Talk:European Union/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

West-European centric sentence regarding First World War.

"19th century Liberalism and (sometimes) negative elements such as the World Wars." This falsely attributes West European feelings for World War I to Central and Eastern European members of EU. The perception of First World War is quite different here since it ended the opressive rule of three foreign empires and brought freedom to several nations that were denied their statehood. A minor note is that some EU nations never had 19th century liberalism movement as they were concerned with wholy different issues. If nobody opposes I will change World Wars to Second World War.--Molobo (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't, we need more of a balance with what happened in the east. But if possible please cite such changes.- J Logan ^t: 09:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with more balance if it is indeed biased to west. The phrase you refer to is a summation of some of the elements in the (history of the) EU; and not conclusive, also the original founders of EU who were more from the west. Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere (including Germany and the countries of former Hungary-Austria) considering the human drama and casualties alone; and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was (according to majority historian pov) the direct cause of WWII. Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Also I would seriously hesitate that there can be any but negative feelings about WWI anywhere " Why should Poles mourn an event that brought them freedom from opression ? WW1 is simply skipped over here, sure we learn about French and German people dying, but the celebration of independence and freedom regained is the most important aspect of this event in our history classes. "and the resulting political instability in central Europe that was" For Westerners perhaps Polish, Czech, Lithuanian freedom from Russia and Germanty is "instability", but I assure that the 20 years of being free and able to develop one's state and culture are seen as one of the best periods of our existance.--Molobo (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what Arnoutf may have meant though Molobo, is that there can really be nothing but negative feelings about the incredible scale of loss in the First World War. Even if for some countries there could be said to have been benefits from WWI, surely the whole point that the article was trying to make was basically "After 50 bloody years of fighting, the continent of Europe was a bit fed up with fighting each other. Instead they wanted to develop a common sports policy... hang on a second...". --Simonski (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was indeed what I meant. While the "short 20th century" - 1914-1990 indeed lead to the collapse of totalitarian monarchist, fascist and communist empires; and a lot of freedom for different states, and a more peaceful approach with regard to European Unity (in my opinion all good things); I nevertheless would not like to say that the actual war(s) triggering these collapses of totalitarian regimes in themselves were a good thing. A necessary evil perhaps; but an evil nonetheless. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EU GDP / Trade figures etc.

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping the gdp figures as up to date as possible, and the eu article as a whole is really informative, keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.76.90 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for people to stop quoting estimated figures please, not only is it Crystal ball gazing (even if it is cited) but allows others with POV edits to do there own estimating. The last certified/audited figures should always be used.SouthernElectric (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lately for the GDP figures it has been worse than that. People have been using the IMF estimates for 2008 and then listing it as a GDP figure for 2007. That's not only crystal ball editing it's also grossly inaccurate as they are listing the figures as belonging to 2007. There's no excuse for it either as the link to the source displays the 2007 figure right next to the 2008 estimates.Zebulin (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2007 Lear 21 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

updating the source should allow that data to be used.Zebulin (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one use 2007 figures when we are still in 2007, I've never come across any such figurers that have been pre audited, surely the most recent figures that could be used are those from '2006 assuming that they have been audited? SouthernElectric (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get to the bottom of that but the auditing process is not clear. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/index.aspx seems to be the best starting point for shedding some light on the issue.Zebulin (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs co-ordinating with other articles, particularly the United States and Japan. Perhaps this has been discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. I was wondering if it would be possible for such information to be kept centrally and fetched for each article using the Infobox. I suppose it could be done with a selective template. Ideally, I would like several figures: last "audited" year and estimates for all subsequent years up to the current year. One problem with using 2006 figures is that the EU now has more members than then. --Boson (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Permanent semi protection

The article has by now a considerable degree of maturity (GA). Throughout every month in the last year anonymous IP- editors keep vandalizing or deleting content. I suggest to ask an administrator to install a permanent semi protection with a discrete tag (pp-semi-protected|small=yes) for more stabilization. Lear 21 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I support that. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In principle so do I, what I'm concerned about is if it will actually stop many of the problems, yes it will stop the 'school boy' vandalism but it will not stop the many POV edits that are made either in good faith or as blatant POV vandalism and it most certainly won't stop the disruption from WP:OWN edits... SouthernElectric (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it won't stop all the vandalism, we'll still have to watch it, but it will cut our workload. This topic attracts vandalism like a minor celebrity attracts chavs, no doubt that would only increase if the article were to get to FA and thus become more prominent. It certainly wouldn't hurt. I support. Just keep in mind we do still have to sort out our own internal problems.- J Logan ^t: 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I almost forgot, on registered user's good faith edits: how about an FAQ page for this article? So we don't have to keep repeating the reasons why, for example, there is no criticism section or why the EU symbols DO exist and hence are staying on the page. Might help?- J Logan ^t: 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual IP /anon vandalisms are relatively infrequent and can easily be reverted. The most problematic is differences in opinion between established editors, where this will not help. Therefore in the free spirit of Wiki I would not support this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the logs, and this article isn't actually hit that badly. There were also quite a few helpful IP edits, mostly typo fixes, which would be a shame to lose. For such a high profile article, it actually has surprisingly low levels of vandalism. (But a FAQ seems like a good idea) henrik•talk 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It has periods, but fair enough. I would be inclined to seek protection on certain occasions, for example if this gets on the main page we should defiantly protect it.- J Logan ^t: 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say I have thought that an FAQ page would be quite helpful; I certainly think the one on the United States page is. I haven't got a strong opinion on it though. Rossenglish (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both semi-protection and a FAQ. —Nightstallion 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Wasn't aware the US had one, I've stolen their style and started the FAQ page here: European Union/Frequently asked questions. I only have two questions down so far as I'm not sure what we should address beyond those two - for example the "political centres" hasn't come up since we agreed on that term, but may do. What do people think? Please edit the page.- J Logan ^t: 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a FAQ page. Lear 21 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool image in Culture

I prepared this license free image from flickr [2]. It is intended to replace the Sibiu image in Culture on 01.01.2008. Any other high quality free license images are welcome. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could just use Image:Liverpool 2008 Flag.jpg as it broadly states the capital of culture point, doesn't show off the city but it is closer to the topic. If we want to show off the city, we could also ask the people on the Liverpool page for their suggestions, something they think shows off the city from the perspective of people who know the place.- J Logan ^t: 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, side note: they have a page on it we should link to: Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Failing that, any cleared pictures of the The Beetles?!... Joking aside, I would prefer the flag as Lear's image, whilst being Liverpool though and through, could be mistaken by our international readers as an image of St Paul's Cathedral London - look at both images! SouthernElectric (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreement on structure?

Okay, has died down a bit so can I just ask if anyone really has an objection to the current structure (copied below). If you do, can it be debated before the current structure is changed - especially if you're the only person arguing for it.

• 1 History
• 2 Member states
  • 2.1 Geography
• 3 Governance
  • 3.1 Politics
• 4 Legal system
  • 4.1 Legislation
  • 4.2 Courts
• 5 Justice, freedom and security
  • 5.1 Fundamental rights
• 6 Foreign relations
  • 6.1 Humanitarian aid
  • 6.2 Military and defence
• 7 Economy
  • 7.1 Single market
  • 7.2 Monetary union
  • 7.3 Competition
• 8 Development policy
  • 8.1 Agriculture
  • 8.2 Energy
  • 8.3 Infrastructure
  • 8.4 Regional development
  • 8.5 Environment
• 9 Education and research
• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture
  • 11.1 Sport
• 12 See also
• 13 References
• 14 Further reading
• 15 External links

And if there is an objection, I hope it is more than a personal preference -if it likely to be opposed- as we do need to have a compromise here.- J Logan ^t: 17:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Replies

I can live with this, although I think education and reseach and culture (incl sports) are a bit orphaned in this structure, so suggestions to host these 2 I would welcome.Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the above on two provisions: 1/. That Culture is renamed, I would suggest something like "Culture & Society" (but don't really car as long as it is renamed), because sport is most certainly has nothing what so ever to do with culture, unless we are going to talk about the sports played by the ancient Greeks and Romans! 2/. The second is, that this is not set in stone for ever more, meaning that as content is added there is scope for a review of the structure? SouthernElectric (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographics should change position with Education & Research. But for now, I´m fine with it. Lear 21 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport isn't culture? Isn't that a bit classist SE? :p Lear, what do you make of "culture and society"? Any objections. I don't mind Edu&R switching places with Demo.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, when I read Society, which is also my understanding of the term, I don´t see the content yet justifying a renamed section. Lear 21 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think it would be detrimental, or just not worth it?- J Logan ^t: 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about a level two "Culture & Sport" with the actual sections being level 3 headings thus the above content list becomes;

Further levels above.

• 10 Demographics
  • 10.1 Languages
  • 10.2 Religion
• 11 Culture & Sport
  • 11.1 Culture
  • 11.2 Sport
• 12 See also

Further levels below.

SouthernElectric (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a bti convoluted?- J Logan ^t: 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really but if you find it unacceptable then lets make Lear's day and put Sport back on a level 2 heading again, the fact is sport and culture are not the same. Sorrry. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm thinking there might be another way than just a heading, but I do think sport is cultural - if you could expand upon your argument maybe?- J Logan ^t: 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original structure and I do consider sport a part of culture. —Nightstallion 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Best tell that to the UK government (and others, I suspect) then, they seem to be under the impression that sport and culture are to distinct areas - otherwise their government dept. is in effect called the Department for Culture, Media and Culture... (rather then the Department for Culture, Media and Sport)! I'm not saying that they are not bed-fellows, just that sport is not a subsection of culture, what I'm trying to suggest is that the level 2 heading (that both culture and sport should be level 3 heading) needs to use different title. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply them trying to be exact, usually when departments are constantly merged and split so people know where things have gone. I don't think we should take it as a definition of if sport is cultural. Personally, it is very much a cultural activity - the huge effect it has on a lot of people, in the lives and identity. When a group of friends go to play football, are they doing it to keep fit? Or go in hordes to a match or gather round the tv for major national events. For many people the victory in 1966 is more important than the one in 1945. Sport is culture just like music, painting and drinking. Though I suppose how you personally see the meaning of the word "culture".- J Logan ^t: 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So why is sport not demographics, if demographics is supposed to be about what people do? Ditto culture. Sandpiper (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest that you best start editing this article as I for one can't see any mention of sport (let alone International Olympic Committee or FIFA) anywhere in the article... SouthernElectric (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture is a large topic. Look, reason I reverted is were discussing the version I just put up and so far on this point -aside from us two- the only other person to comment had said he considerers sport a part of culture. If you jump t he gun you'll only prompt another batch of revert wars. Can we just discuss things as they stand first and let the comments come in?- J Logan ^t: 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who made the whole-sale changes a few days ago did that, just because those edits were not contested at the time doesn't mean they were accepted (especially at this time of year wee people have other things they have to get done before the holiday shut downs start). Sorry but this issue is not one I'm going to even compromise on - as I have said, the two are close subjects but they are two distinct subjects, they both would fit below a common level two heading but one can't be a sub heading of the other, it's like trying to put level 3 "Competition" under the level 2 Legal heading rather than the Economics heading, yes they would fit but only on a single level (ie. competition law). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport is a part of my culture, and indeed my country's culture, but I still think that when you speak of "culture" properly you aren't referring to Sport. So I would agree with SE here, even though what I just said probably makes no sense. Sport should come under "Social policy". I mean the EU does now deal a bit with social policy, surely we can put the sports section in a new Social policy bit. It would make far more sense to me. Putting sport down as culture, and nothing else being beside it, pretty much highlights for me how the section sticks out like a sore thumb. --Simonski (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport, specifically as spectator event, is in a wider sense entertainment and therefore very close to popculture phenomena. Nothing wrong to keep it in Culture. Lear 21 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very true Lear, sport is very much on the same level as pop(ular) culture, which is why sport can't be allowed to be a sub heading of culture, just as culture can't be a sub heading of sport. They each hold equal weight, that is, they should stand or fail on their own merits... SouthernElectric (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, like the EU, I would prefer a section "Education and culture", containing a sub-section "Sport":

The European Commission is composed of Directorates-General and several departments. Within the Directorate-General Education and Culture, is the Sport Unit, which is responsible for the following main areas . . .

