Jump to content

Talk:European Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahetin (talk | contribs) at 13:02, 5 September 2012 (→Definition of the European Union). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for

this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

Former featured articleEuropean Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleEuropean Union has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
May 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 4, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 8, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article



Template:Archive box collapsible

FAC issues

EU Olympic Team

EU if considered a single entity in the Olympic games, would be #1 in terms of overall gold medals and medals total. It should be considered as an addition to this list of rankings, the medal rankings of an unified EU olympic team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.12.160 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military

Is the military section outdated? It says that the EU "battlegroups" can only deploy up to 1,500 personnel but I'd guess there are more than 1,500 personnel on the EU fleet off the Horn of Africa fighting piracy at the moment? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18069685) 109.153.12.64 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why this was reverted as unconstructive, but anyway it is c. 1,500 (http://www.eunavfor.eu/about-us/mission/) Connolly15 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State or Country? (Changes on 29-June-2012)

Should we be comapring the size of the EU economy with other states or other countries. Although these two words are often synonymous, there are a number of exceptions - the United States of America is a country comprising 50 states. Texas for example is a state, but not a county. Brazil and AUstralia are similar example. According to the Wikipedia, Germany consists of 16 states. It was on tis basis that I reinstated the word "country". Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally undid your change because your edit summary did not explain your change adequately. The impression I got was that you were ridiculing the use of that word in this context, implying that it was incorrectly used. However, you now appear to be arguing that although "state" is correct, "country" is possibly less ambiguous. I can live with that. Cobulator (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note too that in contrast with the countries that comprise of a number of states that the United Kingdom is a state comprising 4 countries. Cobulator (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Country is better in this context. Europe is considerably larger than, for instance, Rhode Island. Britmax (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that country is better in this context.
The word state should be regarded as having two distinct meanings:
1 a (sovereign) state that is a subject of international law, such as the states that are members of the United Nations.
A state in this sense can be a unitary state like the United Kingdom of France, or a federal state such as Germany or the United States.
2 a constituent of a federal state.
Strictly speaking, this constituent state is called a federated state (though often - confusingly - the term federal state is used by the layman). Examples are Texas and Bavaria.
The word country can also mean several things, though the meaning is usually obvious from context.
For instance, Scotland is a country. It is not a state because the United Kingdom does not (yet?) have a federal constitution. However, in an international context, the United Kingdom is also a country. Even in passport application forms, the word "country" is used for the applicant's country of residence, and you can chooose "United Kingdom" but not "Scotland".
In the context we are talking about, I think country is more appropriate. In the context it is unambiguous. The word state would also be correct, in the sense of "sovereign state", but it is - strictly speaking - ambiguous, and it is unusual in this context.
--Boson (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oficially, Germany, Poland, France etc is a member state (not member country). So this discussion is meaningless. For the EU should use the word of state. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source used phrases it as country or groups of countries. Murry1975 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...small number of sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of table/bar chart comparing EU with other economies

