Talk:European Union: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 25 June 2016

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 31: 90 days

Template:Vital article

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.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 21, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
May 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 4, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 8, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
November 26, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Europe GA‑class Top‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union GA‑class Top‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics GA‑class Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 31: 90 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

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

Remove Great Britain

Brexit was confirmed on 24/06/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.201.52 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is still a part of the EU until exit negotiations are complete

Das größte Problem, England Autoindustrie hat, ist , dass es praktisch nichts davon im Haus besitzt . Es hat null Fähigkeit, sich von zu isolieren , was an anderer Stelle entschieden. Wird es überleben? Niemand weiß es, und die Engländer kann nichts tun, das zu ändern. Dies ist , warum Sie Ihre nationalen Marken in inländischen Besitz zu halten, um Situationen wie diese zu vermeiden.

Two issues:

1st GB is an EU member the UK is not (ie including NI)

2nd at any rate this map should be changed back (or UK shaded to show it has voted to leave but presently still a member) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.198.243 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

Cyprus on map

Please, see here; http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus/index_en.htm . In this source we can read that the whole island belong in the European Union so, the map must change!

I agree. The Republic of Cyprus constitutes the entire island, and it is the Republic of Cyprus which is in the EU. The map seems to suggest that the illegal occupation of Cyprus is a separate entity.

I disagree. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the EU, and claims sovereignty over the whole island. But the northern third of the island is claimed, and occupied, by Turkey. Wikipedia policy is that maps of territories should show the reality on the ground, not the claims made by their rulers; see e.g. India, and Q6 in the FAQ on its talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

add English?

Bulgarian: Европейски съюз

Croatian: Europska unija

Czech: Evropská unie

Danish: Den Europæiske Union

Dutch: Europese Unie

Ulieno: Eiewo Eunie

Estonian: Euroopa Liit

Finnish: Euroopan unioni

French: Union européenne

German: Europäische Union

Greek: Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση

Hungarian: Európai Unió

Irish: An tAontas Eorpach

Italian: Unione europea

Latvian: Eiropas Savienība

Lithuanian: Europos Sąjunga

Maltese: Unjoni Ewropea

Polish: Unia Europejska

Portuguese: União Europeia

Romanian: Uniunea Europeană

Slovak: Európska únia

Slovene: Evropska unija

Spanish: Unión Europea

Swedish: Europeiska unionen

2.24.4.107 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English is the language of this article, the whole text and the headline are in English language. Therefore it is unnecessary to add English. --NarcosDE (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi,

Please could you add the following text to the sentence below in the "Constitutional Nature" Section, in order to take into account new scholarly thinking which suggests a possible avenue for identifying the EU:

Old: It is, however, described as being based on a federal model or federal in nature.

New: It is, however, described as being based on a federal model or federal in nature; and so it may be appropriate to consider it a federal union of states, a concept lying between a confederation of states and a federal state.

The source is as follows (please reference in footnote): Law, John (2013) "How Can We Define Federalism?". Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. E104. http://www.on-federalism.eu/attachments/169_download.pdf

Thanks alot for your help.

109.153.97.254 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Terra ^❤ 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi,

For consistency within the Constitutional Nature section, please could you put the words "federal union of states" towards the end of the second paragraph in italics?

Thanks alot for your help.

85.255.234.10 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the upcoming EU referendum in the UK?

Feels like some mention should be made somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.217.213 (talk)

Done

Hello, just a reminder that you can sign off on talk pages by typing four tildes (~) with no spaces. I've added the information you suggested; you can find it under the 'Member States' section. Johnxsmith (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where? A search for "referendum" finds a mention of the Norwegian 1972 referendum only.109.156.25.231 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, please could you create a link through to the page 'federal union of states', which now exists, at the reference in the text towards the end of the second paragraph of the Constitutional Nature section?

Thanks alot!

185.69.144.219 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page 'federal union of states' does not exist and this type of link would simply direct readers to the 'federalism' page. Johnxsmith (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/emblems/emblemes.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, infobox and Member states section

What are everyone's feelings on the map? Personally I prefer the one previously (EU on globe without internal borders) but I don't have a strong preference. The purpose of the map in the infobox is suppose to be a location map. So I don't think showing the internal borders is helpful since it is difficult to distinguish the different member states. Instead, the labelled map under European Union#Member states is for this (although that one isn't great either, I think I added a much clearer one but that seems to have been removed?). And again, as this is a location map, showing the EU on the globe is clearer. It shows where the EU is location in relation to a much wider area, such as how far it is from North America.