--Boson (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to SE, it doesn't matter who changed it - leaving it be till we've discussed it is not heresy. Its not like the article will explode if it is not kept perfectly in line with x y or z's view of it. Can people just put up with something that is wrong rather than insisting their version stands until it is voted against? Applies to all.

But back on topic, I like your point Boson. But does education coverer research? How about Knowledge and culture? Trying to think of a more technical term, Academia and culture? But that way we can have culture, sports, education and research as subsections of that. If you still object to culture in that title SE, how about Academia and society?- J Logan ^t: 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also SE, you commented you wouldn't compromise on this. Don't you think that is the very thing everyone was complaining to Lear about? Compromise is essential to Wikipedia, if you state you would ignore all else in refusing a compromise, are you not as bad as Lear over WP:OWN?- J Logan ^t: 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sorry on this I will not compromise, it's not as though I'm insisting on the addition or deletion of content, we are talking about a frecking section heading FFS, finding a level 2 heading that both "Culture" and "Sport" can sit under as equal level 3 sections, failing that both culture and sport have their own level 2 heading - the article is hardly going to be crippled. SouthernElectric (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see whats wrong with "Social policy" as an idea. Anyway, I think its best to avoid another bout of "There will be a sport section for as long as I have the internet - waaah waaah", SE surely you don't want to stoop to that level man. Granted it does seem to be the only way to get a contested point to go your way around here (and you might even get a barnstar for it! w00t! But still, it would make you an assclown in the long run to position yourself that way) --Simonski (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only a Barnstar but I can then selectively delete items I don't like others seeing on my user/talk pages... As for the rest of what you say, it's not as though I'm not giving a lot of room anyway, all I'm asking for is that we find another level 2 heading (whilst putting the content at level 3 headings) or have each of the effected content on their own level 2 headings - again, sorry to repeat myself, it's not as if I'm insisting that content is either added or removed - I'm just asking for a modification to the heading levels. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the principle, not the content. But regardless, back to the topic. What do people say about the above ideas? - J Logan ^t: 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits while this discussion is not concluded

I would say that pending final agreement on the structure; no changes to the structure of the mainspace article should be made. In other words, please do not demote/promote or rearrange sections untill we achieve consensus here. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps with the end of Christmas, and SE's melodramatic exit, people could comment on this again and see where we get? (this is just a quick note, I'm back properly in the morning)- J Logan ^t: 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't even realise that, bit odd that but fair enough, WP is incredibly frustrating at times so I can sympathise. Anyhow, I'd really say the current (at the time I'm writing this) structure is fine, it seems to cover every angle. I'd like to see the Euro coin (full pic) replace the picture of the notes but apart from that the consensus that the page currently represents seems fair surely. --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He did go blank the talk page which, together with his other actions before leaving, is why I have no really sympathy for him right now. Anyhoo, this has been sitting here for ages, seems most of us are happy enough. I don't really care if culture is sitting under demo or on its own so don't mind if it stays like that or is rv back. So, on the last day of the year I'd like to call this closed. Still not the basic work to do but if we can not argue about the structure anymore, this has been going long enough and is now a largely abandoned debate. So, happy new year. Lets see if we can get this to FA before 2009. Don't forget to update the article on the euro when the clock strikes 12 in Cyprus (not before).- J Logan ^t: 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

er, yes, I did have some observations on the page structure, quite a few, but they seem to have been archived. The points made remain, however. I didnt see any real consensus amongst the comments, except perhaps anything for a quiet life. Sandpiper (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

mmm Naming the Demographics section 'Facts and Figures' is in my opinion not a good idea for two reasons. (1) There is little insight from the content on the top of the page what is happening in such a section (admittedly the subsections clarify, but it is still weak). (2) This title is almost synonimous to 'Trivia' which is discouraged. I think we have to come up with a better title. Arnoutf (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most European countries see rising immigration ?

"There is some increase in population expected, primarily due to net immigration, present in most European countries"

Isn't there a clear divide between West and East European members of EU regarding immigration ? In fact I am quite sure that Latvia, Poland, Lithuania had experienced a large exodus of their citizens to England, France and other Western European countries to seek jobs. The sentence should be clear that immigration is the issue in West European countries of EU.--Molobo (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On average, check the ref. I think there is a rise in all though, the East has more coming from the East of the East not the East is in the EU so the East East wants to move to the East as the East wants to move to the West, rather than like how the West does not move to the West West much any more.- J Logan ^t: 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you run that past me again please?! :~) Yes, JL is correct, whilst people from Latvia, Poland and Lithuania (etc.) are moving west those even further east (such as the Ukraine) are also moving west into the countries mentioned, this has been one of the concerns about the border of the Schengen Agreement moving further east into recent accession countries. SouthernElectric (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue as far as I know, do you have any sources supporting this ? The migration from those areas is not significant. Ukrainians prefer to work in Russia then in Poland for example, due to easier border access and language ability. And of course the migration can't happen in the same scale as within UE due to border. Also illegal immigrants to Poland, Lithuania only use them as transfer countries to rich West.--Molobo (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I remember reading a BBC article a while back on Ukrainians crossing the border, as SE said the movement of the Schengen border had this debate. Have you looked at the ref provided in the text? It does regardless say "most".- J Logan ^t: 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, thanks for providing the much needed Central/Eastern EU counter balance to our reasoning. If you can provide a good source about these migration numbers please do; that would be interesting to integrate into the article; however without such reference we should be careful not to insert feelings and speculations (that may or may not be true). Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just interject that historically every less developed country joining the EU has seeen a migration of its population to other countries, only for them to come back home when their own economy has got up to speed. Anyone remember 'auf widersein pet', comedy about UK builders going to germany to find work? Sandpiper (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems indeed the case e.g. the Italian immigrants. Although some migration waves predated accession to the EU as well with Spanish, and Greek, and other mediteranean immigrants of countries that (at that time) were not yet EU members. But anyway, a good point we should take into consideration. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Greece Cyprus and Italy have immigration problems(although they receive special treatment on bulgaria's and romania's work permits)and they are located south-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.61.227 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

European (land mass) population figures in first paragraph

It seems strange that someone should be suggesting that one can compare population figures in the opening paragraph of the article, in fact not to do so is almost a POV stance. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so why are you putting it up there? Pop comparison yes, but why not keep it in demo, the intro is supposed to be an quick summary to the main body.- J Logan ^t: 09:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I said in an edit summary, it gives a bit of perspective in the introduction, under your logic there shouldn't be anything more in the intro other than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - if people want to know more they should read the whole article - should we remove the rest of the intro?... Also, I was not the first to 'put it up, I'm merely leaving it up (as did you) against someone with a WP:OWN problem who unilaterally decides "It's not needed so 'we' are not having it." but refuses to discuss the issues. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the comparison in population numbers EU-Europe is too much detail for the introduction; and I would argue against its inclusion. This is of course a subjective judgment.

The rest of your (SE) last comment I cannot appreciate. First of all, reversing your argument to JLogan - following your own logic we should also add comparisons like "The EU's population is 7.3% of the world total, yet the EU covers just 3% of the earth's land, amounting to a population density of 114/km² making the EU one of the most densely populated regions of the world." (copied from demographics) to the intro; hey why not add all of the article to the intro.... I hope you agree that is not a good idea.

Secondly, while I agree Lear21 has some problems with among other WP:OWN, that does not mean he is not occasionally right. In this case he made a decent edit summarry with a realistic argument (whether others agree or not is an issue for the talk page, not a revert war). From your above comment it appears as if your revert is at least partially motivated by a personal grudge. That is not ok. Arnoutf (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So we are agreed that all but the briefest information should be given in the introduction paragraph then, fine but as I said it amounts to nothing more than "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features." - who is going to remove the excess detail?... As for Lear's edit summaries giving a realistic argument - "trimmed dispensable extra information" or "not needed" or "intro can´t include data on Europe as a continent" - It was precisely because his edit summaries did not (and he did not start a discussion here) give a rational argument that I reverted and I have as yet still not read any rational argument for the exclusion of valid information, as I've said, if the rational is valid why are the GDP figures given in the intro, why are the population figures (of the "EU") given, why are the bureaucratic/legislative 'offices' mentioned when the reader can (if interested) read the relevant main sections?! SouthernElectric (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Edited @ 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarising is difficult, and will always include some subjectivity. However, your suggestion for extreme reduction does not follow WP:LEAD. Regading your first argument - that seems pretty close to WP:POINT.

Secondly Lear gave his personal argument why he though this argument should not be part of the introduction; as I said summarising is somewhat subjective, I think that was sufficient for the initial bold removal of text. However, apparently this was not obvious to all (ie you SE). So I agree subsequent reversions and re-reversions should indeed be discussed first here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, you're going over the top now SE, this is not OWN, please discuss without reverting further. We do not need two people guilty of OWN. I for one am against it being in the intro, so is A and so is Lear. Please do not change it again until after further discussion.- J Logan ^t: 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The article has too many pictures. Pictures are all and good and make articles pretty, but too many - particularly if they are not telling us anything- just get in the way. There is not room for three pictures in history, and the lisbon treaty is considerably less important than the rome one. There is no room for two pictures of pretty scenery, which are anyway frankly not adding any usefull information, in geography. I like the mountain better, but I really don't care which one goes. Sandpiper (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you sentiment about the two examples (ie that there are too many images there), on the other hand I think the legal system section (very lengthy only a single image; and the demographics section, admittedly 2 tables but no image at all) could use an additional image.Arnoutf (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument that they slow down page loading (which I used to find very frustrating on dialup), but I am mostly concerned where the pictures are disrupting formatting of the page. Some websites suffer from advertising spam, maybe we suffer picture spam? There is another difficulty in that the result depends on your own page width setting. I would not agree the legal section was too long to have only one picture, nor do I think that every section should automatically have a picture. Particularly, a picture ought to show something useful to the reader unless an article is completely desperate just to get anything. Sandpiper (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We do have too many, I have said time and time again most are there for decoration. In terms of law needing another image, I think it can only need' and image if the section demands a certain something to illustrate it, rather than a need to fill the space. So I agree with Sandpiper on this, however I hope you have not forgotten about the hand from above that comes to sweep away the changes of man?- J Logan ^t: 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

education and research

E and R is a minor part of the EU budget and does not merit a major section. It comes nicely under the heading of development policy, which is exactly what it is. The EU does not play a major part in education or research in Europe. Sandpiper (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a relatively small part of the budget (I think from the top of my head between 5 and 10%); but the whole foreign relations (including military) will in terms of budget not be much more (that sais nothing about its impact). Hence budget alone is not a relevant criterion.

