not be in the lede either, as it is not about the current 'status quo'. Or are you just hoping that first time readers would not wonder at all at how the EU can just jump from 6 to 27 members? Maybe they will just assume it all happened by military invasion. You do not own this article, and you certainly have no right to infer I am an irresponsible editor for having such outlandish opinions for thinking this info is relevant. Or did you just assume I am just some crazy idiot who goes around randomly adding crap to articles?. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And where did you get the idea that the current version suggests that Greenland either ever was or ever will be a member state? You simply haven't even read the sentence, you have seen a link to Greenland and had some form of automatic reaction to it. And you are technically incorrect on both points regarding it anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mick that the enlargement process is both, important and interesting, to understand the EU as a whole. This is mirrored by the weight this topic gains in the media (as Mick has pointed out). We should think to give this complex a bit more weight in the lede as well. Since this is currently debated, I restricted myself to increasing the visibility of the discussed content in the Member States section. To further the discussion of the lede content, I want to propose the following to substitute the last sentence of the current lede:

Since then, new policy areas have been added and the EU has grown in size through a process of accession of new member states, with more states actively seeking entry.

This way we do not repeat the details (i.e., no member state ever left, Greenland) and we do not increase the length of the lede. However, we do mention the topics growth and the ongoing desire to join. I admit that the way I put the links may be a surprise to some of the readers. Improvements are very much appreciated ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 08:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording. But I don't think the links are necessary or helpful. --Boson (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --Red King (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Red King, you are happy with the wording and/or unhappy with the links?

I just changed the linking of the proposal above a bit. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lear 21

OK, I'm out. Lear 21 has serious behavioural issues it seems, not least with communication, respect, and ownership of this article, which are not going to change anytime soon by my analysis. He has made his fourth revert to the article while discussion continued above, and his one contribution to the talk page remains that gem above which came after his third revert, when he was clearly only concerned about not walking into his 10th block for edit warring, and not at all bothered about discussing the content or replying to other people, and simply arrogantly re-states his own opinion and requests swift action for my 'irresponsible' edits which he had not been able to otherwise purge himself. I don't particularly care about the article, so I am not going to do what should be done about him even though I should, but as a general message to all the regulars here (although extremely worryingly, Lear 21 is the leader by edits to it, by a mile - 1,050 changes, to 697 in second), if alarm bells don't start ringing for you when exhanges and behaviour like the above are the result of edits made to the article by experienced editors coming to the article reading it for the first time, (which is a failed FA no less), then good luck to you. The article certainly served no purpose for this humble reader, unusually I found what I was looking for after resorting to outside sources, having searched this article and its sub-articles for nearly 15 minutes (I was trying to confirm whether or not a member state had ever left the EU). For anyone who thinks this is just some n00b blowing off steam for having his change reverted, by a simple comparison, even though I regularly prepare new articles and major edits offline and don't do any repetitive edit stacking work like typo fixing or formatting, I have still made 14,576 edits to 4,323 pages in my time here, compared to Lear21's 6,780 edits to 541 pages, even though he has had 18 months longer to learn what is and isn't good behaviour around here, and to absorb general lessons about content, such as how to adequately summarise an article in a lede. And to think, I blew off going to a fireworks display tonight for this. Annoyed. Very annoyed. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is annoyance relieve:) Illuminating arts 5th November Lear 21 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I sympathise, I really do. I wanted to try to get this article up to FA but it is impossible with the likes of Lear around - that's why I don't bother comign here much. It is best to concentrate efforts onto other articles that aren't being sat on by his ego.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it seems that evey edits on this article, even the most uncontroversial ones, need to go through the approval of a board of WP:OWNers. This is most likely driving a lot of editors away since the efforts required to get an edit through are just not worth it. Laurent (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well my friends, this article here is already of a very comprehensive, well referenced, well designed and in the end of a very mature quality. This has been achieved by many highly knowledgable motivated editors over a long period. You just have to project serious focused commitment other than promoting "Greenland in the lede". BTW, half of the content proposals by MickMacNee are now included in the lede. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Lear may have been a bit short in discussion, but on the last point he reverted, I don't think it is unjustified. It is very interesting to know that Greenland has withdrawn from the EU but it is really a detail in the history of the EU which has no place in the intro. It think it is well where it is in the "Member state" section.Gpeilon (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we may think of Lear 21's debating style, I think things would be less acrimonious if an attempt to reach consensus had been made much earlier. The lede of a well-read article was changed (by someone who was probably fortunate enough to have missed previous lengthy discussions on the lede). Nothing wrong with that. It was then reverted, with a somewhat terse but valid explanation. At this stage - or at the latest after the second add-revert cycle - I would have expected some sort of meaningful discussion, even under the somewhat robust WP:BRD procedure. Which is why I started the discussion after a few more cycles.

On the substantive issue of withdrawals (or lack thereof), they don't seem to be mentioned in the ledes of articles like The Commonwealth of Nations or the United States - though I suppose you could regard the mention of the Civil War in the United States as indirectly referring to a similar lack of established procedures for withdrawal. --Boson (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are totally mad if you think my agenda here was simply to 'get Greenland into the lede', how you could even type that utter nonsense even after I posted here exactly why I made those changes, is beyond belief. If you think this article is mature and well designed, cleary you have never come to it looking for information about Withdrawal from the European Union, which I note is still pretty much impossible to find from this article, either in the lede, main text, and even in the much talked about section hatnotes, and Future enlargement of the European Union seems to be also be just as invisible. Simply having a couple of lines in the Member State section and leaving the reader no way to find relevant sub-articles, is anything but good design - this is a wiki first and foremost, and these are basic concepts which are second nature to most seasoned editors. Anyway, you are clearly a lost cause as an editor, and you can get lost if you think I'm wasting time here to 'show active commitment' before you will stop being such a dick, but if you are actively preventing others from improving this article as people are suggesting, then you need to be dealt with. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, we should stop talking about how we like or dislike other editors on this article talk page, especially when this leads to insults. I sympathize to some extent with the content related criticism raised by Mick and would like to continue this thread. However, continuing the mud-wrestling of this subsection helps nobody, and least the article. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

@M: Usually editors start considering me as a dick after several weeks or months, but not after the blink of 2 days :) Lear 21 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a skill that comes with experience. I reserve my good faith for people that demonstrate they deserve it. You quite plainly, do not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats the difference between you and me, I believe in arguments, in pro and contra, and on focused factbased discussions in order to estimate what is important to the article. So as long you do not intend to greenlandish every section you are allowed to lose as much good faith as you want to. Lear 21 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this, this has nothing to do with improving the EU article, and everything with personal dislikes. Use your own talk page not this one.Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just thought you might want to know that sockmaster Lear 21 (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked. Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a suspected sock and KJohansson (talk · contribs) is another confirmed egregious puppet who has edited these same articles and needlessly wasted so much of our time. I would suggest that you all keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since many of you probably know of some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Education" section needs % of Europeans with college degrees

Actually, all of the European sections need this. The US page says it (apparently 27% of Americans have college degrees) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clguy1234 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

they dont even have college in the american sense just university

Well, that would be a bit of a mammoth task. You see, Europe isn't just one country. Can't people just go to the pages of individual states/countries to see? (And yes as the above unsigned says, it's 'university', not 'college' here.) 86.16.135.174 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the anon editor. This is probably impossible for Europe, especially as not all degrees (used to be) similar (this is an ambition for the future but still under development see: Bologna process and Lisbon Strategy) so impossible to project on current situation, which is wildly different across member states. For example how do German Hochschule, English Polytechnics (now Universities), Dutch HTS/Hogeschool relate to college/university education? (and those are rather similar NW European systems close to the anglosaxon/US system I am familiar with). This might change in the future, but is definitely not relevant for the (majority of) people educated in the older systems. Arnoutf (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process ?

