Talk:European integration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject European Union (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I added Serbia to the "Membership in European Union Agreements" list. I think it's OK, right? Fireleaf (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


The "Marshall Plan" picture seems completely inappropriate... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Needs Work[edit]

I agree that there should be a page on European integration; however this page really needs some work. Whoever created it has given us a decent structure, but it needs a lot more content as at present it's almost a list of bullet points. I'll add some in due course, but I think everyone should feel free to chip in at this stage. We can worry about editing it down and removing POV entries once we actually have something to edit! Blankfrackis 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Haas link[edit]

Don't know how to change things on here but the link to Ernst Haas (the Life photographer) is not the same man as the political scientist who developed his theory on neo-functionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I realise that Kosovo is not a recognised state, but a UN protectorate, and its status is currently under discussion. However, its inclusion in this table does not takes this facts into consideration, but merely states that is has adopted the euro currency, and is part of the European integration process. Danrowe (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As an example, Kosovo is also included in tables and figures in the Eurozone article. Danrowe (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The official currency in Serbia is the Serbian Dinar - CSD (1 dinar = 100 paras). Kosovo is already included in the table, despite it is not a recognised state by many members of the International Community Danrowe (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MEPs adopt simplified regime for the control of visas in Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus[edit]

Is there any way to add this development in the article? Check here. The European parliament gave the go-ahead for an extension of simplified controls of visas at the external frontiers of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus. This system will enable these Member States to recognise unilaterally certain documents issued by Schengen zone countries for third country nationals making visits of less than five days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the link after archiving in the -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Should the CIS be added? I think this is the second-largest by population union in Europe. Although it includes non-European countries as well, it also includes about a half of territory of Europe.--Dojarca (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYROM footnote[edit]

I'm not quite convinced the FYROM footnote is necessary, but if we must have it, let's be quite precise: the official term is not "FYROM", it's "the former ..."; it's not "the name recognised by the EU", but the provisional appellation used by the EU in the absence of a "recognised" name; and it's not the case that the country "is a candidate under" this name, because it's a unilateral thing: The EU, unilaterally, refers to the country as such; the country itself insists on its constitutional name in all domains including its dealings with the EU, so from its own perspective, it clearly is a candidate "under" its own name. Fut.Perf. 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust you to make the appropriate changes. you have expirience on the subject. I wrote the sentence a bit on hurry. The point is that this country is candidate as "Former...". I think this is somethings that has to be shown somewhere. The reason I insist is first of all that this is the official situation and secondaly that I searched the page to see if "FYROM" was candidate and Id din't find it. I think many editors from Greece will have the same problem. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed in "Europe is not a state"[edit]

As in the montevideo convention ([[1]]), a state has the following attributes:

  • a permanent population (more than 500 milion people in EU)
  • defined territory (more than 4 million sq km)
  • Government (European Commission)
  • capacity to enter into relations with other states (embassies and a UN seat per Lisbon treaty)

Thus, EU exhibits all the above. While it certainly does not replace its component states, it has all the required attributes (after the Lisbon treaty is applied) to be a state in itself. (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Long live the EU