I have reverted Cobulator's removal of teh table showing comparitive economies. They are are hightly comaprable since they come from the same database. Martinvl (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. It was a very recent addition to this article, and not a beneficial one. It doesn't help the reader understand what makes up the EU economy, which is what this article is for. CMD (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this table has a place in the article. Maybe the caption should be changed. Maybe the figures for Germany, United Kingdom and France could be added to give some perspective, but I don't think that blanket removal is the answer. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What does it tell you about the way the EU economy function? The stats seem to be just how the sum of the members add up. The text however, goes into the way the EU aids the Economy of its states, through regulations and policies etc. Also, it's odd to call it blanket removal, since its just a reversion of a previous edit. CMD (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the stats don't tell you how the economy functions, they do however tell you the size of the economy in relation to other world economies. Were the financial markets bothered when the Zimbabwean dollar fell through the floor? Not really - the knock-on effects were small. Are the financial markets bothered about the current Euro crisis? Yes, the knock-on effects are large. That is wjhat this table is showing. Martinvl (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how similar Euro figures are to the EU as a whole, but the table doesn't really show that. It just gives a few figures. The text, on the other hand, in the first paragraph, says "In 2011 the EU had a combined GDP of 17.57 trillion international dollars, a 20% share of the global gross domestic product ". That, especially the 20%, shows the size/relative size of the EU economy far better than any list of figures could. Now that you've mentioned the Euro crisis though, we seem to just have "The monetary union has been shaken by the European sovereign-debt crisis since 2009" on the topic. While we should avoid news/recentism, that is somewhat underwhelming. CMD (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, think the chart has some merit. However, since it was boldly added and is contentious, I think it should be removed until a consensus has been established. I think WP:BRD, rather than edit warring, is the way to go. --Boson (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The EU is the largest market on the globe. The IMF recognizes the fact. I can hardly see an improvement of the article by deleting the chart, quite the contrary. Whoever created the table probably intended to mirror the introduction sentences about the size of the economy. Marthainky (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That IMF reference does not compare the combined total of the economies of all the EU nations with those of single individual nations. If we are to do that, we first need to find a reference that does that. Cobulator (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF does estimate the size of the EU economy. The removal of the table does not improve the article. Quite the opposite. Marthainky (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may estimate its size, but that doesn't mean we should use a direct comparison. The EU isn't a state; there is enough contention about describing it as a confederation. Even if it was, a table of "Large economies" is a very odd thing to see in an article about any specific economy. We have a text saying it's the largest, and wikilinks that can point to articles where the table is far more appropriate. (As an aside, I can't access the source it seems the way other editors here have, either by clicking or copypasting. Is a more direct link possible?) CMD (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IMF may estimate the size of the EU economy, but it doesn't compare it with that of individual countries or states. WP:NOR does not allow us to combine data from different tables to arrive at a conclusion or imply comparability. The IMF do not put the EU in the "Countries" category, but in the "Country Groups" category, along with other multi-nation groupings such as: Advanced economies, Major advanced economies (G7) and Emerging and developing economies (each of which has a bigger total economy than the EU). Cobulator (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to American English

This article should be changed to American English, because no one in the European Union likes the Britons, and they don't want to be in the European Union either. Also, American English is the lingua franca. --80.187.107.161 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American English is the lingua france in the United States of America, it is not that clear outside the US. And of course, liking the Britons has nothing to do with it, but even if we do not like the Britons (which I doubt) do we dislike the Americans less? .... Arnoutf (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if "no one in the European Union likes the Britons", that is not a reason to change to AmE. If it were a good reason the next logical veriety to use would be Irish English, not American, per WP:TIES (the very reason why BrE is used in the first place). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is still an English speaking member of the EU. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is what Alphaton means, it is now in UK English (which is fine as the UK has ties with the EU), the first alternative would be Irish English since Ireland has (at least) equally strong ties to the EU as the UK (ie is a member state). Arnoutf (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sui Generis

The EU has elements of federation, confederation, and international organization. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it a 'sui generis entity' (as the majority of the sources refer to it) instead of an explicit 'confederation'? FonsScientiae (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the phrase used in the past. For a review of some of the past discussions, search for sui generis using the archive search box above. --Boson (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I went through the archive. And as I see it there was no clear consensus to remove the term from the text (but from the infobox in association with the government).
I had a university course about the EU last year and we most often described it as a sui generis entity, and never as a confederation. I am pretty sure that most of the reliable sources refer to the EU as a sui generis entity, and not as a confederation.
To counter previous arguments that the term is very rarely used I must say that it is used not only in academical texts related to international organizations but also in news, in relation to sports, technology, entertainment etc. (Observer, Sports, Guardian, Technology, Guardian, Sports, BBC, Music, CNN, Entertainment) FonsScientiae (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At present, is good. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a link to a discussion that shows that consensus has changed. I remember we had a long-standing consensus to use sui generis and not use (con)federation. This consensus was defended in multiple discussions. However, this was a few years ago. I could not find the point where this position was change. Would be nice to have it linked here. Thanks. Tomeasy T C 22:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was always for sui generis (given that it is the correct and widely used term) but the argument that certain editors used was that people would not understand what the term sui generis meant. Personally I always thought that was a very poor argument against using sui generis and would happily see it put back in - its the sort of thing that you'll always have one or two people complain about. To use "confederation" instead is misleading if you ask me. --Simonski (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for describing the nature of the EU