The above is a line currently disputed between User:The Spoorne and myself. Since we have both reverted twice on this today, I think, it is necessary to bring this topic to a discussion here, so to avoid anyone is going to violates Wikipedia policies.

My point is that the statement is:

1. not supported by the reference that concludes the sentence
2. as strict as it is not true. Ministers of most national governments of parliamentary democracies are not elected but appointed.

Tomeasy _{T C} 13:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It is a point of view, stated as fact, apparently based on original research, without explicit reasoning. One could also argue that it contradicts the preceding and following sentences. --Boson (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a point of view. They are appointed by democratically elected officials. Even if the European Commission President was directly elected, they would still be nominated by the European Commission President. What is true is that there are concerns about the lack of direct democracy in the nomination of high EU officials like the European Council President and the European Parliament President. However this criticism is often disingenuous as it is often raised by eurosceptics who in the same time oppose more direct democracy because it would increase the power of EU top officials. An interesting analysis on this was made in the paper "To Euro or Not to Euro": "British objections against transferring sovereignty to European supranational institutions are usually justified on grounds of lacking democratic - meaning parliamentary - accountability. That this argument has more to do with collective national identity than with concerns about democracy in Europe becomes obvious when the same British leaders routinely object to strengthening the powers of the European Parliament."

To sum either the article has a serious discussion about the concerns for lack of democracy or not, but the kind of sentence proposed here are implicit and insidious point of view which should be avoided.Gpeilon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spoorne (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)This is the reference upon which I base my comment, it is not even my own reference but the one which already existed in the article:

The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the Member State governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission.

When 500 million people choose one person, this is democracy. When one person chooses someone from 500 million, this is not democracy. It is the opposite. The President may be chosen by democratically elected representatives of the member states, but the commissioners who the President then goes on to choose himself are not. Therefore, the commissioners do not gain their posts through any form of democratic process, they are chosen by the President, who was in turn chosen himself. This is not a point of view, it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spoorne (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see yourself that the sentence you are trying to introduce says something different than the one you are citing? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, there is no contradiction, it is a continuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spoorne (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you that the commission is not elected through direct elections (as your statement "When 500 million people choose one person, this is democracy" seems to ask for).

However the claim that this process in not "any kind of democratic process" is a fallacy.

Following your demand that the people should choose a person, then no prime minister in Europe I know of is chosen through "any kind of democratic process"; nor is in fact the president of the USA. As TomEasy explains above, these people are appointed by someone who has been democratically elected; so are EU commissioners. (PS please sign your posts) Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between EU commissioners and Ministers of democratic parliamentary governments does not bear the simplest scrutiny. Ministers belong to political parties and are directly elected by the citizens of their respective nations, they must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post. So in this system one person who has been directly elected appoints another person who has also been directly elected. EU commissioners, on the other hand, belong to no party, sit in no parliament, and are appointed by a person who was in turn appointed themselves. So I think it is a fair and reasonable comment to make that EU commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process. It is a factual statement, and I see no reason why it should not be included in the article. The Spoorne (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You make several mistakes there. "Ministers ... ... must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post.". This may be true for the UK system, but it is not the case in the Dutch system (and to my knowledge many other European systems), where non MP's can become minister.

"EU commissioners, on the other hand, belong to no party" they tend to belong to parties. For example Dutch commissioner Kroes is member of the VVD and has been nominated by this party for the post (VVD was at the time a government party in the Netherlands)

"a person who was in turn appointed themselves." Commissioners are appointed by the council (or the future EU president - which in turn is elected by the council) and have to be approved by EU parliament. The council consists of (democratically elected) ministers of the members. The parliament is elected by EU citizens.

That leaves exactly none of your counterarguments. PS I agree, there is a lack of transparency in the process, and I would prefer more direct democracy; but having this system with indirect demoacracy is not the same as "not any kind of democratic process". Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ministers belong to political parties and are directly elected by the citizens of their respective nations, they must have a seat in parliament before they can be considered for any ministerial post. Just for the record, UK ministers (and even the prime minister) are not directly elected, and they do not have to have been elected as MPs, either. In practice, they normally are, but in practice there is more to the appointment of commissioners, as well.--Boson (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One principle of democracy is the separation of powers. Form that point of view, it is good if ministers are not MPs. From a democracy theoretic aspect, this is a point that always raises criticism that most of the members of the executive are also member of the legislative, in most countries. I am flabbergasted to hear that the personal separation (instead of personal union) of legislative (EU parliament) and executive (EU commission) raises criticism that is disguised as a democracy theoretic criticism.

And yes, most of the commissioners are a member of a political parties. Again, I am surprised to hear that this shall be good from a democracy theoretic aspect. In any case, it is a fact, and your argument wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language problem here, you have all picked out particular snippets from my previous comments without seeing them in their full semantic context, and then pronounced them 'wrong'. I shall try to explain more clearly. When I say that EU commissioners belong to no political party I am talking strictly within the confines of how they gain their posts. Please remember this is the reason why this talk page has been created. When the electorate is aware that a particular candidate is a member of a particular party, then they may cast their vote for that party in order to show support for that candidate. In this context EU commissioners do not belong to a party when they gain their posts. They are chosen by the President of the Commission based upon their perceived abilities, party membership is immaterial.

Under the British system ministers are taken from MPs, these MPs have gained their seats by being a member of a party which the electorate has had a direct opportunity to vote upon. I have never argued on this page that cabinet ministers are voted for directly, (so please stop criticising me for doing so). But as people who represent their citizens they have stood directly before the electorate. The same cannot be said for EU commissioners because they are chosen not elected.

It is fair to say that the President gains his post through a form of democratic process because the Council consists of elected representatives of member states. I agree with you all, this process is akin to how British cabinet ministers gain their posts. But the method by which the 27 Commissioners become commissioners is too far removed to be called democratic – being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens. It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic.

As for the Council and the Parliament conferring any democratic mandate upon the Commissioners when they adopt and accept them after the President has chosen them, this is severely mitigated against because the Council need only agree by qualified majority, and the Parliament is limited to accepting the Commissioners as a job lot – all 27 or nothing. For people who wield such power and perform such an important role within Europe their lack of accountability is nothing short of shocking. It is not a case of lack of transparency of democracy within the system, it is patently a case of lack of democracy.

This is not a matter of being either 'pro-European' or 'anti-European'. Cannot you all see that the political institutions which are carrying forward the work of achieving greater European cooperation are woefully ill equipped to do so with any legitimate mandate? It is surely counter productive to attempt to do so before they put their house in order. This is precisely the concern which the German Constitutional Court recently expressed.[1] The Spoorne (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

'But the method by which the 27 Commissioners become commissioners is too far removed to be called democratic – being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens. It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic. '

Above statement is the core of (what's left of) your arguments. However that statement is (a) not what you previously argued and (b) even worse your remark is utterly invalid as it is at best original research but more likely your subjective opinion; so we are back at the top of this thread but now with evidence from your own statements. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[2] The Spoorne (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that but following the link

The Member State governments agree together on who to designate as the new Commission President.

