Talk:European Union
![]() | The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 19:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
Q1: Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?
A1: The symbols were not abandoned with the constitution, but they are no longer mentioned in the text of the new Treaty of Lisbon. The failed European Constitution would have enshrined them and given them legal status, whereas the replacement Treaty of Lisbon does not. However, they still exist and are still used without this status. The European flag was adopted in 1986 and will continue to be used even without constitutional status. The other symbols were also adopted in a similar manner.
The EU is not unique in this respect, many countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and only has its position de facto. Another example is the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E pluribus unum being commonly used as such. Q2: Why isn't there a criticism section?
A2: A separate criticism section would focus on overall criticism of the whole idea of the European Union. After much discussion it was decided that this is not a good idea. Note that there is no "support section" either; this is an encyclopedia article, not a pamphlet meant to persuade people whether the EU is a good or bad thing. When it is important to discuss the positives and negatives of certain European Union issues, these are mentioned in the paragraph dealing with that issue. Thus the style of the article is to deal with criticism on a topic by topic basis rather than in a separate section at a very abstract level. Q3: So, is there nothing wrong with the EU at all?
A3: Of course many things are "wrong"; but a neutral point of view on overall conceptual criticism does not work. Instead the editors involved do their best to write as neutrally and objectively as possible, neither taking a supportive or a critical point of view. An example where both positive and negative consequences are discussed is given here as an example (from the Common Agricultural Policies (CAP) section – the most important policy is that of subsidised minimum prices for agricultural products):
Q4: But is there no criticism about the whole idea of the EU?
A4: While in its implementation there can be, and is, much criticism of the European Union, it is simply impossible to address every possible area of criticism. Criticism of the EU is often subjective, depending on personal and political views; some may criticise the economic model advanced by the EU, whilst others may criticise the transfer of certain powers from a national to a European level, fearing loss of sovereignty. Some may simply criticise the institutional structure of the EU, the role of the European Court or even the EU's human rights policy. The number of possible criticisms are almost endless and it is impossible to address them all fully, in a balanced manner. Furthermore, there are already articles on issues such as Euroscepticism which cover many of the points which individuals may wish to add to the main EU article. Because of the multi-faceted and subjective nature of this criticism it has been decided that the inclusion of a criticism section is neither necessary or wise. Q5: Is the EU a country, a federation, or an international organisation?
A5: The European Union is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or international organisation difficult. It is probably most closely related to a confederation.
The EU has developed from an international trade organisation aimed at improving the economy and thereby fostering peace in Western Europe. Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity, like an anthem, a flag, a common currency, but also representation among other countries in international organisations like the G8. However, other properties of countries, like a fully-fledged defence force, are not part of the EU's mandate. This means the EU can neither be described as a federation or country, nor as a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as any of these, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. Nevertheless, to promote consistency within Wikipedia, we borrow ideas from both the international organisation structure and the country articles.Q6: Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy?
A6: No, this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the European Union between them.
Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when writing about this, as it is basically speculation. This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being treated as a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors.Q7: Why is there a sports section?
A7: In brief, the issue shares many elements with the previous question – whether to treat the European Union more as an international organisation or more as a country. Some editors believe that a country article ought to have a section discussing sport as an important aspect of national culture, and that the EU should be treated as a country and have such a section. Others believe that the EU as an organisation has a negligible impact on sport and that sporting culture varies widely from state to state, so the topic should not be mentioned in a summarising article such as this. Q8: Why is there such limited information on culture in the EU?
A8: Again, this issue shares many elements with the question whether the European Union should be considered more like a country or more like an international organisation.
There is, however, another issue here: a lot of the culture of Europe (literature, painting, music; or even Roman/Greek antiquity) originated long before the EU was founded. While this culture is undeniably part of the cultural heritage of the EU countries, it is just as much part of the culture of non-EU European countries: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the mini-states (Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City), the republics of former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Montenegro), and the eastern European Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Hence, discussing the culture of EU would at best mean duplication of the Culture of Europe article, which would be unwanted for reasons of maintainability of a consistent content of Wikipedia. At worst this may imply that the EU claims some rights to the shared culture of the whole of Europe, thereby denying this right to non-EU countries. Therefore it was decided to limit the culture section very much.Q9: Why don't the city sizes fit with my idea?
