Talk:European Union

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

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

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

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)