The EU is not recognized as a state by any legitimate body - e.g. the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, nor any nation on Earth (not even the independent EU component states believe the EU is a an independent nation state). There is no uniform currency (only the 16 Eurozone countries are on the Euro - 11 other EU countries have their own currency). The EU only sets monetary policy (and then again only for the Eurozone members) and does not have any say over fiscal policy, tax or spend policy, or any power therein. There is no EU wide tax (income, sales, or otherwise). The debt and spending guidelines set by the EU are regularly ignored. Though there are certainly mutual defense agreements and trade agreements (which makes it no different btw than NATO or NAFTA), each nation state has complete authority over its defense budget, whether it goes to war or not, and who it makes defense agreements with. The EU has no right to prevent any one of its component states from entering into trade or defense agreements with non-EU members. Furthermore, though the EU polity can pass laws, make treaties, etc., on behalf of all members, it cannot bind any component state to those treaties, laws, agreements, etc. unless the internal polity of the individual member state consents. In that sense the EU governing bodies do not meet the standard definition of a centralized government. Each EU members has an independent seat in the United Nations (and often oppose each others goals through that body). The EU has no governing vote or role in the United Nations, and can take no action that any one component state opposes. EU member states have routinely rejected further integration and the EU Constitution. There is no predominant culture, heritage, language, race, or centralized body of laws that all states abide by. The courts, legislatures, and executive branches of each component state trump any action by the EU central bodies (unless those independent states have previously consented to subordination, which they have not done on most issues) - again preventing the EU from meeting the standard definition of having a centralized government. It is clear that the EU is not an independent state, and absent the change of many policies and subordination of the component states to the whole, removal of the individual states from seats on the EU, NATO, etc., and recognition as an independent state from other sovereign bodies, the EU never will be.

You clearly want the EU to be considered its own country to compete with the USA (which is sort of sad that it takes your entire continent to equal the economy of the US, and its military still is dwarfed by the US (the entire EU still only has 1/3 the US military budget, and has less tanks, planes, ships, 1/3 the aircraft carrier/amphibious warships of the US, and 1/10 the nuclear weapons of the US, and is behind the US in technology and logistics). But the fact is that unless the EU can compel military service from its component states, tax its component states, maintains a large centralized EU military that it controls regardless of component state wishes, and can enter into trade and defense treaties regardless of component state support, and declare war even against component state wishes, and has a centralized government stronger than and centralized budget larger than its component states (in other words have the same kind of power the US federal government has over the US states) then it won't matter if the EU is considered an independent state. Absent those centralized powers and riches, the EU cannot call upon the wealth and military power of its components and as such will never be a real rival to US strength as the US central government can call upon and compel the riches and power of all its components at once.

As for your "P.S. Long live the EU" given all the recent problems in the EU, the collapse of the EURO, the near collapse of Greece and the imminent crash of the rest of the so called "PIGS" (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and the calls in Germany and elsewhere to pull out of the EU and end the Euro, one may wonder how "long" your beloved EU will indeed live. (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

C'mon. See CIA Factbook where the EU is given a special treatment for having its own existence that is not strictly bound to its member state policies. And being not ruled by the military-industrial complex is clearly not a fault for the old continent. And for the last paragraph, hey, aren't there secession movements in the U.S. actively talking their way? Just don't call it done before it's done. While this should be obvious you fail to see how often the EU pushes laws into its member states. Lookup "Fax Democracy" to get an idea. So there is no governance with the EU? What? Guidod (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying there isn't any governance by the EU or that decisions made at the EU level have no effect, but those powers/abilities could hardly be compared to that of any other functioning central government. First, the EU clearly is not a country and is not recognized as such by any legitimate entity (or even the EU members themselves). And while it's level of integration is certainly greater than other economic zones, say NAFTA, it still does not rise to the level of a nation - it cannot compel any of its members to war, or prevent them from going to war (with a non-EU country), cannot compel them to raise or lower taxes, cannot compel them to raise or lower spending. There is also no power to prevent any member nation from entering into an independent treaty with a non-EU member, or prevent a member nation from going to war without EU consent. There is also no common currency (outside of the Eurozone), which would be the very basic ingredient for nationhood I would imagine. As far as succession movements in the US that's just silly. You have a loony governor of Texas who makes crazy statements to win political points and a few poorly armed, poorly funded, poorly organized militia groups that are routinely shut down by the FBI calling for succession, but no movement. Plus movements are meaningless on that subject as no state has the right to leave the Union. The US Civil War pretty much ended that issue and it is now unlawful and punishable by death (as treason) to openly advocate and pursue the separation of any state from the Union, and any state that tried to leave would be invaded and squashed in short order - which is not the case with the EU. (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right in the presented arguments but it does not reflect reality. While some legalese might imply that member countries could leave the EU they could not factually to do so for otherwise their economy would collapse - the economic integration (atleast in western Europe) is too strong already. That Norway fax democracy is one good example where the public does not want to join formally but they could not avoid being tightly bound into the EEA anyway. Similarly, the original question above was about what defines a nation. If you have just those four characteristics then the EU would be a nation but if you add the governance on foreign affairs then it is clearly not. Surely, the definition of bonding a nation principle to the question on foreign affairs and military is influenced by the concept of the U.S. constitution. The power separation of EU and its member states is surely different - you mentioned taxes for one example which AFAIK is not bound to the federal level in the U.S. unless covered by the enumerated powers where some subjects were delegated.
So far so good - one could leave it on the definition "separation of powers is different and the assessment of how powers are delegated may differ". But let me add one thing: the way the US constitution splits the powers between federal level and member states is foremost one thing: it is clear and sane and it works for the most part (the subject of EP is still a weak point I think). Looking at the bunch of EU treaties and how those delegate powers on some subjects, well, most people would call it a mess and obviously it simply does not work in many ways and it certainly stumbles when something unusual happens. The tendency in Europe however is to make it work. There is always a drive to consolidate (the Treaty of Lisbon originally started under the name of "Reform Treaty").
So, if you make the impression that Europe will fall apart and that those decades of adding more integration will be cut off such that the federal concepts will vanish, well, be sure to provoke harsh objections. That European Federation thing is on the mind of many people and some war dog presidents in the U.S. have certainly pushed more people in Europe to focus to the common values of the old continent. (and by the way, the military of the EU has silently pushed into the direction that Europe could leave the NATO without sacrificing their security which certainly was not the case in the last century where European countries were pretty much dependent on some military services only provided by the U.S. forces. In reality now the Core Europe countries might declare joint forces by tomorrow... it's been all prepared behind the scenes and it is just on hold for doing some diplomacy to get more countries aboard. Let the U.S. get into another Gulf War and see the results appear promptly). Guidod (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fail at the most basic level. The European Commission is not a government, it is a civil service. The nearest thing to a government is the European Council which has no legislative power. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any meaningful way in which the European Commission can be described as a government. The main decisionmaking bodies in the EU continue to be the Council / European Council (with the Parliament afforded decisionmaking power in specific areas). It's fair to say the Commission is more like a civil service than a government, given its role in the legislative process is only to propose legislation. Also, if you were to shift this argument to claim that the Council / European Council constitute a government then that's also problematic given the two bodies are simply composed of government ministers from the member states. Blankfrackis (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Warsaw Pact, the USSR, CIS and Russia-Belarus union are not included in this article?[edit]

Or the Eastern European integration is not considered relevant here?--Dojarca (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because those are either defunct (Warsaw, USSR) or virtually inactive (CIS, Union State). (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
CIS is active.--Dojarca (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
How active is it? Georgia has withdrawn and 3 other countries didn't bother to attend the meeting in October of last year. It doesn't seem like it is actually doing much, the CIS page here certainly doesn't indicate vigorous activity. -- (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See Post-Soviet states Alinor (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

article focus[edit]

See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill speech date[edit]

The date given for Winston Churchill's speech on a United States of Europe at the University of Zurich may be wrong. It lists the date at 9 September 1946, but a book edited by Churchill's grandson gives the date of the speech as 19 September 1946. In general, the source citation for the speech does not seem to be very reliable. Source: Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches ed. Winston S. Churchill (New York: Hyperion, 2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Boson (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is Coudenhove-Kalergi 'the first' to consider European integration?[edit]

I am puzzled by the assertion that One of the first to conceive of a union of European nations was Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who wrote the Pan-Europa manifesto in 1923.'