Since the designation "confederation" is obviously contentious, though it can be (and sometimes is) argued that the EU is a type of confederation (especially: a new type of confederation) and since there is some concern that (the) hoi polloi will be put off by academic Latin terms like sui generis in the first sentence, I would suggest that we restore the first sentence to the long-standing consensus

" The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

but add a sub-section to the Governance section, in which we

  • introduce the concept of a sui generis organization
  • discuss different views on the fundamental nature of the EU (including the concepts of a "confederation", a "federation", "federal Europe", a "monetary union", a "fiscal union, etc.) There might be some overlap with the History section but there might be an increased need for a broader discussion of these issues anyway, in view of recent developments in Europe.
  • later, possibly discuss views of whether the term sui generis still applies and wider issues of governance.

--Boson (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This description is hardly uncontroversial given that the EU is not a political union.[1][2] It would be better to describe the EU as an "association" and give economic union and political union a treatment similar to the one you suggest for confederation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite happy for the description to include the concepts of political union etc. I'm not too keen on "association" (though I could perhaps live with it) because the European Union is, and designates itself as a union, rather than an association or confederation. And when I read "association" I think more of something like the Commonwealth of Nations. I see minor problems with "economic and political union" but, in my view, this is mainly because editors (I'm not sure if this also applies to normal readers with no axe to grind) try to interpet this [using logical bracketing] as something like ((economic) and (politcial union)) - which is, of course, linguistic nonsense but is the only explanation I can think of for people linking to the concept of Political union, which is a quite different concept from a "union of an economic and political nature". We have, of course, discussed this many times before. We do, of course, need to avoid implying (as a matter of fact) that the EU is a political union in the sense of the compound noun (rather than the noun "union" qualified by two adjectives). That would be the equivalent of calling it a federation (since, presumably, no one would think of the EU as a unitary state). --Boson (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could write "political and economic union" to deemphasize the term 'political union'. This definition is better than stating the EU is a 'confederation', but I still think that "sui generis" is the most descriptive term of the EU, which is often used to describe it. If somebody doesn't know what it means she can follow the link and read the definition in 10 seconds. I still haven't found and seen the archive where the long-term consensus of the usage of sui generis has been changed. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is well at present. I would add the term "federation" (with sources).

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union or confederation or federation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

or

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union or confederation / federation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Also, I support one of the ideas by user Boson: "add a sub-section to the Governance section, in which we introduce the concept of a sui generis organization, discuss different views on the fundamental nature of the EU (including the concepts of a "confederation", a "federation", "federal Europe", a "monetary union", a "fiscal union, etc.)", but intro - no changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any body of decent sources calls the EU a federation. CMD (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the EU is not a federation. Some want it to become one, but that certainly would not be accurate at present. I would support. "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe." I do not think the use of the term confederation is needed in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, EU describes itself "partnership between 27 countries". On its official page, you can find the following sentence: "The EU is a unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries that together cover much of the continent." Anyway, it's not a federation or confederation; EU does not use such a term. I think the first sentence should be like:
"The European Union (EU) i/ˌjʊərrəˈpiːənˈjuːniən/ is an economic and political partnership of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe.[12]" Gabriel Stijena (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is a 'partnership' in international law? I don't think we should take this formulation on Europa.eu too seriously. --Glentamara (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we don't know exactly how to classify the EU in international law (so use of a term that does not do that might be an advantage). That is the reason for using the term sui generis. I am not toö keen, but I think I could live with "association" or "partnership". I do not think the introduction should have a list of things that various people think the EU is or might be - including "confederation". One possibility would be to use a word like "association" but add a footnote that refers specifically to the discussion (to be added) under Governance (and could itself include the term sui generis). --Boson (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the view that sui generis is the best choice. Calling the EU for a confederation or partnership, means that we put it in a group with other types of entities. I think this is bad, because EU is unique in its structure. If we don't want to use sui generis, then we should use just the term union I think, because that is what it is legally (see art. 1 TEU). I think we should use as general terms as possible. --Glentamara (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" sui generis" does not help clarify the situation though. I think simply saying it is a political and economic union in the first sentence is enough. Nobody can deny it is a union, and it is certainly a political/economic one, something that is sourced. So we should stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about this?