Rob984 (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did change the member states map last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&oldid=642861719#Member_states I certainly don't think the current version is an improvement. What are everyone's thought on this map too? Rob984 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is definitely important to show the members' national boundaries on the map. Some people may look to it in order to quickly find out which states are members, and a borderless version would make it much difficult and confusing if they are not expert cartographers. Also, this model of map sort of (subjectively) transmits the erroneous idea of members being much more united than they actually are, like if border control was close to inexistent between all of them. Anyways, if you look in articles about other supranational unions, like the Arab League, Unasul, etc., in none of its maps the borders are simply erased.

As for the format of the map, I think a centralized planisphere seems easier to read, but you made a good point on its purpose of location, so I'm not sure about this one.

Choosing among the four maps presented, I would vote for the first and the third. - Alumnum (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say without internal borders. The EU is, according to many sources, more than just an organisation, as member states have delegated a significant share of their otherwise sovereign "rights" to an entirely new political body. The argument about the state of schengen is irrelevant in this case. If someone will really care who's in and who's not, he should look at the proper map lower in the article. He, who does (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

How about a criticism section about the EU being a covert socialist club which pays money into the coffers of jihadist groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.19.125 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm I always thought the EU was a covert operation of global capitalism to suppress worker rights and destroy their pensions. But of course if you have reliable (unbiased) sources supporting your claim I may have to reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/emblems/emblemes.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Competences" section is simply correct.

This might sound hair-splitting to those of you who aren't involved in EU law but this section is 100% accurate.

"EU member states retain all powers not explicitly handed to the European Union."

The term 'powers' describes the functions of a state in acting independently, which the EU does enjoy. The EU - which *IS* the member states - does not legislate with the approval of member states, within the specific areas the treaties lay down, to define further the content of EU law, law which states are not free to ignore, but free to ignore without e.g. suspension of voting rights, while they choose not to remain part of the union. That's a power - it's not a very narrow competence, even the exercise of agency.

"In some areas the EU enjoys exclusive competence. These are areas in which member states have renounced any capacity to enact legislation."

All member states have renounced any capacity to enact legislation. They retain none of their capacity to legislate in any area they choose. They have simply said that they choose to restrict their discretion in legislating in all areas, for the duration of the treaty provision, this being a promise they cannot break. There is no difference between capacity and discretion. Retaining your capacity means you can do something.

"In other areas the EU and its member states share the competence to legislate. While both can legislate, member states can only legislate to the extent to which the EU has not."Italic text

The same applies here. States cannot legislate in any area - they cannot do so without e.g. suspension of voting rights, so long as they wish to remain part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronico75 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi,

Please could you add the following text to the sentence below in the "Leaders" part of the infobox

Old:

|leader_title1 = [[President of the European Commission]]
|leader_name1 = [[Jean-Claude Juncker]]
|leader_title2 = [[President of the European Council]]
|leader_name2 = [[Donald Tusk]]
|leader_title3 = [[President of the European Parliament]]
|leader_name3 = [[Martin Schulz]]

New:

{{collapsible list||title = [[President of the European Union]]
|leader_title1 = [[President of the European Commission]]
|leader_name1 = [[Jean-Claude Juncker]]
|leader_title2 = [[President of the European Council]]
|leader_name2 = [[Donald Tusk]]
|leader_title3 = [[President of the European Parliament]]
|leader_name3 = [[Martin Schulz]]

Thanks alot for your help. 92.4.96.96 (talk)

Why? What problem would be solved by this. Also - the offices are dissimilar so why under one list? Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but this change looks like it may break the infobox. This looks more like a request for a collapse option for the infobox. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Tried it, indeed it does. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: That was basically what I was suggest; a collapsible option for the inbox, with a link to the President of the European Union article. 92.4.96.96 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply in a bit on talk. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Cities

This article says that Paris and London are the largest cities in the EU, which is simply wrong. The city of Paris only has a population of less then 2,5 million, even though its metroplitan area may be the second largest. Second biggest city wihtin the EU is Berlin. It would be great, if you change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:22EC:8CBE:837C:766B:9A93 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London and Paris are by far the largest urban areas in the EU. Data shows Paris has a slightly larger urban population, but the difference is negligible, so both are listed alphabetically. This has been discussed before so please see previous discussions in the talk page archive. There's a summary by Arnoutf from the last time this was raised here. Rob984 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GDP (PPP) Per capita $37,852

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

GDP (PPP) 2015 estimate

•  	Total 	$19.205 trillion[8] (2ndb)
•  	Per capita 	$37,852[8] (18thb)

Is wrong it should say 28th instead of 18th Brasileirinhas copa do sexo (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's 17. Including EU countries, it is 28. But It does not include member states, as if the EU is one combined entity. Therefore the rankings for the Finland, the UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland, and Luxembourg are omitted. Rob984 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although... the other figure for nominal GDP is ranked including member states. I am thinking maybe this is better because otherwise the information is not comparable with countries. The note will need to be changed however, and also the HDI rank. Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the ranking for nominal GDP to also not include member states for the time being (from 25th to 15th), but I am not sure this is best practice. Rob984 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request itself looks like it's answered. Toggling. I think discussion of how the ranking is done can continue without keeping the request open. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic version of .eu (.ею)

Hi, maybe the new Cyrillic version of .eu should be added under Top-level domain name?

https://www.gandi.net/news/en/2016-06-01/8296-introducing_._the_cyrillic_version_of_.eu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.10.66 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point me, and the majority of Europeans to the (single) keys on their keyboard to type it, I would agree. Otherwise it appears too much detail for the infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official script of Bulgaria. Is there a Greek form as well? It doesn't seem too much to include two addition domains given they would fit on one line. Rob984 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily?