The Commission President-designate is then approved by Parliament.

The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the Member State governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission.

The Council adopts the list of nominees by qualified majority and communicates it to the European Parliament for approval.

Parliament then interviews each nominee and votes its opinion on the whole team.

Following Parliaments vote of approval, the new Commission is formally appointed by the Council, acting by qualified majority.

Fairly close to the UK system, replace member state government with MP (although a member state government allows for coalition while in the UK one single MP takes it all and is hence probrably a less fair representation of the population). Replace commission president with Prime Minister and Members of the Commission by Minister and there you are. Indirect democracy. Arnoutf (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of expressing a personal opinion when I said that EU Commissioners gain their posts by 'being chosen by a person who has been chosen by people who were chosen by their citizens' The link is to the official EU website describing how commissioners become commissioners, it exactly bears out my description.

By the way, your analogy doesn't work.The Spoorne (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim of personal opinion or original research referred to your conclusion "It is too far removed from any form of democratic process to be called democratic.", which did not, I believe come from the official EU Web site. If I am mistaken, please quote the text containing that claim. Are you conversant with WP:OR? --Boson (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

What Arnout quoted five posts above is also what I understand as the essence of your position: (1) From the objective description of the process, you make the case that the (s)election of the commissioners is very indirect (with respect to the electoral). (2) From your point of view, it is too indirect to be called democratic. (3) This brings you to state that the commissioners "do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process".

Allow me to ask you to review this line of thought with me in view of how we are supposed to work here:

(1) Many would probably understand the process as such. However, this understanding is kind of vague, and our articles are supposed to be factual instead. So, it would be perfectly fine if you added lines describing the indirectness of the process by simply stating facts about the process instead of being judgmental. That's why I asked you in one of the revert comments to stick to the reference where this is done.

With (2) you make a subjective conclusion, i.e., WP:POV. I call it POV, because I might very well agree with you on the first point but, in contrast to you, now claim that the process is not too indirect to be called democratic, because instead I might think that it is still direct enough to be democratic. Or (another option), I might think that indirectness does not harm in a representative democracy. People here also refer to this step as original research, because you derive from a description of a process that this process is undemocratic. While exactly this conclusion is not presented in the reference cited, you think that it is an obvious logical conclusion that is understood without mentioning in the source. Well, the fact that so many people do not agree with you is a clear indication that this logic is not so obvious. Since there are no reliable sources presented for your conclusion it remains your very original/personal thought.

Statement (3) eventually is so strictly formulated that it is not even supported if one followed your line of thought up to this point. I still wonder how you can support it yourself. If you say that the current procedure is "too far removed" from the electoral, than you bring the judgment about democratic or undemocratic to a relative level, i.e., it depends on the degree of directness. If so, than any indirect procedure will still be democratic to certain degree democratic, yet less democratic than a more direct procedure. So your judgmental statement is anything but balanced, but it is one of our core principles to present balanced articles. That's why upon my initial revert I commented that you can't really say that.

I know that I assumed to know a lot about your line of thought. I hope, I am not too far off the mark, and you find yourself a little bit in the steps 1, 2, and 3. If so, try to understand what this means with respect to writing an encyclopedia rather than an opinion piece. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance on the principles by which you work here, it is so much more productive than the sometimes rather senseless and personal criticisms which have been leveled against me on this page.The Spoorne (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, with the Spoorne argument, the French PM is not democratically chosen either. He is picked by the President and can be without any prior elected position (and it happened several times). And what about Belgium, where the King has real leeway to chose the PM and is not due to pick the leader of the party who last won the elections? The "undemocratic" criticism is not wholly unfounded as it is for sure questionable how much the preference of the citizens is respected when there are several layers of elections in a democracy. However, stated like it was, it is simplistic and misconceived. Gpeilon (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern about authority of EU commissioners is a very real issue. Spoorn is voicing the point expressed by many European citizens, politicians and insitutions - and you all are giving her/him a hard time. The exact wording is biased and should be changed, agreed, but criticism in thread goes far beyond the wording and expresses biased on both sides. You say the article must be ballanced, so the description of EU institutions should reflect genuin concern about these institutions, and this article has nothing like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludeczka (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The way to put the appointment of commissioners into perspective is to compare the EU process with the US process. In the EU, the government of each member state has the right to appoint one commissioner – in the US secretaries of state (who have the same function as EU commissioners) are appointed by the President. I understand that in both cases they nominations are ratified by a popularly elected body. Martinvl (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your stance Ludeczka, as I said there is a real debate about the democratic nature of the EU institutions and I am not against this debate being mentioned. However it is a complex debate, because formally the EU institutions have a democratic legitimity. The Parliament is elected by the citizens and the Council is formed of democratically designated Head of States. Contrary to what can be heard here and there, the citizens decide, in each country you have pro-federalist or pro-nationalist parties. If all the citizens wanted to form a federation or to leave the EU, they could vote and their views would be respected (a European Council formed of UKIP-like Head of States would decide peacefully to dissolve the Union). The problem however is that this democratic nature is a bit more complex in practice. The question of the problem of having several layers of elections to determine those taking decision is not new in political science. When the leader of a country or organisation is not directly elected by the members/citizens but by a layer of intermediate elected people, it often blurs the debate about the nomination of the final leader and the final choice may reflect not appropriately the preferences of the members/citizens. It is this debate which exists in the EU, with national leaders being designated on national elections where the EU is a minor topic and after make critical decisions in Europe which are not always much debated nationally. There is therefore a real question about the democracy in EU institution. However the simple criticism about the lack of democracy is often simplistic, formally wrong and disingenuous (the same who criticise the lack of democracy in the EU institutions oppose direct election of EU officials). So my point is that a discussion about the democracy of the EU institutions must be serious and not used as a tool just to convey a negative image of EU institutions.Gpeilon (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to all this, or at least it is all interesting and very balanced what you say Gpeilon. I just do not know what to do with all this knowledge in regard to the article we discuss. I guess we have consensus here that the very strict statement initially proposed by Spoorne is unsupportable. Now, some of you feel, however, that something (more balanced) needs to be said. What is that something - let's be specific.

I have my doubts that the interesting opinions presented, can be formulated in a way that facts are conveyed rather than points of views. You might find it boring, but our task is to describe precisely the process that makes up the commission and it is not to judge how democratic this process is.

There have been many discussions in the past whether or not to have a criticism section. I feel that our discussion is drifting there. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. With the amount of material that needs to be included, there is not room for the explanations necessary for the debate on the alleged democratic deficit. There is an article where this discussion belongs: Democratic deficit in the European Union, which is also in need of urgent attention. Even there, of course, Wikipedia policies, in particular neutral point of view need to be adhered to, so there is no question of stating editors' personal value judgements as fact. There should, however be room for a balanced treatment on the alleged democratic deficit, taking care to discuss mainstream views with appropriate weight, describing those views as opinion, not as fact. The views presented should, of course, not give undue weight to views held by people in particular countries. This is very tricky, so inexperienced editors might be advised to read the policies carefully and, possibly, discuss proposed changed on the talk page. --Boson (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, Tomeasy, I take your point. You obviously have a lot of experience writing encyclopaedic entries and using very precise phraseology (a lawyer by profession, by any chance?). I agree that the word ‘any’ presents a particular semantic problem. Were I to substitute the phrase ‘any kind of’ for ‘a direct’ in the sentence ‘EU Commissioners do not gain their posts through any kind of democratic process’, it would, if I understand your arguments correctly, go some way in allaying your objections.

But to move on, the point I was trying to highlight, of which there is no hint in the article, is the amount of disquiet felt over the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU institutions. The selection of the Commission being a particular case in point. It is a multi-layered process which you may think ‘is still direct enough [your italics] to be called democratic’; but this is just as much your personal opinion as it is mine to say that it is not.

What there does seem to be a growing consensus about on this talk page is the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, by which the will of the electorate is expressed in the appointment of EU officials.

I cannot quite see the relevance of the comparisons made with American Presidential elections by various contributors above. We are not comparing apples with apples here. Any democratic deficit in the USA affects its own citizens alone. The USA is not a supranational institution requiring other nations to cede sovereign power to itself. But the EU is. And if member states are, even in theory, to cede such powers, the institutions of the EU must not only be democratically legitimate, but must also be clearly seen to be democratically legitimate by the citizens of those member states.

I most certainly am not alone in bringing this legitimacy into question - either on this talk page or elsewhere. On the question of democratic deficit, I quote from a ruling by the German Federal Constitutional Court on 30th June 2009:

‘The extent of the Union’s freedom of action has steadily and considerably increased, not least by the Treaty of Lisbon, so that meanwhile in some fields of policy, the European Union has a shape that corresponds to that of a federal state. In contrast, the internal decision-making and appointment procedures remain predominantly committed to the pattern of an international organisation.’

And on the subject of how effectively the citizens of member states can express their will through the institutions of the EU, the court further ruled:

‘No uniform European people...can express its majority will in a politically effective manner.’  

I sincerely hope that on this occasion, I have been able to more effectively communicate my position.The Spoorn (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You make your point in much more detail indeed. However, as you see by the amount of text needed the point is not a very simple one. If you want to elaborate on this I think Bosons suggestion to do so on Democratic deficit in the European Union is probably the best place; as adding all this would inflate this page, which tries to be a factual summary of the EU.

Your suggestion to rephrase would lead to a line such as "The EU commissioners are appointed in an indirect democratic process" or something similar. I am not sure that adds anything of interest.

Finally a minor content issue, international treaties always yield some sovereignty to the treaty organisation. The EU has probably more democratic checks and balanced compared to most international treaties our countries are member of (WTO to name but one). Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with Arnout and Boson who are pointing the content, which is about perception, to a more directly related place. This article has to cover everything that is to say about the EU, and it is also too long. So, if we deviate from presenting factual statements than it gets out of hands.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your reflection. The substitution proposed in your first paragraph any versus direct indeed addresses one of my major concerns about the initial post. Arnout improved it again by formulating positively (i.e., what is rather than what is not the case). One might still argue whether in Arnout'f formulation democratic should be in for the same reasons given before. But if we leave this out, then what are we actually saying. As Arnout said, it would have reduced the content so much that I would know why to include.

To your second paragraph: Yes, they are both opinions, as you say. that is exactly what I meant. Perhaps, you misunderstood me in so far that I wanted to give prevalence to the possible opinions I presented. That was not my intend. None of them appear acceptable to me. I just wanted to show that there are valid other opinions, and if you presented just one as a fact in the article, that would not be OK.

I agree that EU versus US comparison are always questionable, and you got a point in saying that for the US it is one country who decided to determine its key leader in a rather undemocratic way, whereas for the EU it is decided on top of countries. However, understand our viewpoints that it would be imbalanced to describe something as undemocratic here, which is totally accepted in all country articles.

The quotes from the German Constitutional Court certainly can find their place on Wikipedia to give evidence to the things you want to state. However, as I said in my first paragraph, an article dedicated to viewpoints might be more relevant. Here, there is just not the space to present different perceptions. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue of the "democratic deficit", as discussed by the German Constitutional Court, is mentioned where it is particularly relevant, in the article on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, and where there is more space for a more detailled discussion that is not distorted by the necessity for brevity, in the article Democratic deficit in the European Union. It is clear from the judgment of the German Constitutional Court that the legitimacy of the EU institutions is not questioned ("the Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon (Zustimmungsgesetz zum Vertrag von Lissabon) is compatible with the Basic Law."). What the German Constitutional Court pointed out is that procedures based on intergovernmental concepts of equality do not [and cannot] provide the democratic legitimacy that would be required if the EU were a federal state (which it is not). For this reason, the level of (national) parliamentary scrutiny provided by certain accompanying German laws was not compatible with the constitution. There have been similar debates in the UK, resulting in various "EU Legislation and Scrutiny Procedures". National parliamentary scrutiny also needs to be discussed when discussing democratic legitimacy. --Boson (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoorne, I am glad to see that you backed on that really not encyclopedic comment. What you write now is very good, and it is just what I think the article is lacking. It is ballanced and informed. Maybe this can be put in but not in same place about Commissioners? To the rest of you I want to say, that the subject brought out by Spoorn is so important that the space for it must be found. Encyclopedia is for readers (not writers) and small piece about EU debate in Europe will make article much more interesting for readers. Ludeczka (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the article

The articles content has not significantly changed throughout the last year. The edits though of unregistered accounts conducting vandalism acts seem to be frequently every day. Could a permanent protection of the article be helpful to avoid this ? all the best Lear 21 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While personally I would be happy to have all Wikipedia articles semi-protected, this is not what the community decided for - and we would know if consensus had changed on this one. Therefore, this question is somehow relative. How frequent is the vandalism really; does it outnumber constructive IP edits; how sensitive is the content; etc?

I do not really feel that this article is under extreme attack. I did not count, but I guess there are 0 to 5 vandal attack per day, the average anywhere near 1 or 2. It is not a biography of a living person, though highly frequented. According to what I have seen so far, I feel all this is not enough to justify semi-protection. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Lear. The article is stable, there is a community of editors knowledgeable who update it when necessarily. I don't think that it benefits a lot from unregistered accounts who are useful when the topic is new or in rapid evolution. On the other hand there is a strong debate on the EU now, and this leads some unregistered account to make unappropriate changes here and there. So as cost-benefit analysis: I think the protection could be beneficial for the article. There for instance is an anti-EU campaign in British newspapers and this will naturally foster vandalism from some here and there. It is the fate of any article on a controversial issue. And anyway, is it so hard to register? Gpeilon (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of the 900 watchers of the article, I agree with Lear. As Gpeilon says, it is not difficult to register and with 900 people currently watching the article, there must be a broad enough spectrum of opinion to ensure that neutrality is maintained and that the article is developed to cover any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Tomeasy here; justification for (semi)protection is usually based on edit warring, not on long term stability. In any case, the need for protection seems rather low at the moment with many editors following this article, making sure vandalism, or ill-informed edits are reverted almost immediately, while through the divided workload none of these many editors has to spent overmuch time and effort to do so.