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is a sui generis entity, a unique political and economic union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

It includes the exact term often used to describe it, and gives clarification of the nature of the EU to the general people. FonsScientiae (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly redundant, but if there is consensus to remove confederation and use sui generis instead, that seems like a good start point. I'd shorten the relevant part to "is a sui generis political and economic union". CMD (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well i agree it would be better than the current wording incorrectly calling it a confederation. However it still seems to be pointless. " sui generis entity, a unique...." surely that repeats itself? by saying its unique and suis generis? Just the EU is a suis generis political and economic union of 27 memberstates. " would be better. However i still think it would be best to leave out the "unique or suis generis and stick to the facts. It s a political and economic union. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think sui generis entity etc are unnecessary. Briefly, it would be better: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political confederation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe." Gabriel Stijena (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with CMD's proposal that the "EU is a sui generis political and economic union". I believe it should contain sui generis, but if there's consensus to remove it, I can live without it. Calling the EU confederation is incorrect. FonsScientiae (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, sui generis is a bit unnecessary, but you know. No matter. Thanks. Gabriel Stijena (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support idea by user Gabriel Stijena: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political confederation of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe". This is compromise. Subtropical-man (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is reasonable consensus above for a change to the introduction to avoid saying confederation. The difference of opinion seems to be over if suis generis should be used or not. Whilst id prefer the article simply to say " is a political and economic union", im prepared to support " is a sui generis political and economic union" if we can get consensus to resolve this matter. We can at least then correct something that is at present totally incorrect in the article, and there could be longer discussions on if "Suis generis" should remain or be removed at a later date (or continued over the coming days). Main thing is the article would be accurate. So if there are no objections, tomorrow ill change:

"The 'European Union ('EU) is an economic and political entity and confederation[10][11] of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