There are indeed some development policies involved (especially if Energy, and Environment are included there).

I disagree the EU does not play an important part in E&R in Europe. Yes it is mainly a national thing but don't underestimate the amount of academic research grants in FP7. I think most serious universities are competing to get some of it. Don't underestimate the agreements for international exchange and the impacts it has on curricula, ECTS, etc. (this may not be visible to most students who remain in their own country, but universities have to build and maintain large systems to accomodate this). So I disagree that the EU is not important in E&R right now.

Anyway, I can live with its inclusion in Development (but not Economy), although I think the arguments given are oversimplifications. Arnoutf (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in economy. If I summarise correctly, you to agree that it is a minor part of expenditure, but argue it merits a section for other reasons. I'm sure universities will be competing for money, etc, but that still doesn't mean it is an important proportion of their funding, or even if it were, that this alone would merit a section. Personally, I think the foreign relations section is at risk from this same argument, but I see it as a contentious issue (unlike education), and one likely to expand (also unlike education/research)Sandpiper (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in "development". That section was once called economics, but its renaming removed much of my problems. I think the EU foreign policy is essential; and indeed much more important then E&R. If we only go for part of budget the CAP should have most of the article, I guess nobody wants that ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, under development. Simple, accurate and keeps down the headers. And I see no problem in giving it its own section, certainly more important than some others....- J Logan ^t: 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beast?

No discussion of The Beast from the Book of Revelations as a symbol of the EU? I know it's far fetched, but certainly worth discussion. 76.186.118.246 (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Em, no it isn't. This is the main page for the EU, there's no space for spurious religious conspiracies. Perhaps on a more precise page somewhere.- J Logan ^t: 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the beast; why worth the discussion??? I have never heard of any serious link between the beast and the EU. If such a link exists it is probably written by the same kind of people who also say the EU is actually the Third Reich reincarnated. In brief- I agree- should not be discussed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Text sign off

Excluding structure and images, I thought it might be good to check through the text. If you read through, check and correct a section, and it is upto scratch in quality, just name the section below and who you are. So we don't do the same work over and over? - J Logan ^t: 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the Member states and Geography sections' texts, and changed/removed a few bits. Rossenglish (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through History but we might need some more citation in some bits if someone kicks up a fuss.- J Logan ^t: 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ditto Gov't and pol sections - J Logan ^t: 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION political and economic community=confederation

The introduction is partially restating what a confederation is supposed to be,the intro is not the place where you explain what a confederation is,the intro is suposed to be simple with out going to much in detail.Or refrased in an other way, what's more appropriate for the intro, "a political and economic community of sovereign states with supranational and intergovernmental features" or "a confederation".--88.82.32.100 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I mostly agree on that point, without any authority stating it few others do. In a sense they are right in it being an over simplification, even if it is an intro, but if you manage to convince everyone else then I'd support it.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

More non-NPOV BS creeping in

"Another way to sum up this spreaded vision of unity is the quote : "Europeans have different cultures but the same approach of culture""

I couldn't seem to log in (problem with this particular PC) until just there so that 79. IP was me removing this line. And I fully intend to keep removing it. It sounds so amateurish, not to mention biased. Many people would argue that there is no such united approach towards culture in Europe (particularly post-enlargement for goodness sake how anybody can claim it is insane), and so therefore such lines must be removed from the article. I would have thought you'd recognised that yourself Solberg. --Simonski (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there, it isn't very encyclopaedic.- J Logan ^t: 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive info for Geography section?

"Including the overseas territories of member states, the EU experiences most types of climate from Arctic to tropical, rendering meteorological averages for the EU as a whole meaningless. In practice, the majority of the population lives either in areas with a Mediterranean climate (Southern Europe), a temperate maritime climate (Western Europe), or a warm summer continental or hemiboreal climate (Eastern Europe).[30]"

Surely, this sentence is pretty much admitting itself that its pointless, as far as the article on the EU goes? Given that the article is already a bit too long, this sentence can be deleted without affecting the rest of the Geography section? If somebody needs to read about the climate of Europe they can go to that page, rather than get it here surely? I mean these days the EU pretty much = continental Europe as far as Geography goes. Would there be opposition to the removal of this sentence? --Simonski (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to say something about climate; and this sentence gives the relevant informatio ie that the EU covers all types of climate. It might be condensed in length but I would not favour complete removal. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to say anything about climate? what impact does this have on the workings of the EU? Sandpiper (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of frost bite, winter depression, storm damage, desertification, or heatwaves. All climate, all of importance for the EU's economy and agriculture and hence the core of the EU. In any case it is very impolite to effect a change that is under discussion (decently introduced by Simonski) and where a clear difference in opinions (ie my response) exists. I reverted it, and hope you have the decency to leave it at that until consensus for change is achieved. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the EU policy on treatment of frostbite, depression, effects of heatwaves, desertification, etc, and do you think any of it is important enough to mention here? No one has yet. Wouldn't all this properly go into the section on Agriculture, or the relevant subsection, if it went anywhere? Which are the most important areas of fundamental EU policy which have been affected by climate? The oil price, the cost of labour in china, the policies of the russian government all affect the economy of EU countries seriously, but we do not mention them. Your argument for including climate seems to be equally an argument for mentioning all of these, or none. Simonski seems to me to have made a good point, which you have not rebutted with any specific examples of the relevance of climate.

As to undue haste, sometimes I find it helps encourage a debate. No one else have any views?Sandpiper (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of climate? The recent controversy about prohibiting adding sugar to make wine (allowing more alcohol during fermentation). In Southern Europe, this is not necessary and is used to create large volume of low quality wine from the sub-prime grapes; thus reaping more CAP subsidies for wine. In Northern Europe this practice of adding sugar is essential; even to make high quality wines (actually very few cheap wines are produced in that region), and this practice has been applied since ancient times. In this case climate differences between mediteranean countries and northern countries leads to problems which would either result in substantial overuse of a subsidiary budget by countries with warmer climate; or to the ending of a century old culture of wine producing in countries with a more moderate climate.

As to undue haste, that would not have been "undue" (only hasty as you are well aware almost any change on this page is likely to be contested) if the idea had been yours from the start, to implement the change after an objection however is (IMHO) indeed unduly speedy Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying we ought to mention cold climate/sugar added to wine on the page? Unless you are, how does this make the climate relevant? Do you think anyone reading a mention of climate will suddenly think 'ah, of course, very important for the wine policy of the EU'? Climate may be very important for farmers, but how does it affect EU policy? Ah, I see: you mean the policy of banning adding sugar to wine. So again, you consider this important enough to be explained on this page? I would regard it as a detail which no doubt goes into negotiations over subsidies, but not anything worth mentioning here. That is really the point, I don't see how any EU policy would be significantly changed if the whole place was hot/cold/wet/dry/whatever. Sandpiper (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that something should be deleted because it has nothing to do with the workings of the EU. The article is entitled European Union. Not "workings of the EU" or "Politics of the EU" or "Treaties of the EU"--Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf was seeking to argue the importance of climate to the EU, hence the reason for mentioning it here. I am open to persuasion by arguments explaining how climate has changed or influenced or otherwise affected the EU, but they have to establish why climate and any such effects are sufficiently important compared to other stuff here (or more detail about stuff already here) to be worth a mention. Frankly, I don't see this. Sandpiper (talk)

What Geography section, by the way? It seems to have been inadvertently deleted completely. Or did I miss something? --Boson (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

well, quite. What would you say is the reason for having one at all?Sandpiper (talk)

Yes, indeed the Geography has almost disappeared, I cannot recall ever having seen a discussion to that effect here; wierd as the removing edit explicitly mentions such a discussion. Anyway, you asked why climate would be important for the EU; I give an example that there are situations where it is (not meaning it should be on the page); hence I responded to your request on this talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you havn't. I am not arguing climate has no effect on the EU. A sunny day no doubt makes the head of the commission much easier to work with, for example. But even if we found a report from his secretary confirming this, why would we include it here? It is just trivia. To satisfy me that we should discuss climate here (and I would have thought, satisfy yourself), you need an example where the climate has an effect sufficient for the whole thing to be worth mentioning. Better to have a paragraph on fishing policy rather than a discussion of the length of the EU coastline. Come to think of it, not mentioning fishing is something of an omission when we find space to mention sport. Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fisheries, there is an EU involvement (and a reason for Norway not wanting to be a member).

I think we have a sligthly differnt outlook on this article. While I think the policies are of primary importance, some background information on the context in which the citizens of the EU live is in my opinion worth mentioning; if alone to understand there are differences and/or similarities. The climate is definitely such a background context; as is Geography; where for example the coastal area's and seafishing industries of e.g. Netherlands and Portugal have more in common than those of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Althoug I would not argue to build up these relations to the policy level (as that would increase the size of this article manyfolds) some brief and basic listing of such context is in my opinion valid. We should be careful about which type of context is relevant though and which not; but in the end there will always be a grey area (where sports is located for instance...) Arnoutf (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a Geography section is for some editors here, necessary for the article. Me personally, I'd happily see it gone, though I'm not getting into that dispute. All I was highlighting was this particular sentence, which itself seemed to me to be saying "This sentence is pointless". Given the fact that the area covered by the EU is now essentially continental Europe, and therefore has no common climate, it just seems like such an unnecessary sentence for an already excessively long article. I really don't see the harm that would be caused by removing it, leaving room for more relevant information to be placed. The EU these days is all about four things really - Competition, Consumer Protection, EU Citizenship and Climate Change. I think by focusing on things such as the many different types of climate the EU now covers belongs on this page, rather instead it belongs on a page about Europe, the focus of this page is misplaced. I'm surprised Arnoutf you want to keep it, I'd have thought man you'd agree it was a bit unnecessary. Come to think of, perhaps there should be a section on EU citizenship, it is an increasingly important concept. In order to make room for it though stuff like the above sentence has to go surely! Particularly since many of things you listed above Arnoutf really aren't important as far as the EU goes... you'd be really stretching it here to say they are. Are you for budging here you think man? Anybody else? --Simonski (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison EU - US (Role of Geography)

(previous title did not reflect my point) Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I do not understand why you are so much opposed to properly covering issues like geography in the EU. The US article has a proper geography section. Why not the EU? Surely, lengthy elaboration can be put into country articles, but a basic overview, e.g. major mountain ranges, coastlines, climatic areas, temperatures, and so on would be fair.