So in my view, there is no reason within the Wiki policies to (semi)protect the article at the moment Arnoutf (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection is usually based on frequent vandalism acts and is installed by many of the most read articles. The EU being among the Top 500. I agree with Gpeilon that a cost benefit analysis is rather favoring a semi-protection here. After all it is a mature article which benefits more from being more protected. @Tomeasy: I don´t get your stance. You personally favor semi-protection, but not here? Who other than you can decide? Protection should not be decided on longterm attitudes but on necessity and on current developments. Right now, every day non-sustainable edits are conducted. Lear 21 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I interpret the common agreement within Wikipedia to sparsely protect articles such that it does not apply to the EU article. Personally, I would like to change this policy, but as long as it is in place I comply with it.

Your move is not to change the Wikipedia protection policy, to which I would agree (however, not on the talk page of the EU article). You are arguing that under the current framework, protection of this article is justified. With this, I disagree. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparable articles of the same length, theme, degree of maturity, and visitor frequency are semi protected. These are USA, UK, Canada, Germany, NATO, UN, France and Japan to name only a few. There have been 8 unregistered IP´s in the last 7 days conducting non-sustainable edits. A semi protection seems rather urgent, because this development doesn´t seem to stop. @Tomeasy: I still don´t get it. You are defending a Wikipedia internal recomendation which you are not agreeing with, right? Anyway, please reconsider the stance on the base of current developments and on cost benefit calculations. The article is momentarily under frequent attack. This could be easily avoided and would not harm the stability or future improvements. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not defending the policy, but I want to comply with the rules that bring us together here. Anyway, if again you did not understand yet - drop it - you don't have to.

I do not know about the other examples, but Germany is at much higher vulnerability. You have actually seen that when semi-protection was removed about a month ago. 8 vandals in 7 is nothing there.

But hey, for the reasons mentioned above, I do not want to be the spearhead to resist your motion. So, I will lay back for a while ... Tomeasy _{T C} 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tomeasy. No strong feelings about protection of this article either way, other than that it does not seem to fit with WP at the moment. I will not be involved further as I am basically neutral towards the outcome of this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Though semi-protection would make life easier, I don't think vandalism has reached the level where it is necessary - nothing like the level you get at Germany (whenever it is unprotected), or Treaty of Versailles (when schools in the USA are apparently doing it in History). I think we've had more problems with edit "wars" (more like skirmishes) by registered users, and I don't think we've often got to the level where administrator action would be appropriate. --Boson (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I would support semi-protection here but would admit that it wouldnt be the end of the world if it wasnt granted. I'd also suggest that we again look towards possible FA status for the page if it wasnt for the fact that we would probably not get it again, after all we had some ignoramus last time tell us we were relying too much on the websites of the institutions themselves. Seems we have reached a happy medium with most of the content on the page now anyway, bar the odd issue that arises. --Simonski (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaders

the table for leaders now should read like this;

-  European Council Herman Van Rompuy (EPP)
-  Parliament Jerzy Buzek (EPP) 
-  EU Council Fredrik Reinfeldt(EPP, Sweden)  
-  Commission José Manuel Barroso (EPP)

dont you agree?--Melitikus (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the table for leaders should be changed because in a Press Release from the European Union from November 19, 2009 Announced Herman Van Rompuy (EPP) as the new President of the European Council, and Britain's EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton as high representative for common foreign and security policy. EU Press Release at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/96/323&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

ShanaMcM 12:39, 23 November 2009 (NAEST)

Disagree. Van Rompuy is not going to take office in November. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the aim of the European Union the creation of a single state?

It should be included in the first paragraph that the ultimate aim of the European Union is the creation of a single state. This is declared in unambiguous terms in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 1957 DETERMINED to create an EVER CLOSER union between the peoples of Europe.

This line was removed as being POV, however how can an EVER CLOSER union be defined as anything else? The ultimate conclusion of ever closer union is by definition, unification ie One state (uni-meaning. one).

No. 'Ever closer union' is an aspiration. It could be a confederation, it could be a federation, it could be none of these, it could be less than it is at the moment. It is not for Wikipedia to guess the future. The single state idea is a windmill for europhobes to tilt at as it is complete fantasy: not even the USA is that. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the EU remains an association of sovereign states that chose to delegate to the Union certain matters that they believe will happen more effectively together than apart.--Red King (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, its a deliberately vague phrase which no doubt each member state would have differing interpretations on. Off the top of my head I can think of about 10 countries alone, if not more, that would not accept the interpretation put forward by the anonymous user. And Red King indeed it may well be the target of Eurosceptic ranting, but whilst there remains still a relatively significant minority out there that would like a single state, there will always be room for justifiable concern. --Simonski (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By definition an aim is also an aspiration so were one to write the aspiration of the European Union is to create a single state would this be a significantly different sentence?

Ever Closer Union is a state of unification ad infinitum. So the ultimate conclusion of ever closer union, can only be unification. Whether this is a fantasy, or is realistic is besides the point it is still the aim of thr European Union as stated in black and white in the Treaty of Rome. Having a single supreme court, having a single currency etc is strong evidence of this intention.

The issue here is that the Treaty of Rome clause should be allowed to be in the first section as it most succinctly shows what the creating treaty wanted; hence it was in the preamble. Why should it not be included? Cabinotto (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact on the European Union's own website it says under the OBJECTIVES section that the aim is closer unification —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinotto (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can assume that if they had unambiguously meant the creation of a single state they would have said so. Musing on what the signatories meant by "ever closer union", barely a decade after the War, and stating one's conclusions as fact is at best original research. If we are going to infer "ever closer" means without limit, why stop at a single state? --Boson (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you cannot unify more than creating a single state. Uni means one. As is shown in the link above to the European Unions own website unification is stated as an objective. What ia ambigious about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.103.89 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

union does not always mean unification of different bodies into one, it can also mean united such as different bodies UNIted on things working togther but still be independent indiviual bodies, look at the United Nations they are united in tryin to help sercure world peace but the members are still independent nation s and that goes for the EU (minus the world peace bit) Pro66 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The aspiration of an "ever closer union" would seem to hark of a similar one in the US constitution preamble, in which people of the US seek "to form a more perfect union". So, comparison (and concern) seem somewhat valid. Nonetheless, I do believe the lead already notes this aim implicitly with talk of regional integration, without erroneously implying anything else (e.g., United States of Europe). Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