Just off the top of my head I can go back to at least the late 17th century and mention William Penn and his An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of a European Dyet, Parliament or Estates (a link is provided at the end of the Wikipedia entry on Penn). So, is there any particular reason for focusing explicitly on Coudenhove-Kalergi? PS. I do realize, that C-K was prominent in pushing the issue, but he was by no means the first to think of European integration.
Mojowiha (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

reorganise the table?[edit]


I thought it would better to organise the table of states and agreements at [2] by the color code they have on the map raughter than the alphabet. Thoughts? --U5K0 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reorganised and added some links (more needed). I think it's better now than it was before.--U5K0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article has one table with different EU agreements:

Another similar table was the following one:

I think that both of these can be easily combined - in addition to the first one the second one has NATO column and some comments/notes.

But both of these templates deal mostly with EU initiatives (ESA and NATO are the sole exceptions) and participation in EU-initiatives is already shown at Multi-speed Europe (including differences in EU members participation and the participation of non-EU states in EU-initiatives). That's why I think that here we should have a section/table dedicated to non-EU initiatives specifically and the participation of EU members in these non-EU initiatives:

What about combining tables1&2 and restoring the section "Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives"? Alinor (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this table from International organizations in Europe?

File:Eur lisbon vladivostok.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Eur lisbon vladivostok.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding things[edit]


I was looking at all the tables above and I thought it would be a good idea to add information about NATO, OSCE and CoE to the table (it'll complicate the map colour scheme but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it). Also I was wanting to add a section about pan-European meteorology organisations such as EUMETSAT, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and EUMETNET but I thought it would make more sense to have an environment section instead. Anyone know what else could go in there? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of possible additions:

Sign --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Except EFDA and Energy Community all added, see: TeraCard (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Vancouver via Vienna to Vladivostok[edit]

I like this phrase better than the Lisbon version. It has alliteration at least in the English language, so it sounds more poetic. OSCE has many of its meetings in Vienna, and Vienna for some time was one of the neutral window on the iron curtain. Certainly an over-romanticized phrase, but not quite inappropriate in this context. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OSCE, Council of Europe not subordinate to European Communities[edit]

I reverted the move of one Euler diagram showing Council of Europe, into a section named "European Communities".

I also reverted the removal of the Euler diagram showing the OSCE.