This discussion leaves me with the impression that the EU is all about policy. Do you think people in the US spend their day only thinking about the administration? I am sure that culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life is more important for most of us. Tang Wenlong (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Tang its also important that you don't come away from this article thinking that the EU is a country. Its not a federation precisely either. So comparisons to the US are not 100% helpful. Much of how the EU works is just about policy. Where the EU acts, it acts because the Member State countries have decided that it is better to have a common EU policy on a certain matter. Much of this is carried out through directives - which leave the implementation to the countries involved, allowing for some national discretion. The EU, as it stands today, is one big bowl of policy making. Its an international organisation with some federal features. If somebody comes away from the wikipedia article confused about this, they can go and do some further reading. The fact that they're resorting to Wikipedia for information on the EU is not a good start I might add. Any article on a contentious issue at Wikipedia should always be taken with a grain of salt. --Simonski (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, I worry sometimes that even though I complain about certain things in this article, people coming from the USA may understand the words used in the article completely differently to myself (and hence not get the impression intended). Specifically, when I write 'state', I mean a sovereign country. I suspect anyone from the USA understands something like an administrative region. I do not aim to write an article here talking about all aspects of a country, because the EU is absolutely not a country. What it really is has been deliberately fudged by all concerned (especially by the EU itself), in the hope of not offending anyone, so it is arguably difficult to report. People perceive it differently. It might be better to think about the relationship between countries and the EU as between parents and their child. Lots of arguing about who is boss and what baby is allowed to do. If this article leaves anyone reading it with the impression that the EU really is a country, then it has seriously failed. Bear in mind that the EU as an institution, compared to a national scale, has essentially no revenue, no tax raising powers, no police, no army, no citizens, no land, no border control, three conflicting means of government, seriously limited powers to make rules. I think the article should leave you with the impression the EU is all about policy. As an EU citizen I have never thought of the EU as having anything to do with my experience of 'culture, art, leisure, climate, and social life'. If I go to Europe then I expect to experience the culture etc, of the country I am visiting. That's how it is. Sandpiper (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I write too much. Tang, I see you come from America, so I value your impressions of this article which is generally edited by Europeans. Would it change your impression of exactly what the USA is, if every 6 months there was a meeting of the governors of every state, who by agreement amongst themselves had absolute power to amend in any way the constitution? That is how the EU works. It is hard to say what makes something a country. One aspect is that the people inside it accept it as a country. The other is the legal structure. I think the EU fails on both grounds. Sandpiper (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandpiper hit the nail on the head. And its not for us to present this article through one viewpoint on the EU or the other, but to provide a balanced view. I'd say the current article is a fair compromise between the two views. --Simonski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sandpiper, you write a lot, but that's fine ;-)

Clarification:

a) I lived myself in the European Union for a while. I exactly know what the EU is, what it is not, and how it works.

b) For many foreigners, including Europeans, the US might seem just as a simple country, ruled by the administration. But that's mainly foreign policy, exactly what concerns other countries most. Internally, there are big differences between states - laws, infrastructure, taxes, and ... you name it - differ substantially, more than a foreigner might expect!

c) It is undisputed, that European countries - although having given up parts of their sovereignty - are far more independent and influential (let's say relevant) than the states here in the US. (I don't think anyone ever said something different)

I am sure we all agree on this "policy side", how the EU "works" etc.. Tang Wenlong (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to make clear in my comments. The EU is primarily a political organisation; hence that deserves most attention (in my opinion it gets it). But it is not limited to a political organisation alone; and there should be some other background information. My first point here would be to get an agreement that the following is indeed the consensus:

• EU = political entity; so that requires significant attention.
• The EU is more then just a political entity; some more background is needed to contextualise that larger role.

Once we agree about that (or agree this is not a way forward) we can discuss what this background should exist of (I think demographics, geography and even culture deserve a place, but am willing to discuss). Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Given my comment above about the "policy side", I think we can shift our focus to the question of 'culture, geography, social life, etc.'

a) I like Sandpiper's example of travelling in Europe, visiting other countries, strolling Champs-Élysées, drinking an espresso in Milano, skiing in Tirol, etc. - it works the same way in the US. You go on spring break to the beaches of Florida, to the casinos of Oklahoma, skiing in Colorado. The US are far bigger than Western Europe. Texas and Massachusetts couldn't be more different! Still, they all have the same Wal-Mart, McDo, and (many) speak the same language, but the cultural contrast between Northern and Southern California is arguably bigger than between Northern and Southern Germany. Think about that.

c) You might argue, that a geography section on the EU is not necessary, because you will find that info in the 'Europe' article. The same holds for North America! But a Chinese guy travelling to the US or EU wants to find the info on that page, and not resort to the articles on the continents.

d) As pointed out earlier, I am not saying that I wish to include aspects which are relevant on a country level, but rather those which correspond in the hierarchy to the EU. No need to talk about the Vosges or Cologne Carnival. There is no word about Virginia's mountains in the US Geography section either. Tang Wenlong (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said Tang, I'm sure you'd agree there is far more diversity within Europe/the EU than there is within the states of the US. Going by your Wal-Mart/McDonalds example... isn't it the case now in a globalised world that you find these companies everywhere? There is no common language, common culture among other things in Europe as there perhaps is in the US, so its completely different. I have to disagree that I think a person travelling to the EU would not look to an article on the international organisation that is the EU, rather they would be sensible enough to look at the article on Continental Europe. I'm afraid this point has been made before - wikipedia is not here to cater to what the reader might want to read about but to present the facts as they are about what the EU is. I have to confess Tang to not understanding what it is you'd like to see included in the article that isn't already there. As it is the article reflects largely everything that the EU is involved in. If there is not more on social life/cheese/whatever in the article, its because the EU has no/limited involvement in that area. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, it wasn't a call for substantial expansion of geography coverage, rather I wrote my original post (now located under this section title) as a response to Sandpipers challenge "Why is it necessary to say anything about climate?", which took me aback (prev section). Therefore I wanted to remind policy-focussed editors that there is more than just legal mechanisms to the EU. (This is not a legal handbook. Compare also comments by Boson). Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto, I was a bit confused here you see. --Simonski (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That being said, Arnoutf I agree with your brief point above but I would really question whether a geography section is what is needed in this respect. Things such as a section on EU Citizenship, which are far more important, deserve particular focus but there isn't room whilst we have pointless sentences on things like the bajillion climate types that the EU covers. --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone who has made arguments about why certain content is relevant is talking sense. I don't disagree that any of these points have a relevance and could and should be discussed somewhere. Most of the debate I have read about this article is not whether content is wrong, but more subtly what is the most important to include. I don't think we are too fussed about it, but this article is quite long, and it is true that it is difficult to read through. It is supposed to be an introduction to the subject, leading to other articles. Although I would probably be inclined to scrap geography entirely, I recognise the notion that having a few lines, even if they say there is nothing which can be said quickly, allows a link to a longer article somewhere. I think though, that such a link should be directing people to articles titled to be about Europe, not about the EU. Foreign relations for EU countries are very largely the concern of each country. The removal of many internal borders does mean that people can enter one country and simply travel around, but essentially their right to visit/stay etc is to the specific country they are in. Although the EU is seeking to centralise its foreign relations, it has not done so yet. If I was planning to visit any EU country, I would never expect to find information about their food, countryside,culture,etc, in an article titled 'EU something'. I don't believe people set out to visit the EU, they visit France, then Italy, Greece, whatever. So I continue to believe it is pointless for us to be discussing this here in premium EU space. Perhaps we should specifically have a note advising anyone interested in such things to check country articles. Thereby making it clear we do not expect to cover such things here.

Tang, I think you also overemphasise the differences between US states, and the similarities of European ones. Europe has a history of 2000 years of one country attacking the next. The USA has had one major civil war, but there were only two sides and one issue. Yes, I know that many of the states were founded by people with a particular mindset, different to others. But they have shared a single language, and constant immigration of dispirate races, which have spread through all the states. The ideological divide between some EU countries which made it difficult to visit, never mind trade or exchange ideas, only stopped within the last 20 years, bringing the most recent wave of new members. My former landlady was a refugee from Hitler's Europe, who ended up as a secretary at the Nuremberg war trials. Her husband was a post war escapee from somewhere, possibly czechoslovakia. They remained fearful of the rise of German imperialism, following reunification of germany. Another neighbour, raised in India, reminisces over the tail end of the raj and despises the EU. Ok, they are old people now, but they are not gone yet. The reason for the existence of the EU was an attempt to make it impossible for everyone to go to war again. The people who plotted that political course are gone now, with a result that the direction of the EU has wavered somewhat, but the whole idea was to enable utterly different people to somehow live together and get along. It was absolutely not about a stick of attacking and smoothing out their national characteristics, but a carrot of economic benefit. Thus the EU is not about culture (etc), but profit.

Let me restate my position. I think the EU is a fantastic invention, from the point of view of furthering my personal well being, my national well being, and arguably world well being. But I do not regard it as a country. It is a set of agreements between countries. I like the cudos and romance of having a pasport I can wave about which entitles me to travel in any EU country. I see the institution as giving me rights in foreign countries. I do not see it as making me a European rather than british. Ok, that is purely my view, but I think it is a pretty typical pro-EU view, never mind anti-Eu views. This is the reason peopler like me do not think this article ought to be discussing general cultural issues.

I think it would be considerably more usefull for readers if we had a section talking about what citizens think about the EU, rather than discussing whatever sport or culture they enjoy, or mountain they live on, which just isn't relevant. Here I am inclined to listen to people requesting a 'criticisms' section, but it absolutely could not be simply 'criticisms'. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced we could easily create such a section, which would be an magnet for fanatics on either side.

Tang, re my addendum question again, if the US state governors had the power to override the president, senate, etc, would the USA be a different sort of beast? If 1/3 the EU members suddenly decided they had an irreconcileable difference with the other 2/3, can you seriously believe the 2/3 would go to war to force them to stay members? They would just walk away and form their own union, which would no doubt make yet more trade treaties with the rump of the current EU. Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I believe your latter question is not the issue of this discussion. I feel you are trying to ridicule my comparison of EU and US, neglecting the context. I aimed for instance at the question, why to include geographical info on the unions' level, and not on the continental or state (US) / country (EU) -level. I exemplified (Virginia/Vosges) how the US and EU compare in this respect. I didn't make any claim whatsoever that the political situation is the same, even though I found it worth mentioning that states in the US have significance, too. Tang Wenlong (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the EU is a different thing to the US. Articles about different things are likely to be structured differently, because what is important to discuss about one kind of thing is not important to discuss about another. The important thing to discuss about the EU is what it is, and what it does. The kind of ground it sits on, and other things which happen to occur in that same place are not sufficiently important to be covered in this particular article. Generally, articles about countries do not start with a long explanation of what a country is, but that is exactly what we have to do for the EU, because it is something other than a country. I am nonetheless interested in how Americans view the EU in comparison with the US, and indeed whether Americans (or anyone) see any merit in the distinction between a group which works together under central control, or one which operates by debate amongst equals. Sandpiper (talk)

Sure, every country is very different from any other. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I think on balance I am not convinced the EU is more than a political organisation. Certainly, it aspires to be more, and it may yet become de-facto more. But it hasn't got there yet. Ask me again when there is an EU olympic team. Sandpiper (talk)

I never said it was a country, and why would sports being an image of something else then a political entity? But mention one strictly political entity that has all of these: own currency, education and research program, environmental regulations, no border controls, a similar passport cove, representation in G8, and so on, and so on. The EU is without doubt in transition between a treaty organisation (like nato) and a federational country (like the US). Whether it well ever arrive at the latter is not decided, but it already moved away from the first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think there is considerable doubt whether the EU is in transition from one thing to another. It has expanded in scope, but every expansion has an alternative justification other than creating a new country. Some people see this as the aim, others utterly reject it. Historically, I think states cease to exist and combine when their people see advantage in it. But at present it is merely what it is (transitioning or not), and we should therefore describe it as a complex adjudication system for a series of international treaties. Sandpiper (talk)

Ok transition may not be the best word; nevertheless it is somewhere in between your minimalist "international treaty organisation" and a "federation". (B.t.w. the example of Czechoslovakia shows that countries can be dissolved peacefully). For now I think it would be best to agree we disagree and not spend time trying to convince each other (as I sincerely doubt that will do anything but creating frustration). Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not frustration. This is an interesting debate. People here are well informed and worth debating with. No idea if we are representative of views, mind. It does help to understand to what extent people believe things, and try to find out why. Our discussion now is rather like the argument over the flag and anthem. Whether they are formally written into the treaties or not, they will continue to exist. Our real difficulty is probably that whether and to what extent the EU is more than a 'treaty organisation' is simply a matter of public perception. If that is so, then strictly wiki should not report it as such unless there is source material discussing it. Writing this article in the style of a country article immediately introduces a bias that it is a country. This has to be justified. Sandpiper (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For follow-up see section below]]

Tang I wouldn't say Sandpiper has ridiculed your comparison of the EU-US, he's just trying to make the point that for many of us living under the EU banner, the US-EU comparison is flawed in many respects and whenever done so has to be taken with a grain of salt (using that phrase too often, apologies!). Either way I don't think its worth going down this route any further, since it doesn't really relate that much to the current question, which is whether the sentence on climates is maybe removable. I mean I'm not going to be devastated if it stays its just that when I read it it just seems so pointless. On a side note, man I thought this page was bad for the debates, its amazing how annoying some of the debates are you can come across on other pages! Compared to other pages the EU page is actually relatively peaceful I'd say! --Simonski (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking all this in mind... Is Switzerland a country? I believe that the concept of what a country is or isn't lives to strong in Sandpiper and Simonskis minds. As a Swede I see Sweden as my home country not the EU. But than again the concept of what a country are is to strong for me. If EU is not a country by the definitions above then Switzerland hardly qualify either.