About the conclusion that ever closer union implies a single supranational state: This is clearly just one interpretation and, stated as a fact, original research. The proponent of this sentence argues that uni means one, thus no other interpretation is possible. Then how come the European Union is currently not a single supranational state. Or the United Nations are not one nation. The aspiration indicates that the Union currently existing is intended to be deepened. The details are not spelled out. My original research says that they are not spelled out just because there is no unique interpretation. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To help the proponent: If the proposed conclusion is so obvious to you, then why do you not content yourself in stating something like the aspiration of the EU is to create an ever closer union. Not that I am saying this would see consensus to go into the lede paragraph, but at least you could not be accused of OR, and probably there would be a place somewhere on Wikipedia for it. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Far from being unambiguous, whole books could be written about the concept. For instance, see this quote: Roland, Roland (1985). An Ever closer union: a critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. p. 8. ISBN 9789282552209. . . . An ever closer union. The term 'union' used in this evolutive manner, clearly covers a multitude of structures and modalities changing over time and cannot thus as suggested above, partake of a single authentic meaning. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)--Boson (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit back it was mentioned that "Because you cannot unify more than creating a single state" as an interpretation of the phrase "create an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe". Well I know at least one closer union between people: Marriage (or other family ties). I guess nobody seriously considers marrying each EU citizen to each other. In absurdum I could make the point however that this single family (or clan) tie is the ultimate aim of the EU, as it is a much closer tie than merely a confederation or nation. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it then be acceptable to say that one of the primary objectives of the European Union is unification as stated on the European Union website providing a link to the OBJECTIVES section where it specifically says unification? I think it is important to include this as it succinctly and accurately defines one of the European Union's most fundamental objectives whilst leaving the interpreation of the word unification open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.57.60 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would strongly oppose any such addition to the article and from what I gather I am not alone in this respect. I would also note there are numerous other, less ambiguous objectives of the EU which are not mentioned in the article. As has been stated already, ever closer union no doubt has differing interpretations between different national governments, past and present, and therefore the relevance of this particular "objective" is debatable. No doubt for some, it is central to the EU, whilst for others, it will be seen as simply a token ambiguous commitment of some sort. The idea for example that the newly free post-Communist states have just signed up knowingly to a commitment to eventually lose the independence they all so recently gained is borderline laughable. --Simonski (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on from defining the ever closer union. On the EU website in the Objectives section is says that one of the objectives is unification. Why can this therefore not be included. This is not some minor side issue but a stated important objective. Since it is stated on the EU's own website why would it be problematic adding this? As for countries signing up to lose independence, the proof is the pudding. Is not having one's supreme court in a different country with foreign judges overruling domestic judges not a significant loss of independence? Does China, USA, India, Russia, Brazil, Japan or any other major country outside the EU have its supreme court in a foreign country; no, and I think they would think it laughable if one suggested they should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinotto (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not a single country anymore for which the supreme court is truly supreme. E.g. for all WTO members, these treaties take precedence over the rulings of the supreme court. States who signed the treaty regulating the International Criminal Court also give away indepence of their supreme court.

And anyway, is a supreme court the only sign of independence. By borrowing money from other states you hand over a lot of sovereignty too (ask Iceland).Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that at the moment the majority (although not be a wide margin) opposes such an inclusion. Since consensus is needed for inclusion (consensus being much much closer to unanimity than mere 50%+1 majority) I have reverted the recent inclusion that referred to this talk.

A compromise should be proposed here and achieve consensus here before inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

changes explained:

1) ‘upon the foundations of the pre existing EEC’ changed to: ‘upon the foundations of the EEC’ reason: If something is a ‘foundation’, it must, by definition, have been ‘pre-existing’. This is a tautology, so I removed it. Just to make the matter clear I use the past perfect tense in the next clause – ‘which had been formed’.

2) ‘Committed to regional integration’ changed to: ‘with the primary aim of creating ‘an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe’.’ reason: Saying ‘committed’ does not necessarily equate to an ‘aim’, the EU may be ‘committed’ to something now, but this is not the same as expressly stating it as an original ‘aim’. The exact word used in the Treaty of Rome is ‘Determined’ (as a verb, not an adjective as you all seem to have confused). So ‘aim’ is lexically closer to ‘determine’ than ‘commit’ when describing the expressed intentions in the Treaty of Rome, and therefore better for an encyclopaedia entry. The changed version also contains greater accuracy by inclusion of the word ‘primary’ - as this is the first aim stated in the treaty. The link on the phrase ‘regional integration’ went to a page entitled ‘European integration’ – so wouldn’t it have been better to use this phrase anyway? Finally, isn’t it better to allow the treaty to speak for itself, providing the readers with a quote from the Treaty of Rome with a link to the original text?

It is a compromise because no mention is made of what the ‘ever-closer union’ was intended to mean, thereby circumventing the majority of the discussion above about single state/confederation/federation etc. We simply state what the Treaty of Rome says. If it is ‘not for Wikipedia to guess the future’, then why be ambiguous about the past when a direct quote does the job perfectly.The Spoorne (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is about the current EU, we should perhaps take account of the current (consolidated) version of the treaties, with the revised "objective":

"to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity"

--Boson (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds really snappy, especially in the second sentence of a lead paragraph. Anyway, it is just a rehash of the original primary aim in the Treaty of Rome, the wording is identical - 'an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe'. So why not include the original source? Also, as this article is about the current EU, as you rightly say, I don't see how you can legitimately use that as a reason for not including this quote. What the EU is now directly springs from what it was before. The article has for a long time described how the EU was built upon the 'foundations of the pre-existing EEC' - and you didn't object to that, did you Boson? So you obviously felt it was fine to include the EEC in the lead paragraph, but now object to a quotation from the Treaty which established the EEC. That does not make an awful lot of sense to me, and I dare say it won't to many others.The Spoorne (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does make sense to most of us, hence why you are in the minority with your suggestion with little sign of convincing anybody. As to your point to me I would only note that the ECJ is not infact a supreme court - if you were more versed with this topic you might be aware of the spirit of cooperation that is laid down within the Treaties (Art 234 EC) is the only basis on which the ECJ has been able to act in the manner of a "supreme court" without actually being one. Should the ECJ ever overstep the line then the Constitutional courts from all the Member States would stop respecting the ECJ's judgments, as has been noted by numerous, well respected scholars. The German constitutional court's recent judgment on the Lisbon Treaty was another example of this still being the case - a clear warning from the German courts to the ECJ that it is still willing to flex its muscles if it needs to. --Simonski (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear Simonski, I think you have confused me with someone else.The Spoorne (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Spoorne, you are indeed correct - this is probably because the other fellow doesnt seem to be signing his posts very clearly so I got mixed up. That makes more sense now. My comments were indeed aimed at the anon/other chap and not at yourself. --Simonski (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spoorne, I didn't say that it was snappy, and I didn't suggest that you use that text. I said you should take account of it (possibly by omitting your addition completely, which would make it even snappier), since, it is a direct quote from the actual source, i.e. the currently valid version of the treaty. The bit about "ever closer union" was moved from the beginning of the preamble to the end, and the bit about subsidiarity was added. This was, obviously, not done to make it snappier. Perhaps there was a reason for the change, which we should take into account. --Boson (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the original community consisted of 6 countries (including Benelux); we are now talking about a changed entity, with 27 member states, now including the UK, Latvia, Hungary, etc. --Boson (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Boson here - and again repeat my earlier point about the relevance of the ever closer union phrase being debatable. As I have pointed out (and I am hardly the first to do so in the sphere of EU governance/law/politics) and indeed Boson has alluded to, for some countries/governments it may represent something major, whilst for others it will simply represent a token commitment to something that on closer inspection isnt that solid at all. The Treaties are full of such token, empty commitments on the parts of the member states and I don't see whats to debate here. Taking something from the preamble of the treaties, the relevance of which is debatable, and shoving it in the lead of the article, is completely misguided. --Simonski (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Boson et al. In addition, I don't really see why one aim should be promoted above all others. Where is your authority (from the Treaty) that this is the "primary" aim, and thus deserving of specific mention? In fact, the Preamble would suggest otherwise: "Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples." If any objective should be mentioned (and I am not convinced it is that helpful to do so) it should be this one or all of them. Article 2 EC Treaty also spells out the aims of the Community, and "ever closer union" is not mentioned there. Similarly Article 2 TEU omits a reference to this phrase/aim. The new TFEU maintains the "primary" aim of improvement of living/working conditions. As Boson was pointing out the aim (if it is such) of ever closer union has been diluted somewhat by Lisbon. Relegated to the bottom of the Preamble, being hedged in by subsidiarity. Also there are counter indications within Lisbon about the one way direction of an "ever closer union". I heard these (rather convincing) reasons at a recent talk, so they are not my own but I think they bear repetition:

• The Treaties now with some degree of clarity define the relative competences of the Union. This suggests that any "closer union" will have some limitation
• The process of enhanced cooperation is solidified. This allows parts of the Union to work more closely together, but reinforces that this is not mandatory for all. Therefore, it is not an ever closer union for all.
• For the first time we have an option for withdrawal within the Treaty itself.