Diffs: move and removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes you did. There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article. TDL (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the Euler diagram showing the OSCE? TeraCard (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I explained it pretty clearly directly above, did I not? TDL (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, you did not. OSCE, CIS have their own first level sections in the article, there is consensus that it is within the scope of the article to talk about CIS and OSCE at that level. But still, you keep removing the Euler diagram. You gave no explanation. BRD is not meant for simply reverting, you shall provide a reason. TeraCard (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Well I have explained my position several times now. If you haven't understood, then I suspect that there might be WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty here. I'll repeat my past comments below, and you can tell me which parts you do not understand:
Your new map is poorly formatted, extremely cluttered, less functional, redundant to the old map, makes the article look like a mess in the layout you insist on with no text wrapped around it, and includes organizations that don't even belong within the scope of this article which focuses on European integration, not global integration. And that's not even getting into all the factual errors your map contains.
I see you are new here, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you've attempted to change the map 3 times now, and 3 times I've reverted you, and provided a clear explanation for why I disagreed with the changes. Wikipedia is a WP:CONSENSUS based project. All changes to articles need to a consensus to be made. As I've explained to you several times now, I object to your change in the map. There is obviously no consensus to make this change. As per WP:BRD, you need to establish a consensus on the talk page before continuing to make the change. Bullying others to try to force your desired changes into the article is not appropriate for a collaborative project. Continuing such behaviour is likely to end in you losing your editing privileges. Please self revert to the long-term, status quo map so that we can discuss the changes you are proposing on the talk page. TDL (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Now let's look at your language competency:
"There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." - They don't show the same thing. Please look up "same" in a dictionary. "The only thing the new image adds" - You already contradict yourself. TeraCard (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Same: identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned". Unless you are trying to argue that the "European Union" in your image is not "identical" to the "European Union" in the old image, then you are mistaken. Yes, your new image contains more (unrelated) organizations, but clearly both images show the same organizations twice. (That's obviously the "thing" I was referring to.)
As you haven't refuted the points I've raised above, I'll assume you don't have a valid argument. Please don't change the map again until there is a consensus. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at Template_talk:Supranational European Bodies, seek a WP:30 or start a WP:RFC. Edit warring to force your changes in isn't the appropriate solutuion. TDL (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Since image A shows OSCE and CIS, and image B does not, the statement "There is no need for two images showing the same thing" can be true while at the same time it has no effect on inclusion of image A. Furthermore you didn't link a definition of "need". TeraCard (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't structure my response using mathematical logic (I could have, as I have university level training in the subject.) I was under the impression we were having an informal discussion.
That being said, you've now forgotten about the second sentence of my statement: "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." Both parts of my statement are key: a) the new stuff is only tangental to this article, b) it is not helpful to depict the members of the same organization twice.
Since a) is satisfied, this implies that all that is left is repeated organizations. And since "there is no need for two images showing the same thing" (which comes from WP:PERTINENCE), the new image is not helpful. a) argues that there is nothing new of significance in the new image and b) argues that there is no need to depict the old significant stuff twice. a) alone isn't a sufficient condition to argue for removal of the image. Were it not for b) you could have argued that "two images depicting the same organizations are still useful." Hopefully that clears up your confusion so we can go back to talking about "European integration" rather then semantics and logic.
Back on topic, what is "wrong" with the {{Supranational European Bodies}}? I understand you don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. TDL (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
1) You fail again: I have not forgotten "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." 2) You show no proof that I ever was confused in the discussion here. TeraCard (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you going to discuss the map or not? If you are just here to attack other users, then there is not much use in having a discussion. TDL (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Your reasoning fails again: "If you are just here to attack other users" - you know I am not, my intro in the section refers to OSCE. And who started: "Now let's look at your language competency"? Oh, yes, it was /not me/, but the only other party that takes part in the discussion here so far. TeraCard (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if you took offence to my statement about your language difficulties. It was certainly not meant as a criticism, just a statement of fact. You've repeatedly misunderstood or misinterpreted what I've written, making it rather frustrating to communicate with you. Now instead of telling me how much I "fail", can we go back to talking about the map? TDL (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've changed "Mints euros" to "Monetary Agreement with the EU" to address your concerns. TDL (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. UNMIK flag is still wrong. I don't see any further error. But the flags are not standard, the widely used ones are: . Now one more "statement of fact": If you write things that are wrong, and I understand them that way, then it is not me misunderstanding any correct thought of you, but it is you writing wrong things and later claiming to have meant correct things. If you rank higher in a language proficiency test for the English language than me, then that does not mean that your statements are free of errors or that if there are errors, I am not able to detect them. TeraCard (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've changed the flag of Kosovo to the UN flag. In the future, such issues should be raised at Template_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies or File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg rather than simply removing the image here.
As for the rest of your commentary, while it is entirely true that I can make mistakes in my typing, in every case that you've accused me of "failing" or using flawed logic, there was nothing incorrect with my statements. You've interpreted my statements in quite peculiar ways, but that doesn't make my statements "wrong" as you claim. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but it seemed rather obvious to me that, for example, when I spoke of the "same thing" I was not suggesting that the two images were exactly the same in every conceivable manner (which is the assumption that you made) as this was quite visibly not the case, but rather that they depicted the same organizations twice. Neither interpretation is wrong, but contextual clues should have made my meaning clear. TDL (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
As stated 21:01, 9 July 2013, they didn't even show the same organisations, you failed again? TeraCard (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, you really should learn how to compose a proper sentence in English before telling others that they "fail". I've tried to be polite and wade through your garbled use of the language and reliance on logical fallacies, but this latest gem of a comment by you is oh so hypocritical I actually laughed out loud. It looks more like Engrish to me. Here's a hint: learning English via internet memes was probably not a wise choice.
Anyways, us adults are busy building an encyclopedia. If you'd like to discuss the content of the article, then I'd be happy to engage with you, but I won't be responding to your juvenile taunts any longer. TDL (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia - EEA relation[edit]

I reverted the unsourced removal of Croatia from the EEA member list. Source: "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States."