Conclusion and Outlook

Right, this seems to be an interesting debate, and we reached a point where we know that we agree on our disagreements. Clearly that sentence on climate is not the issue anymore (and I guess no one minds much about keeping or deleting it (at least I don't)).

Now, people from the island have always tended to keep a more distanced stance than those from Western Europe. Surely Britons do things more differently than those on the continent - think pound, monarchy, traffic directionality, ties with the US, etc. What I am saying is, we must not forget, that everybody of us naturally has a different view on the Union.

By the way, Sandpiper, I found some of your pictures not really enlightening, especially the one with the goverors. But now, where you aware that you have exactly that in Germany? Ever heard of the Bundesrat? The Laender (provinces/states) in Germanyu do have power in the federal government.

Countries can be very different. Some have just have a ruler/dictator. Many have the three branches (ex, leg, jur) but still then, what makes up a country? A football team? A president? A minister president? Elected? Recently I read that Switzerland doesn't have a president at all. (Which is obviously wrong, but I found it an interesting idea: No president, no prime minister :) ) And the UK obviously don't have a football team. (But several)

As I can see User:JLogan spent some time reflecting on this issue, with regard to the EU, just like many others did.

Typical (not necessary) characteristics of a country (sovereign state) include:

• Constitution
• Government with three branches
• Foreign policy, diplomatic service, citizenship
• Some sort of guard/defense forces
• Some sort of budget, fed either by taxes or contributions from sub-entities
• Currency, and a central bank for managing the currency
• No internal mobility restriction on people/tariffs on goods
• etc.

(And there are a few points which are certainly NOT necessary, but merely optional: - president - direct taxes - police force - health, edu, etc. services - and many more (the latter three can be assigned to lower-level authorities (state/province/district/municipality))

Now, if you look at the above criteria, and carefully feed it with the data from the EU - the justified, verified, proven, hard facts - then you will see where the Union stands between the two extreme poles of loose treaty-based confederation and a federal republic (sovereign state).

I am convinced that it is possible to make such an evaluation purely based on facts. Maybe with some graphic illustration. And that could even include history, in order to visualise transitions over time.

If there is one lesson to be learned from our discussion, then I would say it is that we (editors) might understand the Union's mechanisms very well, but we might still be unsure how it compares to the classical concept of a country. (Hence resorting to call it supranational, "sui generis" or whatever, terms not really enlightening anybody.)

Maybe a better example for comparison than the United States is Switzerland, which - existing for centuries- has four official languages, and substantial power is with its provinces, which are also somewhat involved with the management of the armed forces.

You are all invited to present the facts. Tang Wenlong (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the new view on the EU brought to the table by the Central/Eastern countries though (on the whole the impression appears to be in countries like Bulgaria/Romania/Poland, at least that I get, is that they are reserving judgment, not being 100% enthusiastic.). Interesting stuff anyway Tang. I think as far as the Article goes though we shouldn't try to deal with it as its just too contentious and far too difficult to prove. Given that there is nothing else like the EU in the world at the moment, and that the 27 countries themselves probably couldn't actually agree as to what the EU currently is, I don't think we, in all our wisdom, should try to deal with it. I'd say putting stuff like this into the article would be troublesome for the same reason as a criticism section would be. (though I'm not sure Tang if thats what you were actually proposing!)

Either way, since you were lucky enough to miss the Sports section debate, I can assure you that editors working on this page are all wary of the different views on the EU. From Sandpiper to myself to Arnoutf to Logan to Lear an already incredibly diverse number of views are covered, and several others fit inbetween those. As far as I understood as well we also have a wide range of nationalities editing here as well, which has probably benefitted the article greatly. --Simonski (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably good summary. I would ask all not to see the "treaty" vs "country" issue as a "black" vs "white" thing but rather as "shades of grey". Agreed, that will make defining the EU harder (as there is no longer an absolute "TRUTH"), but will do more justice to the real thing. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologise for my absence from this debate, I have not had the internet of late and will loose it again now for an unforeseeable amount of time. Nice to see a new user involved though, welcome, and that we have been having a good discussion. However I'm not sure how fruitful it is for the article (as much as I like debating it, as my page you linked to shows) considering we'll never actually agree on it aside from it is unique, and that doesn't help us on terms of inclusion of geography. I for one think we might as well keep it (cut down as suggested) as it is common data (is similar to country but would not compare to sport - very uncommon and far from vital where as geography is universal and a major factor). Besides, it is one of those things that, if we remove, someone else will come along and add a poor uncited section every 5 mins because they think it is needed (granted that does not make it something that should be included, just an extra pragmatic point). Anyway, have to go again, pitty I'm missing such a good discussion.- J Logan ^t: 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tang, difficult to give an ordered response which does not become ridiculously long covering point by point. I just checked the article on germany, which says, Amendments to the Grundgesetz [constitution] require a two-thirds majority of both chambers of parliament; the articles guaranteeing fundamental rights, a democratic state, and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended.. I take this to mean that the German state is capable of changing its own constitution by agreement of its various parts, and no external organisation can do so. The institution of the german state itself has a veto on any change to its organisation. This is not true of the EU. If all member state governments agree, change the rules so that the president is required to sit in a tree and eat bananas, they can do that and he can do absolutely nothing to stop them. That is the distinction, the EU has no power to control its own destiny. The article doesn't say whether individual states of germany have the right to cecede from the country without the consent of the others (anyone?).

The swiss article does not seem to explain how the government can alter the constitution. By inference I presume that it can. The article explains at more length that a sufficiently large group of citizens can require an amendment to any law or the constitution. (An excellent measure, in my view.) I don't know whether cantons are entitled to cecede. It is clearly difficult to compare some of these examples, while Swittzerland veers a lot more towards being like the EU than does Germany, the canton governments still cannot unilaterally change the constitution by themselves, and the central government can do so (at least with the support of a plain majority of voters in a referendum). The point I am arguing is where the final authority rests, and in our instance it does not rest with the EU.

As to the list of characteristics of countries, I can think of a number of countries which internally restrict movement of goods, people etc. Just about all countries have a security force, which I contend the Eu simply does not have (there is no force the president/etc can call upon directly). The EU certainly has a constitution, but as I said, has no way of amending it and is rigorously constrained by it in what it can do. It has no powers to demand additional funding. If the signatory states agree to give it more, it will get it, but it has no powers whatsoever to raise money of its own accord. It has no powers to grant or deny citizenship, nor permit or refuse anyone to travel through its border. It has no foreign policy to speak of, nor forces with which to carry one out, a limited 'aid' budget, primarily intended to foster accession countries. Its government does not follow the three part model. It only has competence to create legislation subject to the treaty instructions of the external executive governments of the signatory states. Indeed, its main legislative element is ex-officio the governments of those members, and their directly appointed representatives (the commission). Similarly, it only has judicial functions to make decisions regarding that delegated authority. Its own executive is limited to carrying out the instructions of those member states.

So after all this I conclude that the two elements essential to being a country are

• the ability to make laws independent of external control
• the consent of the population concerned that the country exists and that they belong to it.

Which is indeed an enormous aside for the specific issue of geography trivia, but at the same time essential when considering how to write about the EU. I think the USA is a country, because its governing institutions do have authority to control its laws, and because the people consent to it. The EU is not, because it does not have that authority, and its people all claim they belong to some different country. The EU should be treated as what it is, the arbiter of a set of treaties. Sandpiper (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to keep this reasonably brief:

• Nobody ever said the EU is a country.
• However, as an international treaty organisation the EU shows properties of a country (parliament, elections, currency, some foreign policy, education and research, shared border control (e.g. passport covers), etc. etc.). It does so at a much more extensive scale than any other international treaty (unless somebody can counterargue this).
• Hence it would undervalue the cooperation level of the EU, by insisting to treat it as merely another international treaty organisation.
• Therefore, we should treat it as a unique organisation; which is somewhere between a federal state and an international treaty organisation

(PS The three way division of power appears mainly an anglosaxon/dmocratic thing; e.g. Hitler controlled all these powers in Nazi Germany, and nobody doubted that was a country).Arnoutf (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The UK basically enjoys a combined executive and legislature embodied in the person of the prime minister. I am tempted to suggest the 3-way system is a rather American thing. Actually, Tang started this by implying the EU is a country, arguing that a similar institution, the USA, is written up differently. I have no interest in arguing whether there is any more complex treaty organisation than the EU. I don't think that matters. I am just not convinced that added complexity means a change in substance. I am also not sure how that issue matters to wikipedians. We ough to be reporting what it objectively is, as defined by what references say it is. I have seen lots if refs explaining what treaties say about its powers, but precious few claiming it has a relevance to all these other things which some people want to write about. Produce refs arguing it is more than this, and why we ought to discuss its geography and favourite sports, and I'm happy. The argument for including these things has been repeatedly that it ought to be written up like a country, because that is how wikipedia writes up countries. Why? prove it is a country and we shall treat it as one. Sandpiper (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be not this Black-White. Nobody says the EU is a country. The other way around I could argue the reverse, that many entities considered countries are not so following the most strict definition of country. In the most strict sence a country should be completely sovereign. That means that each and any entity who has committed itself to international treaty organisations (thereby giving)up some sovereignty - which applies even in signing something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights); should no longer be considered country. I hope you agree that is absurd Black-White reasoning. I would argue treating the EU on similar grounds as just another international treaty organisation is equally absurd. Arnoutf (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I pitched my stall. My definition is not whether a country has absolute autonomy from outside influences, but whether it has the right to make its own choices. Britain chooses to belong to the declaration of human rights. It chooses to have an army and a police force. It chooses how much tax to raise. The EU does not choose to confine its legislative powers to economic harmonisation. It does not choose whether to have an army. It does not choose how much tax to raise. It does not choose who enters its nominal borders. These things are decided for it. Sandpiper (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I think the core of this debate is one of the frequently asked questions. I tried to expand that one, trying to summarise this discussion. Feel free to edit, but make sure that it does not become too long and it reflects both sides fairly (ie try not to put in your own POV, I tried to keep mine out, but may have failed). Arnoutf (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

good point. But I am still concerned by the claim that it is a sui generis entity. Sandpiper (talk)

Not my wording, I am not at all attached to the phrase, but some other editor maybe.Arnoutf (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I strongly believe that there should be a section in this article addressing criticisms directed towards the EU. In order to truly understand the politics of an entity, ideology or figure, accurate criticisms need to be aired, with reasons as to why these are considered areas to be criticised by people.

Whilst, I am sure that many will argue that this is a topic simply for facts and not opinions, it can be argued that criticisms are just as factual and relevant as anything else. Indeed, is not everything opinion in some way, shape or form.

I therefore propose that, on this page, issues such as problems with the Commission, the size of the EU, committment to the environment, Africa etc. be addressed. 81.152.129.23 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Steven

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions why there is no such section. Arnoutf (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the top of this talk page needs a prominent link to the FAQ page, like the one on Talk:United States:–

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

What does everyone think? Rossenglish (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ! Lear 21 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might also be useful to put it at the bottom of the page as well. To be honest I can't see it stopping people from asking though! --Simonski (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. I was a little shocked that there was no Criticisms section, which I usually come to expect on Wikipedia articles. I, being the average, ignorant North American, would really appreciate a criticism page as I don't know enough about the EU or the social climate of Europe to make many conclusions on my own about it. I definitly support this. PimpyMicPimp (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See European_Union/Frequently_asked_questions as to why it is agreed not to have a criticism section. I think you may have misunderstood what was said above – what the supports above are for is not a criticism section but a link to the FAQ page (am I right Lear?); this was not a vote on whether to have a criticism section. Rossenglish (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, that must have been the case. If people want to read about criticism of the EU, or support, Wikipedia is not the place to look. A brief summary can be provided here: Its basically a debate in Europe of to what extent we should have an integrated Europe. Some are very much for it (ie Germany, Netherlands, Greece), some are very much against it (ie. UK, Denmark, Poland). Much of the criticism of the EU surrounds the flawed decision making process, the existence of a serious democratic deficit, the fact that the European Court of Justice has been excessively judicially inventive, that it costs too much through having for example a pointless second parliament building in Strasbourg, that the Commission has excessively curbed national sovereignty in its policy making etc. These are just some of the many. Of course its not perfect, but its difficult to construct a perfect organisation when you have such diversity between 27 (soon to be more no doubt) countries trying to reach an agreement. Try getting Poland and the Netherlands to agree on things for example - nightmare. Truth be told there is scope for a new article Criticism of the EU, to be established, but to try and fit all of them on the EU main page is ill advised, as it could not be done effectively. --Simonski (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I support a FAQ template at the top of the discussion page ! Not a single Criticism section in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the FAQ box looks good there - you can't fail to see it. Rossenglish (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

demographics and culture

Lear lodged an objection in an edit comment that culture is not demographics. Once again, I don't follow this argument. As I understand demographics (or at least how it is being used here), it is information about people and how they live. I do not see why this does not include what their favourite sport is, or whether they like going to the opera or the pub. If people really think demographics is too specific a term, then as has been suggested before perhaps we can think of a better title for a section about society in the EU? This stuff belongs together. Sandpiper (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not mind much, you could stretch it to demographics but I wouldn't normally put the two together. A compromise title might be good, either way please do it without an edit war. - J Logan ^t: 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Member state agreement table

Anonymous IP user:84.78.189.58 recently added an elaborate table under the membership section.
I think this table is not wanted because:

1. The article is long enough as it is, this table does not give core information and should not be in this article
2. The table includes non-EU members such as Vatican City, further increasing size, and decreasing relevance for the EU core article
3. The table layout and size do not fit in well as it takes up too much space to be elegantly shown in many browsers.
4. There is no argument why the chosen treaty types are selected (EU, Common Market (EEA), Customs Union, Schengen, EMU (Euro), Military); and anyway why any of them except "EU" are relevant for the EU core article
5. There is a complete and utter lack of any reference to the table; in the text, so it is hanging in thin air.

I think each of these five reasons alone would be enough to delete the table, and the combination even more so therefore I deleted the table. Arnoutf (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, its on the member states page, we don't need that detail here.- J Logan ^t: 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was ambivalent about this when I saw it. I considered the mention of Vatican city, san marino, etc, quite interesting and it told me something relevant to the EU which I did not know. From my perspective, the EU is a network of treaties. Even the core states have not acceded to them all, so it is extremely doubtfull to argue we should dismiss any state from the article because it has only accepted just one. I find it highly relevant that this article should explain about affiliated states. The argument about lack of references is absurd, if it bothers you, then find some. All these treaties and who signed them must be readily on record with the EU websites. Now, I do agree the table is way big and doesn't fit into the article. But the details of what countries have agreed to what -all of them who have agreed to anything- is absolutely core information, way more important than some of the stuff we have been arguing about (ahem). Does this table come from another page, or could it be put on one so we could refer to it? Sandpiper (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the table is necessary though, as far as I'm concerned it really doesn't serve any useful purpose when all the information in it is basically found within the EU article/sub-articles. I'm not against a table of some sort like they have on the French version of this page for example (I think, or maybe its another version I'm thinking of) but the one proposed doesn't seem to me to serve any valuable purpose. Maybe the guy who's adding it will come here and try and convince us otherwise, I'd be happy to hear him out. In the meantime though I can't see any good reason for keeping it. Sandpiper I think what Arnoutf meant was that there was no actual reference to the table, not that the table did not contain references, as it just appears from out of nowhere, in quite an awkward manner I'd say. Every member state signed the EC/EU treaties, thats the important one as far as this article is concerned. --Simonski (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Simonski, I clarified my intent; above. Although the lack of sourcing is also worrying; as we emphasise the referencing issue on this page (@Sandpiper: it is the task of the person adding information to find the references; not the one asking for them). Arnoutf (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are being picky, I think it is only permissable to delete information on the grounds it has no source if it is unsourceable, not if it is merely unsourced. We all know this information is sourceable. A good faith measure would be to provide what is lacking in an article, eg add the refs, not delete something on a technicality. But I misunderstood Arnoutf. I don't know what to do about the table. It has some merit but is also a nuisance. On the whole I think it is too big to stay here as it is. Sandpiper (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I'm the one who built and added the "so-wide-and-too-detailed-table". I completely agree with the formal matters you said, and I must confess that I was already concerned about that when I did it. Maybe this is not exactly the right place to put it, and maybe it is quite wide, and for sure the work is not finished and it lacks from a reference in the text. But these are just formal details -to be solved- but not relevant ones to delete it, from my point of view, of course. As stated by Sandpiper, the EU is not a monolitic entity, but it is a conjunction of treaties. Not all the members have signed/implemented them all. And, many other countries have signed some of them without being EU nations. This is relevant information that I couldn't find summarised when I looked for it. Of course that, as said by Simonski, the information is already disseminated through dozens of articles and sub-articles relative to the EU, but you wouldn't have the big picture in that way. In my opinion, is really interesting to know the different levels of involvement of the European countries in the EU construction from its main agreements. Thus, I may answer that:

1. Being the article too long is not a reason to remove important information. The membership in the different EU core agrements -such the common market, the Economic and Monetary Union, the removal of borders, or the seed for a EU army- is core information.
2. Many non EU nations are already included in this article, just above the table, for example. Hence, Norway is not a EU country but it is a Schengen country, whereas UK and Ireland are not; San Marino, Monaco and Montenegro adopted the euro, whereas Sweden or Denmark didn't; Denmark has an opt-out in order not to participate in the common security policy, whereas Norway and Turkey -non-Eu contries- have joined common EU military units.
3. The size and layout should be refined, I completely agree with that.
4. I do not manage to understand why Schengen, Euro or Common Market agrements are not relevant in a EU article.
5. I support the motion to include a reference in the text, at his final location, in case it has one...

Danrowe 20:40, 14 January 2008

I think the table could have a relevant place in one of the articles, with a small pointer in this one. Howeve I think the level of detail, and the mentioning of this many states is in my opinion beyond the scope of this article, which, in the end, cannot be more than an overview of all that is going on. Arnoutf (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for coming here Dan and putting your point across. The info in the table is indeed interesting, and as other (including some of the FA status versions) language versions of the EU page do contain some tables that some here might consider to be awkward or unnecessary, I guess the idea can't be dismissed immediately. Of course the fact that the article is already too long would not be a reason for ruling out the table by itself, I think people were just adding it in as an extra together with their other points.. certainly whilst the dreaded sports section remains, arguing against the inclusion of possibly more relevant information on this basis isn't really convincing, I'll grant you that. To be honest though, I still think the article could survive without it, I would need to be convinced a bit more... I dunno, what do others think? --Simonski (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove any of the states (40) from the table since they are either EU states (27), or signatory of any of the agrements settled under the EU umbrella (in addition to be official candidates now (3), past candidates (1) or potential candidates in near future, and be in the EU geografic area). Thus, for instance, Schengen (22) has 4 non EU signatory states (2 of them have already implemented it), three of these are also members of the EEA (30); most of the microstates (5) have open borders, and have euro-adoption agrements while mint their own euros (3) or use it unilateraly (1), as some other non-EU included states (2); 27 out of 40 are creating the EU forces (including 2 non EU states); etc

So, in case that the table is finally added somewhere,

1. in which article can be placed? (general enough to cover EU, and Schengen, EMU, EEA, 'WEU', etc)
2. which states might be removed from it?
3. which details are perceived as superfluous? Danrowe (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Simonski. My point is that some sort of summarised information -like this table- is needed to have at a glance an idea of 'soft' EU membership, which, in my opinion, includes integrated economy, currency, borders, army, etc.. Danrowe (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the "where" question. I think your argument about soft-membership with the table might find a place in the European_Union_member_state article. If you find such a place, I would suggest to take in the table as a whole and not delete anything. Subarticles are in my opinion a good place to store "encyclopedic" detail; which is then made accesible from the core article. That way you have both, the detail if you really want it, and a reasonable length/information content for the less involved reader on the main topic.

Note that the current member state section where you suggest to add the table already acknowledges that as one of the "main articles". A two line reference to that table could then be added in this article. Something like "Although official EU membership is reserved to 27 states, not all of them have signed all treaties (e.g. the UK has not adopted the Euro as currency). On the other hand, several European states that are not officially a member of the EU have signed treaties that were developed within the EU (e.g. Vatican City has adopted the Euro)."

Or something similar. That way you include the key idea in this article, while the details can easily be found elsewhere. Does that sound as direction to take this further?Arnoutf (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a brilliant proposal Arnoutf. The table would fit perfectly in the Member States article, and I'm assuming it would keep everybody happy. --Simonski (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the European_Union_member_state article as the place for such a table. That article is strictly devoted to complete membership --thereby, detailing issues as the number of MP's, for example. Further, there is no reference at all in its text to the Common Market, Schengen Agreement, Economic and Monetary Union, etc --contrary to the EU main article-- and hence the information contained the table loses its relevance.