The lead section states that the countries of the EU are located "primarily" within Europe. Surely they're all completely within Europe? I realise that "Europe" can be a bit of a fuzzy concept but I'm struggling to think of any of the current 28 that are not squarely within Europe, however defined. If a country like Turkey, or even Russia, were to accede then clearly there would be an issue but as of now the situation seems clear. Unless one excludes the islands (GB, Ireland, Malta)? But that would be ludicrous, like excluding Tasmania from Australia or Copenhagen from Denmark. Presumably, a very strange and hair-splitting definition of Europe could be arrived at that would exclude some places but the question is whether such a definition would be widely accepted, and my guess is that it would not. Having clicked on the individual member states, it seems they're all considered part of "Europe" (both currently and historically), so if for no other reason than internal consistency it seems daft to leave in the word "primarily".Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is usually considered to be part of Asia. In addition, several member states, like France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have territories outside Europe. That said, I nonetheless agree that the sentence sounds strange and that we should remove "primarily". --Glentamara (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removal. They're not all completely within Europe. France is the simplest example (although not the only one). Parts of France are in South America and off Madagascar, far far from Europe. There's a reason Euro notes have little squares below the map. CMD (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in history of the EU

How about to add a bit information about current events in history of the EU (in this section)? For example the following text: From the beginning of 2010s, the European Union is going through a series of tests, including debt crisis in some Eurozone countries, increasing migration from the Middle East countries, Russia's aggression against Ukraine and potential United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no one against then I insert this text. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about talking about a United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU in this sense in an article about a possible United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU. I also think the debt crisis is more of a Eurozone than a EU problem. Feel free to insert the other two though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the referendum on the issue is certainly a current event. I'll add it. Ben Finn (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why no criticism??

Why does this article seem to contain no criticism at all (from a quick look through), other than a passing mention in relation to the CAP? How extraordinary! Ben Finn (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because we do not have an article on Criticism of the European Union to draw material from. Just an article on Euroscepticism. Are you suggesting adding relevant material?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 June 2016

Does it read as having a large amount of boosterism? CMD (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

I believe the EU motto is actually "La ilaha ilallah wa Muhammadur rassullah." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.89.10 (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Brexit" Referendum

Hello Wikipedia,

   As you may know, the United Kingdom has left the European Union, and so, this article needs to be changed DRASTICALLY, and we need to do this swiftly, and to add a lot of new content to this page, and so I would encourage everyone to contribute to this page as much as possible.

     Sincerely,
         A Chap from London

^[1]

Can we change the map to show the UK in light green consistent with other territories (e.g. Crimea) where the current legal status is unclear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:C101:1BBC:311C:AB25:126E:2E4B (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is not out yet, regardless of the result. The vote may be in, but the referendum did not automatically trigger exit. This will come down to the negotiations and treaties that will be done in coming months. Other than updating the article to show the result, we should not be removing UK from the membership section etc Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we should change the colour of the map to indicate that the United Kingdom has indicated that it wishes to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and wishes to withdraw from the EU --Andrew 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The EU has officially announced they have 27 members now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mettie7 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's only an announcement by the EU President. However, the formal departure of Britain hasn't been completed yet. Thus, EU laws still apply to Britain. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

The UK is no longer part of the EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubzee (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't left yet, it was just a referendum, there's a procedure for leaving that they have to go trough first Kamrat (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24th June 2016

Too many people are editing this page saying the UK is out of the EU now. It isn't. They've just had a vote. Opacitatic (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change colour for the UK

Should be a different shade of green. Potentially marked as 'leaving member' or 'uncertain situation due to referendum outcome'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.57.38 (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The UK is still part of the EU and it would be misleading for readers to suggest otherwise. There is a process to be gone through before the UK leaves, and that will take at least two years. When it formally leaves at that time, the map should be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove uk from europe union as they left