Diffs: removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you evidently didn't read the whole source you linked to. The footnote says: "31 EEA States, once Croatia's accession to the EEA has been finalised". Other sources: "As well as becoming the 28th member of the European Union, Croatia has applied to become a member of the European economic area ...", "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA ..." "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA". There is a discussion at Talk:European_Economic_Area#Croatia on this. TDL (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not read the whole because the intro says "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States.", which I took as "28 EU Member States are part of the EEA". If the website is not false then at least it is inviting misunderstandings. I don't know what means "brings together". TeraCard (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the article European Economic Area which also claimed it wrongly. Thanks for your research on the matter. TeraCard (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not very clear. I'm not sure what "brings together" is supposed to mean... TDL (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More regional integration[edit]

The article Post-Soviet states lists

TeraCard (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


This side should also include critical voices of the union. Otherwise this information will be biased. The idea of the European project has been considerably challenged over the past few years due to severe financial problems in different countries. EU is a top-down political project and true integration cannot be supported by the citizens in general when the leaders does not support the idea that true power comes from the people instead of vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

  1. ^ 3 Oct. 1990 for East Germany
  2. ^ accession rejected in two referendums (1972 and 1994)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference FYROM was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Customs union with some goods excluded. [3], [4]
  5. ^ Switzerland and the European Union
  6. ^
  7. ^ Only 51 sovereign states are listed, including Kosovo and Vatican which are not UN members
  8. ^ Gross National Income, List of countries by GNI per capita World Development Indicators database [5] , World Bank, , revised 17 October 2008 [6] GNI per capita 2007, Atlas method and PPP; Country classification - low income ($935 or less), upper middle income ($3,706 to $11,455), high income ($11,456 or more)
  9. ^ Monthly net average wage in USD, in italic-monthly gross wage in USD
  10. ^ The United Nations is a world-wide organisation with 193 members, see also; Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  11. ^ Council of Europe is numbering 47 out of 51 European countries and membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms with European Court of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights, see also European Higher Education Area
  12. ^ OSCE is an international organization which serves as a forum for political dialogue. Its stated aim is to secure stability in the region (Caucasus, Central Asia, Europe, North America and Russia) based on democratic practices and improved governance
  13. ^ Number of countries in Trade bloc: EU (27), EAEC (6), EFTA (4), CEFTA (7), other regional blocs (not listed because countries inside are likely, sooner or later, to join EU or EAEC, some already seriously involved in joining processes); CIS (11), GUAM (4); EFTA countries and 4 European microstates marked x, while not EU members, are partially integrated in EU through euro currency, Schengen treaty, EU single market - EEA and Customs Union, see also;European Neighbourhood Policy, Eastern Partnership, Euromediterranean Partnership, Mediterranean Union, Transatlantic Free Trade Area, Eurosphere
  14. ^ European Economic Area, Commonwealth of Independent States, see also; Free trade areas in Europe
  15. ^ European Union Customs Union
  16. ^ Schengen Area
  17. ^ Eurozone
  18. ^ OECD is an international organization which serves as a forum for economic dialogue. The bulk of its members are in Europe (23), but some are located in other regions (7) - Members states
  19. ^ WTO - Members and Observers Monaco, San Marino, Kosovo - no official interaction with the WTO, Vatican (Holy See) - special observer status
  20. ^ European Space Agency - Member states
  21. ^ Number of countries inside military alliance; NATO (26), CSTO (7); see also; NATO Cooperation with non-member states, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
  22. ^ International Criminal Court 39 members from Europe
  23. ^ VWP is a program of the United States of America which allows citizens of countries with visa refusal rate less than 3% and some specific countries 10% to travel to the US for tourism or business for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa. All countries participating in the program have high HDI and most are regarded as developed countries; Adjusted Visa Refusal Rate year 2006, 2007, 2008