I think the article is long enough as it is, and am anyhow not convinced by the reasoning put forward. I am therefore in favour of maintaining the current position. Lwxrm (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate about the ECJ has totally departed from the question that has yet to be answered. Why can't a statement from the EU's own website be included? It is stated as a primary objective on its own website. None of the debate here has really focussed on the statement on the EU's website. In the objectives section of the Treaty of Rome the EU's own summary is this:

the functional construction of a political Europe and a step towards the closer unification of Europe.

Since this is the founding treaty of the European Union and is the EU"s own account of what the treaty was for in a very succinct form, would it not be sensible to include it? If not why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.39 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, the original question (as phrased in the title) was far too loaded and POV to be included. To the question: "Why can't a statement from the EU's own website be included?" I would answer there is no reason a statment from the EU's own website cannot be included.

I question why this particular statement should be given prominence. This is something I remain to be convinced on. Why is it that this particular aim should be included, but the others not? I don't see the logic in it. If you wish to include a list of all the aims somewhere, I am not so opposed to that in principle. The article is, however, already very long and I am not sure what it adds. Lwxrm (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What I do not understand is why anon editor you don't just drop it already - despite quite lengthy discussion you are failing to convince anybody. I would suggest channeling your efforts into other parts of the article rather than concentrate on this issue which everybody has made quite clear they are against being addressed in the article. --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template for articles affected by Lisbon's entry into force?

I noticed Swedish Wikipedia have made a template for all articles affected by Lisbon's entry into force. I think this may be a smart idea as it could more easily prevent out of date info across tens of articles. The template would of course be deleted when Wikipedia is à jour on post-Lisbon EU. Do people here agree? - SSJ ☎ 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea (for readers and editors), especially the addition of a maintenance category, which could also serve as a sort of work list. --Boson (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very good idea. I personally don't have enough free time to take up such a job myself, but I hope someone does! --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, here it is. Let's use it. The category is called Category:Articles in need of adjustment due to the Treaty of Lisbon - SSJ ☎ 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lisbon Treaty update

Presumably it should read "will need to updated". December 1st hasn't happened yet! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The European Union is to Europe what the United Nations is to the world."

Is this statement at the end of the introduction true at all? --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I boldly removed it as it appears to be OR or at least was too ambiguous. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion, EU has many more duty and obligations and rights for its members compared to UN. I have never head this comparison before. Arnoutf (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Schengen Area

The article about the Schengen Area says Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus have not yet implemented the agreement while UK and Ireland have decided to stay out. But the introduction here suggests that 25 members are already forming the Schengen space. Isn´t this a little bit controversial? Just a thought. And by the way, where is the Lisbon Treaty have a mention in the introduction ? Seniorfox (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

After just checking - there are indeed 25 member states committed to the full open borders in Schengen. The UK and Ireland as islands have never felt fully comfortable about joining - there is instead between these two countries a "common travel area" (ie. no border control between Ireland and the UK). Maybe I'm missing something but where is the controversy here? As for Lisbon, the tag on the page already highlights that the page needs to be updated post-Lisbon. In truth, the changes will not have to be drastic as not that much changes overall, and I think in the long term anyway people will see probably view Lisbon with just about as much significance as Nice, as opposed to say, a Maastricht --Simonski (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess, this edit fixes the issue. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I meant. Seniorfox (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rompuy, Ashton

Wouldn´t it be appropriate to have the 2 new officials instead of Reinfeldt and Solana? Seniorfox (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Reinfeldt is still the head of the government that holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. That one keeps on rotating between the countries. So, I can imagine to have both Romput and the political leader of the country holding the pressidency. This is probably going to be discussed in the future.

If Ashton took office already, her picture should simply supersede that of Solana. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats true, but Rompuy seems to be now the more important political figure. Probably only Barroso is equally important. Seniorfox (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is he only equally important? Rumpy is totally powerless and is a very low profile appointment. His appointment is a victory for Barroso as it confirms the supremacy of the Commission and the impact will probably be seen to be similar on the rotating presidency which still has most agenda control.- _J.Logan`^t: 06:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We should, at this point, avoid ranking the powers of the positions, as we have little proof for such judgments. There are only the official responsibilities written down in the treaties, and those we should present. We might change this approach when, after some time, there have been incidents of flexing muscles between the posts, and we can refer to their results to put something down about it.

Yes, Logan, it is believed that Rompuy's election intends to keep this post low profile, but it is not more than a believe, even though I agree with the interpretation. (Or, the political leaders did not want their institution to be chaired by somebody who sparkles brighter than they do.) And your opinion, Seniorfox, that the President of the Council will be of more importance than the Presidency of the Council of the EU is probably also based on speculations only. In this case, I even doubt it is true. After all it is the The Council of the EU which has legislative powers (in co-decision with the Parliament). Tomeasy _{T C} 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinfeldt vs. Malmstöm

With these two figures, we certainly have an inconsistency. In the infobox, we present Malmström (Swedish Minister of EU affairs) as the person representing the EU Presidency, while in the respective section we show Reinfeldt's (Swedish Prime Minister) image for the same purpose.

The core of the problem is that the Presidency of the Council is not held by one person but by the Swedish government as a whole. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, we attribute this to the Minister responsible for the country's relation ofwith the EU. I am not particularly happy with this decision, because I have not heard of any document licensing this approach.

So, if we really want to nail it down to one person, it should be the head of the government as they are truely primus inter pares - and not just because we think so. However, it might be better to discard the wish completly to attribute the Presidency of the EU to one person. Your opinions please. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see many points for both sides. How about we side step the issue and either have an image representative of Sweden/Swedish gov't or we have our new President of the Council.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just list the country that is hosting the presidency --Melitikus (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In text, absolutely. No names as it is misleading to claim there is a single figure all controlling. For images, we should use Van Rumpy.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Van Rompuy should be shown. The question for me was if the Presidency of the Council of the EU shall be acknowledged by making reference to a person, like currently in the infobox and in the respective section. I would agree with both of you that we should avoid attributing that presidency to a person. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not just an image update! The picture removed was a visualization pertaining to the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, which still exists.