Nevertheless, I agree with both of you about placing the table in a subarticle, and placing it as it is. What about Third_country_relationships_with_the_European_Union? Danrowe (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That maybe a candidate, isn't there some kind of "treaties of the EU" article. It might fit there as well (sorry no time to look for it right now). Arnoutf (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Treaties of the European Union? Maybe, but I think we are talking about wider integration than the EU, how about including it as expansion of European integration?- J Logan ^t: 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very good. Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That should be the right place for it. Unfortunately, it nearly looks like a stub. Hard work has to be done before that article includes all the necesary topics ---and corresponding sections--- related to European integration, such as economy (EEA, Eurozone, Custom Union), politics or 'geography' (Schengen Zone), military, etc. Danrowe (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be an idea to form some kind of collaborative effort to improve it. After all getting Wiki quality up is hard work. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be good but WP:EU collaborations are rather meaningless right now - unless we seriously built on our co-operation here to bring common work alive again. Exactly who would be interested in continuing our work beyond this article?- J Logan ^t: 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor addition to the earlier US/EU debate

Just wanted to share with everybody something which I thought was quite interesting - I had the honour of having a conversation the other day with former UK judge of the ECJ, Judge Edwards, haha you won't believe the topic - Sport! Though only in the sense of Bosman, and the effect the Reform Treaty would have here. Just thought it might be interesting given the debate above about the US/EU comparison, that he also seemed to suggest to me that the EU was going through a period now where Member States were trying to limit the intrusion of EU law (which he seemed to be, predictably being a former member of the ECJ, against). From what I understood, he was suggesting the majority of the Member States are now going through a period of trying to reassert themselves over the EU Institutions *cough* the Commission and the ECJ *cough*.

Just really interesting anyway. Certainly, reflective of the conclusion that most reached above, which is that the EU really is in limbo at the moment. Whilst on the one hand its going one way with EU citizenship etc, its going the other with things like derogations on foreign workers getting into the public sector (like loads of countries using language requirements as valid barriers to the public sector). --Simonski (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 'limbo' might be bit strong. It suggests there is an uncertainty which has never existed in the past. I'm not convinced by that: rather I would suggest that some of the initial aims have been quite well achieved, but now that the EU is hunting around looking for other areas to colonise, those people who never signed up for anything more are making themselves heard. It will be interesting to see how the new treaty is received, and whether people, eg in the UK, really feel they have been railroaded into something they did not agree to, or the issue just fades away.Sandpiper (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think after 2009 the issue will fade away in the UK, similarly to Maastrict and pretty much every other treaty since the UK joined. Every new treaty is marked by Murdoch press with 'this is the end of an independent UK', and myths about what the treaty does, but soon after they come into force, those obsessed members of the 'better off out' club are soon silenced, and those who are in favour of EU participation wonder what the fuss was about. I know that this is supposed to be a talk about improving the article, but hey, we might need to address similar topics somewhere in a related article! Rossenglish (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I just hear correctly on the news that the French are amending their constitution so as to avoid the necessity of holding another referendum, which one must presume they think they would lose? Sandpiper (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of word "Law"

The article is sometimes speaking of "EU laws". I am very hesitant here as this may either refer to "regulations" (which IMHO is close to law) but also to "directive", or "direction"; which do not refer to specific "laws". I would be very hesitant to use the word Law in this article and refer to one of the terms (regulation, directive, direction) whenever possible. Arnoutf (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, I think its perfectly normal to speak of "EU laws". The EU is a unique legal order, and there is "EU law"... Directives, Regulations and Decisions are EU laws. If you were to go into more specific detail as to what circumstances directives/regulations/decisions are used in, this article would be neverending. The fact is generally there will always be the option of using any of the 3, so I don't see how using the specific term is 1) possible, or 2) necessary. I'm guessing in particular you have a problem with the Freedom, Justice and Security section mentioning EU laws in the general way it does, but thats about the only part of the article where I could see any real issue arising. --Simonski (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note though, was just flicking through the recent edit history and I see what you mean, regarding the EEA countries. I think here "regulations" or "rules" certainly reads better for that particular sentence. Also, a bit concerned again that more Non-NPOV crap is coming through again. Solberg man I know you want Norway to join the EU but please don't start to let any bias creep into the content of the page. --Simonski (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It were indeed the recent edits that made me feel uncomfortable with the word law, I had no problems before. Arnoutf (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Sorry for recent absence from this page, haven't been on the net long enough to reengage properly. But anyway, I'm not sure about these new subsections in history. The section is rather small for them don't you think? Especially three. I don't think it does any favours to the layout (doesn't help better understanding and it should have an into to the three sections at the top) and the headers seem odd choices.- J Logan ^t: 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The names could of course be improved, and the periods altered, but I really think we should have subsections. The history section of this article is of course not very long compared to e.g. that of the USA, (which has subsections) but IMO the EU history section should be a bit longer. (The Treaty of Paris is for example not mentioned, and no word of Robert Schuman or Jean Monnet) I think dividing it into:

• Post-war ECSC
• The period after the Treaty of Rome with the three communities
• Establishment of the modern EU & the segnificant eastward enlargement

...makes sense. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think in principle there's anything wrong with the idea of subsections for history, though here as always comparisons with the USA page should be taken with a signficant pinch of salt (arguably more a full salt shaker's worth) and thus there seems little reason for the History section to increase in length on the main page. Expansion of it would have to be considered very carefully so as to stop any non-NPOV views coming in (ie. The Libson Treaty paves the way for further EU integration or the Lisbon Treaty represents the fact that the integration of Europe is reaching a saturation point). --Simonski (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not object to subsections for history per se; I think in this case JLogan has a good point (BTW not so absent as your comment was within 10 hours after the subdivision first was introduced, so quick catch;-). The section is not very long, and the subsections do not appear to add much to readability. Subsectioning is ok, if it ever grows overly long, but IMHO that is not (yet) the case here. (I also agree with the choice of subheader names, but that is of secondary importance compared to the issue use subheading or not). Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it adds to the readability. It's hard to debate the aesthetics about how long a history section should be, but right now on my 1024x768 screen, I think the three images, the three sub-headings and the 710 words, fit quite nicely together. If more text is preferred, I believe the subsections 'inspire' to additional writing, as opposed to having one massive bunch of text. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that ("If more text is preferred") is the main issue for discussion. There has been recent arguments against text with reference to the overall length of the article. Although I disagree with such an a-priori approach, I would advice caution in further expanding the article unless necessary. In that light I think it is not at all desirable to expand the history section from its current version for 2 reasons:

1) The history section already refers to the main History of the European Union aticle; so the information is available on Wiki, and can easily be found.

2) In my opinion the focus of this article is to describe the current EU, any historical section should be very brief, and only providing that information essential to understanding (I think the current text suffices).

If this line of argument is adopted, changes in structure of the history section inviting expansion of that text (as you state the subheading does) should be avoided. Only if we actually wish to expand history, subheading is a good thing in my opinion.

Readability improvements are not my primary concern; although very short sections do break the flow of the article and are disouraged somewhere in WP:MOS. However, even if subheading does improve readability, the heading titles need to be understandable, brief and to the point for the target audience. As this is basically the entry article for the EU, the target publc should include people who know nothing of the EU, or indeed Europe. IMHO the first two subheading (Pax Europea, The three Communities) are not easty to understand for people without any knowledge of the EU. The last (Reform and eastward enlargement) is not as to the point as it looks as it suggest (a) Reform happened first (which is ongoing), before Eastward enlargement (while e.g. Malta, Sweden are not really East). Also it suggests that this is about expansion and reform, while e.g. the Euro (not really reform IMHO) is also mentioned in this section. The alternative proposed by you are more to the point, but seriously lack briefness; so these are in my opinion also not good enough. Again, I think this is a minor issue, as the issue whether subdividing is a good idea, before going into the actual title, has to be solved first. Arnoutf (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me anyway Arnoutf. My stance would be it should just go back to the way it was without the subsections then. I have to admit even I was a bit confused with the Pax Europea one! It does make sense to say the intended work here really belongs in the History of the EU page, maybe better to concentrate your efforts there rather than the main page. I honestly didn't think the previous history section read badly, and going by recent months, I'm guessing others didn't/don't either. Would be interesting to get more views here anyway. --Simonski (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that the USA history is so long because they have more history than the EU. If you took any 50 years worth of US history on that page you'll find it would be much smaller than our section. If our history section becomes longer (which I think would be too much at this point), then subsections would be warranted, but not simply to encourage expansion. Perhaps we should concentrate on improving the EU history pages first? - J Logan ^t: 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And indeed compare to PRC#History which is about the same length without divisions and still has a slightly longer history than the EU.- J Logan ^t: 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguably even more relevant would be the length of history sections on the pages for other international organisations. The UN for example, with its incredible history behind it, has a similarly short section on its main page, with no sub sections. Same goes for almost all the other IOs, ie. the African Union, ASEAN (which has a longer section yet no subsections), NAFTA etc. Only the WTO page seems to have a longer, subsectioned history part. I don't think the EU page merits any different treatment here though from the majority of other pages we're talking about. --Simonski (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UC

Considering the current content size, I can´t support additional subsections. Though I´m not taking a hardcore stance on it. By the way, the Rome treaty is not explicitely mentioned in the fluent text.... all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stable so maybe...

You know, this has been rather stable of late. No one seems to have major complaints against anything so I reckon we have a good compromise. Maybe try for FA? Anyone object or want to bring up something else? Might not be perfect but we can see where it gets us - how it is judged externally that is.- J Logan ^t: 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We can always try. I don't see much changes (ie it is stable). With a Good Article review done, this seems the logical next step. If it is rejected the FA process will at least give us direction to take it further from here. Arnoutf (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we should try. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'sports' issue

Were the sports content sits, under what level 2 heading, needs to be sorted first, to achieve (or even ask for) an FA status with sport masquerading as culture will make the FA status and WP as a whole a travesty. Sport is simple not the same as culture, if it was (baring in mind that almost the whole world plays football) the whole world would be of one culture... SouthernElectric (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that I am not completely unsympathetic to your idea, but I disagree with you reasoning in your edit summarues because:

By making sports a subheading (i.e. a subset) of culture we imply that sports is one of many elements of culture, but that culture includes many, many elements (e.g. theatre, painting, music, etc etc) that are not part of sports. The way you put it in your edit summary follows this logically flawed argument: A penguin (cf. sports) is a bird (cf. culture); which implies every bird (all culture) is necessarily a penguin (sports).

In any case; all of this is a very minor issue considering the whole size and content of the article. If critisism comes up in FA I am confident we can deal with it there and then. Complaining about this minor issue in this unrelated topic comes across as irrelevant and spiteful. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

They might be equals (under some other heading) but neither are - or should be considered - a subset of the other, I think we might be getting confused between culture, sport and popular culture (which is really more to do with current social values), the latter is most certainly a subset of both culture and sport. SouthernElectric (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're over rating the importance of the sport section here, I doubt may people coming here would immediately see the sports section and go "this is a travesty!". Further more, I think we could do with some new ideas on the matter, if we put it for FA then we can see if the other FA reviews feel the same way about it, if they do they then would likely give suggestions and ideas on how to resolve it - rather than have us go round in circles again.