A9: Comparison of city sizes by number of inhabitants sounds easy. It is not. Different countries in the European Union have dealt differently with subdividing large cities. For example, many of the suburbs of Paris are independent, making Paris proper a relatively small city. Berlin has many fewer independent suburbs making it relatively much larger.
This makes comparison of cities on inhabitants irrelevant. Eurostat has realised this and in 2004 created the larger urban zone as an alternative metric which was developed to be comparable across the different countries. We use larger urban zone numbers to compare city populations across EU countries. Q10: What is the legislature of the EU?
A10: The European Union is not a state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure. The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority ["competence" in Eurospeak] to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise. It does not have a conventional legislature, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into a conventional model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is to police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio. Q11: Who is the President of the European Union?
A11: The official title President of the European Union (or President of Europe) does not exist, but there are a number of presidents of European Union institutions, including:
|
![]() | European 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | European 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
Template:Archive box collapsible
Humanitarian aid vs Development aid
There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU. There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU. There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU. There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU. There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU. DG ECHO and DG DEVCO operate for each, respectively. I would propose either making a new section for development aid or at least describing the two separately within the aid section. They operate under separate budgets and under very separate mandates. For example, ECHO's mandate abides by humanitarian principles and is separated from EU politics in much the same way UN OCHA is separated from other UN bodies. DEVCO on the other hand must work with governments and politicians in order to provide effective development projects in various countries. Additionally, and probably important to describe, their budgets are separate from each other under the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookdub (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 July 2014
Economy section
Can someone edit the number in the economy section? They are from 2009, while Economy of the european union has numbers from 2011. Would be nice to update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.15.37 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2014
Unsatisfactory content in the "Competences" section
Someone seems to have copy-pasted a report on the UK leaving the EU in the competences section, and it flies in the face of proper Wikipedia formatting / style. Doubletriplereversepsychology (talk) 2016-06-24 18:31 UTC
Community reassessment
Delisting as Good Article
I propose to delist the article as a Good Article. This notification allows other editors to improve the article, see Wikipedia:Good article review.
1. Structure is not clear and not yet logical, and EU structure itself, its values, it policies, and political controversies about those, are mixed in with each other. Headers do not always match section content, politics section for instance is more about structural issues. Article needs to be read twice to understand it. Too much about the location of EU institutions rather than what they do.
2. Some dubious claims (EU largest economy, EU prevents war) are not sourced.
3. Coverage of values, European identity, and future orientation is weak, and not stable either. List of largest cities is listcruft and does not belong here, associated images even less so.
4. Neutrality is undermined by the concentration on legal aspects, the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance, but you would not guess that from the article. History section has too much Whig history.
5. Article is certainly not stable.Paul111 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- A good idea, Paul111, on each of these grounds. Perhaps the shock of de-listing will focus minds. Countersubject 00:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if using the "nuclear option" is really the right solution. You may launch an edit war by resorting to such a radical solution.
Concerning your comments: 1) structure may not be perfectly clear, but somehow you're the only one really annoyed about it;
2) sources for these claims can easily be found, I'm sure, as these claims are quite common (also: the EU did prevent war between member states since it was founded - or can you prove the contrary???);
3)Values, identity, etc. are obviously vague since the EU means different things to different people and member states. The largest cities list is not really necessary, I agree with that, but that's not really a reason to delist this article.
4) I would dispute the argument that "the EU is a political entity still largely embedded in the Atlantic alliance". Can you source that? As I see it, the EU is first of all an economic entity; the political aspects are secondary. Internationally, the EU has a rather low profile, internally, however, it is the major source of legislation for the member states nowadays. The (rather small) history section just lists the major steps of the EU (with a disproportionate emphasis on the Constitution, IMO), in how far has it too much Whig history???