198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - UK remains an EU member until withdrawal processes are complete, which may take two years at least. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

uk

the uk has left, changed the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.34.88 (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has not left. CMD (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned somewhere surely - "it would be misleading" to act like nothing had happened. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like in the fifth para of the introductory section - where it's been for several hours? But, there probably needs to be some more added to the main text. No rush though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changes the article's map to indicate the UK isn't in the EU. This is false, some admin should lock the image for a couple days, and fix it now. --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.101.34 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were probably gonna reach 2020 before they are "completely" out.92.220.75.86 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is out of place in the article head because it isn't relevant to describing what the EU is. The History section already has a blurb and I think that's sufficient. I won't remove it from the head though. Just putting in my two cents. Cuebreaker (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per CRYSTAL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove United Kingdom from list, and add mention of EU referendum

2602:306:C468:FBD0:6552:7334:124E:327B (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball we cannot remove a country just because of an vote wanting to leave the EU Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove united kingdom 46.208.106.171 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Not done. Nope - the UK is still a member (see multiple earlier posts) until the withdrawal process has been completed, in some years time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes but a member that has stated that it intends to withdraw, so having a map showing it as wholly green is misleading --Andrew 23:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the United Kingdom

I'm notice there is no serious discussion on this so...

The UK will soon begin the process of leaving the EU, which will take up to two years to complete. When this process begins is not exactly clear, with David Cameron claiming his successor will invoke Article 50 two months from now, while Jean-Claude Juncker insists it should be invoked immediately. This is obviously a unique and significant status for a member state. I am thinking we should begin determining a consensus how the UK should be treated as soon as possible to avoid potential disruption when the process begins. Already, before official notification has even been given, the remaining 27 members have decided to begin discussions excluding the UK. It doesn't seem like the UK is going to be allowed gradual secession given the stance of EU leaders (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36618317). Two years is only the maximum permitted duration that the treaties of EU will remain in effect after Article 50 is invoked, which otherwise needs approval to be extended. That period is to allow for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement but also to allow the EU to adapt budgets, policies, etc, discussion which will likely omit the UK.

Once this process begins, it seems clear to me that the UK will no longer be considered a full-member state. We should consider indicating the UK in the lead, on maps, in the infobox/lists, as a seceding state. For example as a lighter colour green on the location map in the infobox. However I stress, only when the process begins!

.Rob984 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events

The phrase "will begin negotiations that would last up to a maximum of two years according to the Lisbon Treaty" is misleading. It would be more accurate to state "is now preparing to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, leading to exit negotiations that will last up to two years" would be more accurate.

Also, this section cites no references.

Perhaps someone with an account will rectify this. 94.195.18.36 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also added one reference. Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Should the colour of the United Kingdom on the map be changed to indicate that it has stated its intention to withdraw from the European Union? --Andrew 23:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it invokes Article 50. Then I think so. See my comment above. Rob984 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close per extension of WP:SK. Nomination appears erroneous, nominator's justification is not strong, and "European Union" is the union's name. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Union → European union The "U" in union does not have to be a capital letter. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E831:4AAB:3D71:12D8 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close It doesn't have to be, but it is. Per their website, for one. And you have no rationale on WHY you think it should be moved too... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a proper name, not a descriptive title. CMD (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention of UK decision to leave in introduction

I think in the fourth paragraph which discusses the transformation and expansion of the EU, we should include one short sentence mentioning that the UK is the only state ever to vote to leave the EU. This is a significant event in the EU's history, and the UK is an important member state, forming one of the "Big Four" and encompassing 17% of the EU's economy. Commenting here because I realise a lengthier version has been removed once before, and I will remove the addition if anyone still objects to this. Rob984 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence I added:

"On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave EU—the only member state ever to do so."

Rob984 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/livecoverage/breaking-news-now/lc-AAhtfvM

[1] ttp://www.msn.com/en-us/news/livecoverage/breaking-news-now/lc-AAhtfvM

[1]

@@ Line 603: / Line 603: @@
 ==Requested move==
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
-{{requested move/dated|European union}}
+:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the move request was: '''Speedy close''' per extension of [[WP:SK]]. Nomination appears erroneous, nominator's justification is not strong, and "European Union" is the union's name. <small>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|(non-admin closure)]]</small> — [[User:Andy M. Wang|'''''Andy W.''''']] <span style="font-size:88%">('''[[User talk:Andy M. Wang|<span style="color:#164">talk</span>]] ·''' [[Special:Contribs/Andy M. Wang|ctb]])</span> 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
+----
 [[:European Union]] → {{noredirect|European union}} The "U" in union does not have to be a capital letter. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E831:4AAB:3D71:12D8|2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E831:4AAB:3D71:12D8]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E831:4AAB:3D71:12D8|talk]]) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Speedy close''' It doesn't ''have'' to be, but it is. Per [http://europa.eu/index_en.htm their website], for one. And you have no rationale on '''WHY''' you think it should be moved too... '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 09:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a proper name, not a descriptive title. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
+----
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
 == Mention of UK decision to leave in introduction ==