I am a little disturbed, because I thought we were just discussing this question. However, I am fine with the edit and can also accept the underlying decision. So, we will not have a picture for the EU Presidency anymore, but instead one for the President of the European Council... Tomeasy _{T C} 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Barroso

In the leaders section of the infobox, I think Barroso should be included as the head of the Comission. Anna Lincoln 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Anna Lincoln 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Bulgaria is in a very bad economic state since it joined the EU. It's economy was in a better state in 2001-2004. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources please, you may be confusing the European Union with the international financial crisis. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 14:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ile Flottant. (PS We could turn around the argument - the economy of all EU countries was in better state in 2001-2004, the current state only occurred after Bulgaria and Romania joined ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha ;) --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record. 79.132.31.212's statement has nothing to do with reality:).--Avidius (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-members

Hi,

I was looking for a definitive list of non-member countries which have historically been considered a part of Europe. I see reference to some, but I think it would be helpful to have a table somewhere listing non-member countries and their exact status (e.g., appealing for membership, participating in the Euro, etc.). Thanks. 116.76.208.213 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not as simple as you may think.

In any case I think this is not the right article.

The list of non-members is easy - all the countries of the world minus the members.

But the European non-members countries requires a definitive list of all European countries. That is the hard part, for example: Europe or America for Iceland and Greenland / Europe or Africa could be raised for Malta (although almost everyone agrees that is Europe) and Europe or Asia can be raised for many countries (Turkey, Cyprus, Russia, Georgia, and some other Caucasian republics).

Re your request for these tables. Appealing for membership is clear from future enlargement of the European Union aticle. Participation in Euro is limited to EU members, and those countries that had a monetary union with these before the Euro (e.g. Vatican Lira were exchangable with Italian Lira and the Vatican has now been allowed to mint Euro's). The Eurozone article explains this in detail.

In my view all the information is already there; only a few clicks away, and I think adding this into this article as a table would not improve anything, only making this article harder to read. Arnoutf (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article European Economic Area lists those countries that are in the EEA but not members of the EU (it's a start).--Boson (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, too much detail for this article, it is already dealt with on the member state, enlargement and eurozone articles.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

5 or 6 largest cities

I reverted a recent change by User:Marigaux who changed the largest cities table to 6. I did this for several reasons.
1) The added content is not clear. On the page it only shows in the header of the table. If you want to add such information, make sure also to expand the table with the relevant numbers.
____ Even if we were to go to 6 cities, Bucharest can never be the number 6 as the used sources are all pre-2007; i.e. from the time Romania and Bucharest were not members of the EU. The number 6 in the EU at that time should be identified.
2) The rationale given for going from 5 to 6 is flawed (Every European demography list and list by population, include an top 6 cities not an top 5. See http://europa.eu/index_en.htm).
____Formally this claim is false, the fact alone that Wikipedia lists 5 is deterministic evidence that not every list does this (i.e. the Wikipedia list doesn't).
____Trying to understand the editor, he seems to suggest that the EU uses lists of 6, so we should as well. Again that argument is not as obvious as it seems. Without a strong argument WHY we should adopt the same number as the EU itself we could as well choose for a top 3, or a top 153 for that matter. We have discussed the length of this list in depth in the past and found a compromise at 5. Of course if strong arguments appear I am willing to re-discuss.
3) The provided reference is not a source at all. It is the top level entry to the European Union site. There are literally millions (if not billions) page to be reached from there. There is no way we can find the exact pages Marigaux was referring to without incredible amounts of work. If you want to use this kind of refences, provide a suitable deeplink. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

Serbia today applied to join the EU. [3] best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Postmodern Superpower

In the old article there was the refence to EU as postmodern superpower.Who cancelled it?151.60.116.117 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Who deleted it is of no relevance. Clearly the deletion is accepted by consensus.

But honestly, I do not recall this to have ever been in there in a stable version, the idea to add it was controversial from the start and has been removed after due discussion on talk.

Another thing is why you, an anon visitor with no recorded edits recalls such a minor detail. Do you recall it from reading, or have you been involved in the editing at that time. If the latter please consider using the same name as you did at that time. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that in an article a thing like EU has been a supermodern superpower for long time and suddenly this fades.It's an original way of considering EU.The article has been changed after the "Yes" to the Lisbon Treaty that powered a lot EU.It's a non-sense acting or better a sense acting for partial people.If EU isn't a superpower how can Usa be considered today a superpower? Don't joke.151.60.119.51 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AS I stated above The EU has NEVER been a supermodern superpower for long time in this article. So your point made above lacks accuracy (at best, as it also sounds much like the anti US ranting in relation to superpower issues of a blocked sockpuppeteer). Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article before that somebody changed it after the "YES" to the Lisbon Treaty there was the description of EU as a MODERN SUPERPOWER.May be for somebody this "YES" has made weaker EU.Ridiculous! The problem ,as all people know ,it's that there are too many anti EU people in this site.Anyway it sounds goods,if the problem is EU, it means that EU is strong.Reality is stronger than a stupid site.Bye.Have nice nights in your souls!151.60.117.237 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather pro-EU politically... but you added without a source, this is wikipedia not an election. For the record I removed your insertion. "Have nice nights in your souls!" That has got to be the best and most beautiful thing I've ever read. Kudos to you. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be pro-EU, but you're not for EU 100%.  ;) TastyCakes (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I did actually think the style was similar to good old EU100%, good catch there TastyCakes. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He was surprisingly coherent here, but he made an edit at talk:United States that gave him away. TastyCakes (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The first entry was coherent, but the anti Usa (note capitalisation) line at the end of the second was already very much like EU 100%. The entries after that were really EU100% all over. Arnoutf (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add "postmodern superpower" in the article dear Allison but other people.You are defending an old idea of propaganda that make Wiki ridiculous and dated.It's just for ignorant people as all people know.Bye bye.151.60.118.131 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, on my talk page... could you please give me reasons why you think the EU is and the US is not a superpower? I'm curious regarding your logic. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check my answer.There's a lot of rubbish in the modern part of Wiki policy.For istance the aricles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" are similar to a joke.They talk about everthing and nothing,an original way to tell a novel.151.60.118.131 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

GR Allison, the only thing I can say to your request is "don't feed the troll".

Let's close this discussion as it is going nowhere. Anon Italion suspected socks of EU 100% please accept that superpower is an ill-defined term at best, and that postmodern is even more ill-defined. Ill-defined terms are almost by definition controversial. We should be extremely careful to add controversial content, and should treat it as an extraordinary bit of information needing extraordinary support (i.e. mainstream scientific consensus or similarly strong). So far none but extremely weak support has been provided (no peer reviewed scientific articles). Therefore at this stage we should err on the safe side and omit such information (unless the above mentioned scientific mainstream consensus can be established). Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should report facts and not original interpretations of reality.151.60.118.131 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We fully agree there. But facts need to be supported by evidence (otherwise I could claim the world is flat is a fact) and evidence is what I ask for above. Without evidence any claim would indeed be an "original interpretation of reality".

To established the fact of the EU as a (postmodern) superpower we thus need:

a) A straightforward, undeniable definition of (postmodern) superpower, that is generally accepted

b) Undeniable evidence the EU is one of those.

So far I have seen neither, hence I can not conclude the EU is a (postmodern) superpower (I can also not conclude the EU is NOT a postmodern superpower, but as most entities in the world are not superpowers NOT being should be considered the starting position - the Null hypothesis) Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[4] This starts to look like the same old debate resurfacing again. The language and style of the supporter of inclusion is the same. I will only comment to say until there is credible evidence of the assertion, I feel it should not be included. Anything more than that and we are feeding the same troll again. Lwxrm (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)