5)Well, haven't you considered that you may be one reason for its instability? Luis rib 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very disappointed, Luis, that your fifth point seems to be coming close to the kind of personal abuse that has marred discussion of this article (though it is put in you unfailingly polite manner). When you appear to disagree with fellow editors about the subject of an article, and when that subject is a matter of intense political and constitutional debate, then you need to think carefully before suggesting their edits are destabilising the article. It not only looks like a discourtesy, but will also distract editors from the discussion of Paul's observations and suggestions that you've begun. Now I'm going to go and deal with supper before it burns. That will also give me a chance to think about the substantive points that you've both made. Countersubject 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If my comment above was seen as a personal attack on Paul111, then I apologise. What I meant by my rash and unfortunate wording in point 5 was that the current instability is the consequence of the discussions that we are having here on the talk page. Obviously, as long as some points are hotly debated, the contents in the article concerning these points will change and evolve. Paul111 naturally has the right to propose changes, but Lear21 (to name just one contender) also has the right to challenge these proposals. So while such an issue is discussed, the article will be unstable - yet the instability will be caused by both editors, as they modify the contended wordings to and fro. So blaming the instability of article just on one part of the editors (and this is what I suppose that Paul111 was meaning by his above comment in point 5))is not correct. Furthermore: threatening to challenge the status of Good Article based on the instability of the article - which has been caused by both sides - is IMO unfair as it aims at stopping discussion and imposing the view of just a parts of the editors. Luis rib 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding point 4 which deals with the called Atlantic alliance, also commonly known as NATO or OTAN, I would suggest to read the (British) Economist: “But France has always believed that in the long run the EU must assert its independence of NATO, an organization it regards as ultimately an instrument of American foreign policy. Without an independent European defense force, the French believe there can be no independent European foreign policy. Michel Barnier, a Frenchman who recently chaired a working group on defense at the EU's current constitutional convention, says he wants Europe to foster a relationship with the United States “based on alliance, not allegiance”.” In other words, European nations would like to take back the control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change Contents removed for navigability
to Contents removed for navigability
Jamesmstewart (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Removed template syntax in edit request. Your request is simply to remove the last entry Luxembourgish language. Any reason? If you're able to elaborate or back up why, please re-open here and specify, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, saw your claim above Per WP:BRD, have done so, but keep in mind this may be disputed — Andy W. (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Will the EU be getting its own Army?
Also what about the speculation about the EU evolving into a nation state federation thingy?
And will Turkey EVER get to join the EU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.41.49 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting questions, but not what talk pages are intended for. This is about improving the article, not to set up a discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
See the article on the Military of the European Union. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is the entire island of Cyprus coloured green?
A small notice. But I learned that Northern Cyprus is not part of the EU, yet the entire island is coloured green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostpunk (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Correct. The Faroes are not coloured green even though they are part of Denmark, so there is an inconsistency here. Many don't understand that the maps aren't just membership maps, and that they illustrate the jurisdiction and area of the EU, which does not include every part of every member state. Accession treaties explicitly exclude areas from the EU, meaning they are legally not part of the EU's jurisdiction or area. The northern part of Cyprus occupied by the Turkish military is explicitly excluded, just like the Faroes. But unfortunately some editors seem to think this would simply be legitimising the Turkish occupation. So that is why it is shown anyway as EU territory. Possibly a comprise would be to show the northern part of Cyrpus as light green, on the basis that it would otherwise be part of the EU, were it not for the Turkish military occupation. Also, it looks possible that the Cyprus conflict will be resolved soon, provided Turkey doesn't intervene. Rob984 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at European Union. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
You will need to remove the UK from the list of members, the UK left the EU recently. 107.223.195.192 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Good article reassessment nominees
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- GA-Class Europe articles
- Top-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- GA-Class European Union articles
- Top-importance European Union articles
- WikiProject European Union articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- Top-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- GA-Class organization articles
- Top-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- GA-Class Trade articles
- Mid-importance Trade articles
- WikiProject Trade articles
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests