Talk:European Union/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

.eu Top-Level Domain

For those interested, some of the necessary rules for the .eu tld have been published. Hence it will hopefully come onstream in a couple of months. Negotiations with ICANN are to commence soon. See this external link - [1]. Zoney 10:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean a phasing out of others such as .co.uk or .se? --81.109.249.119

Almost certainly no. --Shallot

Well I would assume that some of the members MAY stop issuing new TLD addresses, not instantly, but possibly eventually. - Gerbon689

European Neighbourhood Policy

Someone should add this to the article. It is immportant when considering enlargement and the EU worldwide as well as its relationship to other countries. I dont have the time nor the style of factual writing to add this but I believe its important. This is the web page http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm

Yes this should be written about but I won't do it. Neighbourhood policy is important but someone else will have to do it. Pedro

It warrants one sentence, perhaps two. It's relevant - but while this page should discuss EU policies generally/overall, it doesn't need to minutely detail each and every one. This is in essence a page summarising the EU. zoney ███ talk 18:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confederation?

Can the EU in its current form be described as a de-facto confederation, albeit not in name, as clearly it is a system of powerful regional governments that have devolved some, but not all controlling, powers to a central governemnt? 80.255.219.52 12:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

having just looked the confederation article says exactally that, surely it should also be in this article? 80.255.219.52 12:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A confederation is a large state composed of many self-governing regions." - The EU is a union of a number of states (fully independent) co-ordinating and centralising some areas. The United States of America on the other hand, is a confederation. The EU anti-federalists talk about not wanting a "United States of Europe", but that is an accurate description of a non-federal EU (or European Union). The USA is a slight misnomer IMO and could easily be called the American Confederation (ignoring the civil war usages). zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zony sorry but you have it "arse about face", but you are one of many I have come across. A Federation is a group of states that maintain local control of affairs but have a stong central governemnt which also represents the group internationally as a single sovereign power. Clearly this is what the United States is. A confederation (quoting Websters Third International Dictionary) is "a group of independent nations, states or tribes more or less permanently united by treaty or alliance for joint action" I would say that meets the definition of the EU. Contrast and compare with the Confederation of the Rhine and federal modern day Germany. Dainamo 11:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had assumed Confederation and Federation were interchangeable. Evidently not! zoney ▓   ▒ talk 11:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The prefix "con" is a clue ;) (although admittedly "flammable" and "inflammable" meen the same thing and I've yet to see something "inert and defunked" be described as previously "ert and funked"!)

• More concise descriptions might be
• Federation: Selected powers are devolved from central governments to divisional governments
• Confederation: Selected powers are devolved from divisional governments to a central government. Dainamo 11:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the definition of confederation is what you say, then why doesn't the article say that's what the EU is, it implies it's not a Fed or Confed

"Current legal base" of the union

The first paragraph of the present state of the article contains the sentence [The] current legal base [of the European Union] is the Treaty of Accession 2003 which entered into force on 1 May 2004. I removed this sentence since I judged meaningless or even inaccurate, some other editor reverted to the previous version, so I launch some discussion about it.

I do not think there is a unique "legal base" for the European Union ; several treaties contributed to building it and for Slovakia, the treaty of accession is certainly the most important of them. But for the twelve older countries, the most important is certainly the Maastricht treaty (Treaty on European Union). Note that all subsequent treaties have acted by modifying this fundamental one, not by replacing it.

I shall quote the first articles of both treaties : Art.1 of Maastricht treaty, first sentence By this treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union (...) and Art.1 of accession treaty : The Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic hereby become members of the European Union and Parties to the Treaties on which the Union is founded as amended or supplemented.

As you can read on this sentence, there is a referrence to "the Treaties on which the Union is founded" (plural form). With all these elements in sight, I find it pointless to decide one of these is precisely the legal base of the European Union and strongly suggest to remove again the litigious sentence. --French Tourist 18:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. The line about the Treaty of Accession is misleading -- and its place shouldn't be up there anyway. I suggest creating a "Legal basis" section or atleast merging the line about the Treaty of Accession on the already existing "Status" section. Either way, shouldn't be up there. In fact I'd argue that the "See EU treaties" line is a bit ugly located in the first paragraph also. Bring that one lower down too. Aris Katsaris 22:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

EGF

I hope I'm not deleting all the comments on this page... anyway, here goes: Shouldn't there be a reference to the newly formed EGF in the EU article? I'd add it myself, but I'm not really sure how and where...

The EGF is still uncertain and unformed, even if the agreement was signed -- but it's not even controlled by the EU instruments either, it's an agreement parallel to the EU even though it is clearly meant to serve it. So, it probably doesn't rate so high that it merits a mention in the main EU article. If there's any article about EU and common defense policies, then there would be its place. Will look into that. Aris Katsaris 22:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"but it's not even controlled by the EU instruments either" Oh ok, I didn't know that. I love Wikipedia, you learn something new every day =D

Whats happened to the EU flag?

The following comment has repleced the images of the EU flag "Previously an image in this space. It was removed due to a lack of a free license. The image is pending deletion, and this notice will be removed once the image is deleted. You can still view the image, which was called Euflag.png. The caption displayed for this image was "Flag of the European Union"."

Has appeared in place of the EU flag. Does anyone know who put it there and on what basis is the EU flag a licensed iamge? There is no record of the change in the history so I assume its been carried out at an admin level. Lumos3 11:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually that part of the page is included via Template:European Union table and there has been a change there. I've reverted it because it doesn't appear to be correct, but we'll see. --Joy [shallot] 17:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could have had a look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you wanted precisions... And removing the warning doesn't change anything about the potential deletion of the image.

So.. you need a LICENSE to show an abstract representation of a flag, which by default always would result to the same picture anyone would make of that said flag. in a -free- encyclopedia ... riiigggghhhtt.. gotta love capitalism. :/ -Das BooT-

Map

The map of the European Union was recently replaced with a newer revision (at a separate image location). As yet, no widespread discussion has taken place as to the merits of the new map over the other. I will be the first to admit that my earlier version is not without faults, but I would still prefer it to the recent revision. Please see Image talk:European Union map.png (the new version's talk page) and discuss / provide input. For reference, the previous version's talk page is at Image talk:EU map names isles.png.

If the issue is not clear cut, a straw poll could perhaps be taken.

Add your comments / preferences or criticisms of either map at the first talk page linked above or here.

zoney ♣ talk 11:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia

The current division of "members" (25), "admission 2007" (Bulgaria, Romania) and "candidates" (Turkey, Croatia) is good, but I would prefer one more nuance: "submitted application" - Macedonia.

We all know that Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania are regarded as future candidates (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/index.htm), but most of them are in the very early stages and their status as candidates is not fully istitutionalized.

Croatia submitted application for membership in the beginning of 2003 and then 1,5 years later it received positive response, so currently it is listed as candidate. Macedonia submitted application in the beginning of 2004 and soon (spring 2005) it should receive some response (positive -> candidate, negative -> stays as currently and as Bosnia, Serbia, Albania).

But, this distigntion should be made - between "eventual candidates" (all European countries to some degree - Russia nearly zero - they are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to submit application, Balkan states - neraly 100% sure that someday they will submit application) and "states that officialy submitted membership application" (100% sure - already submitted application; this is different that "candidate" - becouse the EU has not responded so far)

Turkey's status complicates things a bit - they have submitted application a LONG time ago and they received SOME answer - "positive, but without start of negotations". Maybe this category (if it is ever to happen again to another country) should be made as currently - "candidate", but with an added footnote stating that negotiations have not started and decision on that is expected in the future. Of course all this will not be a issue if in December 2004 the EU decides to start negotiations with Turkey - then they will become just a regular "candidate" as Croatia. If in Dec.2004 the EU decides to delay the start of negotiations (and Turkey does not remove it's appication becouse of anger) - then the categories should indisputably became more - "members", "admission XXXX" (multiple sub-categories depending on expected admission date), "negotiating candidates", "candidates waiting to start negotiations", "coutries formaly submitted application"

The problem with "applicant status" or something like that, is that there are countries that have applied like even Morocco and got their application rejected or ignored -- there are also countries that applied like Norway and then the membership procedure broke down. Switzerland's application got likewise shelved. So, unless we have a specific definition of what a "submitted application" category will contain, I'm not sure we should divide up further the possible future members. People really interested in the nuance can head over to Enlargement of the European Union, where each country's status is detailed. Aris Katsaris 15:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Enlargement page when I wrote this comment, sorry. OK, on the Enlargement page the information about Macedonia is good (but I think that some more explanations, dates of applications and referendums, referendums results are needed for Switzerland and Norway). I agree that including in the map all countries ever-made-an-application is not good. But I think that including countries that are still WAITING for answer is not bad - genrealy speaking that are the countries about witch there will be news/developments soon, so maybe it is wroth to mention them. I think so, becouse the formal application is an important step, and even before receiving the "yes"-answer from the EU, a country that has made a formal application is undisputably closer to membership than other countries (as Macedonia should be much closer than Bosnia, Serbia-Montenegro, Albania; but not closer than Croatia, etc.). Also, I don't expect that a Morrocco-like situation will repeat soon.

Broken link

The GDP link [2] doesn't work. I took the numbers from [3] and labeled it "PPS", but do you notice that the "market prices" and "PPS" for EU-25 is the exact same number, are they getting lazy? They still haven't managed to produce the PPS numbers for the new countries?. - Jerryseinfeld 21:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Motto

The motto seems to be from the constitution that hasn't yet been ratified. Should this be somehow addressed?

Not really, the European Parliament has already accepted the motto "Unity in diversity", even as it's accepted the flag and the anthem. See European symbols. Though perhaps we should correct the translation from "United" to "Unity". Aris Katsaris 01:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article a bit too long?

I really do like the article, no doubt about it, but I find it a rather lengthy read, and I usually prefer smaller articles -- but I have no idea how to break it up in smaller articles. Maybe I am the only one with this feeling, but at least I'd like to ask on this matter here... --denny vrandečić 22:46, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

GDP

• Updated GDP numbers from the IMF database, 2003, PPP 10952.736, currency 11020.113. - Jerryseinfeld 17:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• That would put the EU behind the US since they reported a GDP of $11.004 trillion [4]. - Jerryseinfeld 18:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)