To

"The 'European Union ('EU) is a sui generis political and economic union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Whilst its not perfect at least it will not claim something many people clearly dispute and view as inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The 'European Union ('EU) is an economic and political entity and confederation[10][11] of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe" is good proposition. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to call it a confederation nor enough reliable sources. Its a very problematic term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different opinion. Small problem would be with the term "federation", not confederation. Second: term "political union" is deficient and incomplete. Exist many political unions in the world, but only the European Union operates almost like a country. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, I think to use "confederation" is particularly misleading. I think we should revert to the previous consensus. Personally I preferred sui generis (given that is the correct and widely used description in most respected sources) but I appreciate that there are always people who will complain about using sui generis. I would have to side overall with Boson here in any event. --Simonski (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the form proposed at the top is fine (without further changes) - there is no need to get into *sui generis* - simply note that the EU is a treaty organisation with its own legal order. It is also not accurate to describe the EU as *sui generis*, as the EEA shares many of its most salient features. Lawdroid (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It is clear from the above there is consensus against use of the word confederation. This article needs fixing, yet the change to the reasonable proposal has been reverted. At present this article is inaccurate and misleading. If the introduction is reverted again to the factually inaccurate "confederation" claim, i shall be adding templates about POV and accuracy. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal has been open for 4 weeks, and I agree that there appears to be a consensus to remove "confederation"(with only 1 dissenter, as I see it). I propose that we close the discusion and re-instate the previous long-term consensus, as I suggested above, before addressing further issues. Since we have already had the "open" discussion, if there are then any further proposals, such as replacing "union" with something else (or re-inserting "confederation"), I suggest holding a more formal poll with !votes given as something like support or oppose with a brief reasons, and discussion kept separate, to keep things focussed.This should probably have been done earlier (before inserting "confederation"). --Boson (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Id support that. My change to the intro has been reverted again though by someone. Im close to putting the accuracy / POV templates on the article, but that will tarnish the whole article when it is sadly just one person refusing to accept there is no consensus to call it a confederation in the intro, seen as most sources in no way describe it as such. Will add the templates tomorrow morning if its not resolved. People are currently being misled by this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Second: two users (as yet). I maybe call several other users with the support of the "confederation", if you want. Wait for a real consensus. Intro of Eu article is big case, it takes patience. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed one possible supporter. It looks like we need a more structured discussion; and perhaps more people's input. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more light bulbs

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: In all countries of the European Union of today, 1 September 2012. was not allowed to produce or sell incandescent bulbs. According to the Croatian daily Vecernji list, recommended LEDs, which consume significantly less power. Historic day: evolution or revolution in every home? 78.2.117.95 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest to add this, for example to the environment paragraph? Arnoutf (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the European Union

What term(s) should be used in the introductory sentence to describe the type of organization of the European Union?

A previous version of the introductory sentence was

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Various changes have been made this year, including the use of the word "confederation". There have also been proposals to use other terms, such as "association", "federation", and sui generis. Please state in the following survey which terms you find preferable or acceptable in the introduction, giving a brief reason for your preference. Feel free to add more terms if you think they have a chance of gaining consensus. Any further discussion, including replies and longer explanations should be restricted to the sub-section headed Discussion.

For arguments already adduced by one editor or another, see Previous discussions below. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Association

Confederation

Economic and political union

Federation

  • Very strongly oppose. A federation is a type of sovereign state, and the EU is not a state. It may be correct to state that the EU has elements of a federation or that there are movements to develop the EU into a federation, but the term does not belong in the introduction. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much associations with a sovereign state, which the EU is not. Even if it would fall within the definition of federation, these associations with sovereignty would be very problematic at best. Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongly support. Very good term for EU. "Federation is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government" - perfectly fits to UE. Term of Economic and political union is incomplete and misleading. Exist a lot economic/political unions in the world, smaller and larger. However, in the world the only EU operate almost as a country - despite the fact that the federation does not have to be a country. Two big arguments for term "federation". Subtropical-man (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongly oppose. A federation, is pretty much by definition, a state in which the federated units lack total sovereignty, and are not able to recover it. Not only would this contradict the "Herren der vertraege" position of the member states, it implies a much stronger relationship of citizenship between the citizen and the EU than actually exists. Lawdroid (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The Union is simply not a federation, maybe it will be in the future, but it is not today. --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--Mahetin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership

Sui generis (possibly in addition to other terms)

Economic and political union and federation

Economic and political union and confederation (current version)

Proposal: „Economic and political union and confederation de facto” --Mahetin (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Further details, explaining why the EU is sui generis or can be regarded in some ways as a confederation, federation, superstate, or whatever , can be added to the section on governance. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not just union an alternative? I.e:

"The European Union (EU) /ˌjʊərəˈpiːənˈjuːnjən/ ⓘ is a union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe."

Could that be a compromise? --Glentamara (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions

To explain the need for a more structured discussion and help acquaint newcomers with the issues, here are some previous discussions (feel free to add more):

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union&oldid=510911127"