But really SE, do not engage another childish edit war again. It does your argument no justice.- J Logan ^t: 10:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest the following compromise;

• Lifestyle
  • Culture
  • Sport

I'm not looking for 'another edit war' (what ever you mean by that accusation), it's just that I can not accept placing sport under a culture heading (I have no problem with sport being on an equal level heading with culture), by doing so it is at least suggesting that sport = culture at best, at worst people may well regard that sport is culture - if that was the case most of the world would share the same 'culture' due to the fact that most people in the world play football at some level or another, not only that but sports such as football would be mentioned along side of the Age of Enlightenment, the Renaissance and Ancient Rome etc... SouthernElectric (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(restart indent) Your structure may work.

Let's try to summarise.

• Sports is not equal to Culture (i.e. it is not mutually exchangable in all situations).
• Sports and Culture may share an equal importance, they have an equal level of integration (but not equal content)
• Sports is not a subset of culture, as there are things in sport that are not culture (culture is not a subset of sports either).
• Both share things in popular culture, but both have things beyond popular culture. So popular culture is neither a relevant sub, not a relevant superset for both
• Both are part of lifestyle (SE suggestion). The issue is, do Sport and Culture have things beyond lifestyle? If this is the case (to some large extent) the solution will not be working; if we can't find these things, the structure might work. Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SE, edit war as in there have already been several changes back and fourth in a short space of time.

But regardless, lifestyle is fine for me. Though I do think Sport is a subset of Culture, it may have other aspects apart from culture but so do most things. Painting can be therapeutic, economical, decorative, industrial, scientific and so on. That is how I see and you have the way you see it, these things are not absolute truths so please don't talk in zero sum terms.- J Logan ^t: 12:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree going into set theory may be a bit Black and White on this issue, I did this in an effort to make the different opinions and their implications clear. Once we have an overall agreement we can back to the fuzzy borders. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just briefly to add, for what its worth, I really don't think a main section titled "Lifestyle" would fit well at all. I just can't imagine it ever being a heading in an encyclopedic article. As much as the sports section is pointless in my opinion (per the discussion all those months ago), if it is to stay in its current form I don't see there being a problem with it being under "Culture". Of course it could be debated whether sport is a matter of culture or not, but in my opinion its like six and half a dozen, it doesn't really make that much difference either way. --Simonski (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... From WP lifestyle, "In sociology, a lifestyle is the way a person lives. A lifestyle is a characteristic bundle of behaviors that makes sense to both others and oneself in a given time and place, including social relations, consumption, entertainment, and dress. The behaviors and practices within lifestyles are a mixture of habits, conventional ways of doing things, and reasoned actions. A lifestyle typically also reflects an individual's attitudes, values or worldview. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. For example, "green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller carbon footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities." SouthernElectric (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with your remark SE. That lifestyle would cover both sport and culture; or that it should have a place in an encyclopedic article. I think the last of these two was the doubt of Simonksi, while I think your response focusses on the first. I might be wrong, but that is what I understand from your texts. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting Lifestyle as a level two heading that both Culture and Sport (as level three headings) can happly sit under and co-exist. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But the point raised was whether that word was suitable as a heading in an encyclopaedia. Do you have a response to that? Or is that to be taken as a de facto opinion that it is not of sufficient relevance given the nature of the previous discussions and the likely outcome of the present line of thought if we were to add such further restrictions upon suggestions that are intended to break the impasse we face on this issue? If that is the case I am inclined to agree, even though it may not be ideally professional of us.- J Logan ^t: 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with the comment above re the meaning of sport and culture. Culture is definitely not part of sport, but I'm afraid sport is part of culture. The example above about football is apt if erroneous. i have no interest in football, so in a sense stand aside from the football culture, which has a lot more to do with going out and watching it, or talking about it, or rioting, than playing it. Yes, all those very different countries do share a common piece of culture in that the play and are fanatical about football. Culture is a wider issue than simply sport. Neither one of them should be a top level heading here, for the various other well rehearsed reasons we have gone into before. I have said before that I think the sections listed separately as religion, demographics and languages all belong in the same section with culture and sport. They are all social issues. I don't mind the use of culture and sport as headings on the same level in such a general section, but they don't belong on the top level because they are simply not sufficiently important to this article. Sandpiper (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If sport is a part of culture then we do not need the level three sport heading and the very existence of the sport content is un-questionable! Put it this way, most family practise doctors (at least in the UK) run their practises as businesses, would anyone dream of discussing medical issues under a Economics heading? - what I'm getting at is, whilst many subjects share aspects with another that alone doesn't make them bed-fellows. "Lifestyle" might not be the perfect level two heading (not top level, that's the article title!) but it's a far better heading than the current lie. Again, I'll repeat my suggestion that some people seem to be getting confused between culture and popular-culture, the two are not the same... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To Sandpiper. I disagree with your definition of "social issues". If you define it as broadly as you do, economics, law, etc are also social issues which would basically mean 90% of the article fits under that term. I think you agree that is not a good solution.

To SouthernElectric. Even if sports is part of culture it can benefit (and I argue it does benefit) from a level 3 heading. Just like "military and defence" having a (relevant) subheader under foreign relations.

Also SouthernElectric, the difference you suggest between culture (with which you seem to imply only high culture) compared to popular culture is not as widely accepted as you might think. Please consider that culture can (also) be defined as a supercategory that includes popular culture. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Popular-culture", "(High) Culture" and "Sport" all fit under what can be summed up as how people live, what they do with their lives, (ie. "Lifestyle") and yes the economics of the working week vs. leisure time or laws that prevent or permit certain types of leisure activity could be discussed in such a section - it just demonstrates how just about every subject interweaves with each other subject. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would further add, perhaps I am talking about high culture but that is the subject being discussed under the level two "Culture" heading, to which sport has been 'tacked on' because some people do not consider it can be placed elsewhere. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest would be an addition to popular culture and not sports. But no, lets not go there that is a European thing, not an EU thing ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Eurovision song contest can't be but what about the EU instigated "TWF" (Television without Frontiers) initiative and other media related regulations etc. could, but it's not really "Culture" per se - hence my wish to move way from having a "Culture" level two heading, there are many things that are not culture but share similar aspects. SouthernElectric (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets say that I'm prepared to accept the keeping of the level two culture heading, what do people think about the layout as found in the test that I have put on my sandbox. Basically the overview remains but mention of what could be classed as high culture has been placed under a level three "Cultural History" section, this then allows the "Sport" heading (and other subject headings) to follow on from the intro as another aspect of the broader subject that is Culture rather than being a day-facto 'subset' of all aspect of Culture - if you see what I'm getting at? SouthernElectric (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point; if I am correct you mean there should be at least one other subsection to show sports is only one of many possible subsets of culture.

I have two issues; both pragmatic. First, this approach will lengthen the overall article even more. Can we live with that? Second, I am not sure 'cultural history' is the best alternative. Pop-culture referring to modern music, or art maybe an alternative; or something more looking at specific examples such as western classical music (Bach, Beethoven etc) although we are getting dangerously close to the EU=Europe confusion. In any case the history section comes across as a bit small, it needs some work. If we can come to an agreement how to agree on these (as I said practical) issues I am happy to go with your suggestion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling that this debate is going to end up with the culture section getting extended, which I don't think is necessary/wise. SE surely the current state of the page layout isn't that problematic - I really don't see people coming to the page and gasping with shock at the fact that Sport comes under a main category of Culture. I think surely we have to be careful here not to open a can of worms, which by making some sort of distinction between types of culture in the EU, we may end up doing. --Simonski (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, you seem to be suggesting that you want this article locked, as you seem to be saying that there should be nothing more added?... SouthernElectric (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord, no more culture rubbish in here, the issue is the placing of sport under culture, this is a very small issue and we do not need to expand the whole fecking section just so we can agree on definitions. Can we leave the content there as is and just find a new title to cover both as equal level two headings. If people could just say their preferences, we straw poll it and go with whatever gets broad support. Any objections?- J Logan ^t: 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that was my first suggestion to sort this (hence the suggestion of "Lifestyle", I'm open to other suggestions though), someone objected, then I suggested that we add (in effect two lines, one with a level three heading and another that would be a blank 'carriage return' line (see my sandbox), except someone objected... SouthernElectric (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I was to be blunt, I would say the main reason for having a culture section is to immediately dismiss its importance to any main article about the EU. It is ridiculous to have a tiny section about agriculture (an incredibly important issue for the EU) and spend as many words on culture. That is hopelessly skewed. Perhaps we ought to have some figures here about how the budget is shared out? In fact, now I check, we spend a lot of space talking about economic issues but never mention the budget, its scale and how it is spent. Surely this is central information we are enirely missing?

No, I do not think we should have a subsection talking essentially about European history. Someone pass the garlic and holy water! And while I'm at it, and since my attention is drawn to it, is it really justified to be claiming European values are assumed to be grounded in this shared heritage, with a ref from the president of the european union. Hardly an unbiased source. This isn't so bad as the last paragraph of a fairly general section, but as a section by itself is just inviting people to explain better, add the counter position and on and on.Sandpiper (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we should just ditch the whole culture section complete with the contained sports section as the EU does even less in regards to sport than it does for (high) culture... Anyway, this article is never going to be, and I doubt anyone really thinks it should be, a means to cover all aspects of the institution that is the the European Union in depth, yes many sections could have their word count doubled or trebled in the blink of an eye but those who want greater detail of information can go on to read the sections subjects dedicated article - and if such an article doesn't exist then it should be created rather than expand this article. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point SE, that I was trying to warn that by opening the Culture box that you might be encouraging a certain number of editors to start trying to expand the Culture section by adding stuff similar to the Sports section. The Culture section is there just now, as far as I understood, only because of the compromise that was reached with Lear/SSJ/whoever else. I see the Culture section (particularly the sports section) as it currently is as being like a fragile leaky submarine which has been shored up. I think opening the culture debate here would be like removing one of the shores! That was my point.

The fact is that as Sandpiper pointed out, the section as it currently is pretty much just says "Some people say there is a European culture/EU approach to Sport... however the EU has little to do with Culture/Sport", and is pretty pointless in my opinion. But obviously its there as a compromise with the editors here who would argue for example that there is a common culture in Europe (probably the same people who like diverse coffee houses to be knocked down and replaced with Starbucks). I just don't get how "Lifestyle" is any better than "Culture". I honestly can't think of a better title for it than Culture. What is Sport under for other pages with Sport sections? --Simonski (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For me, both may go, but we all know the history. As we all agree they are a small issue for EU compared to countries, these sections are short in this article and cannot be stand alone; even if they are elsewhere. (let's not be nasty, knocking down coffee houses in the States and replacing them with Starbucks has been a service to humanity, whether we want real Italian Espresso bars to be stocked with Cinnamon-Ginger Large Lattes is another issue entirely  ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, from a glance at a few pages, Sport comes under the heading "culture" (for example, see France and Germany). As a totally new idea, perhaps we should use that?- J Logan ^t: 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but look at what else is under the said "Culture" headings and in the case of France how the section has been laid out, there is no introduction as such. This is the point I'm making, yes Culture is used as a level two heading in other country articles but it's also plainly clear that many independent subjects make up culture - this is simple not the case when there is only one sub section. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

edit comfort break

Goodness, unanimity to delete sport and culture? I think the France section on culture demonstrates exactly why it doesn't make sense to say anything much here. A whole page of info on each of French culture...German culture...Danish culture...how could any of that diverse stuff usefully be summarised here? I see the article on World doesn't have a culture section. Sandpiper (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The one for World would be Culture I'd think. Just as the politics of the world is International relations or Politics. That is because there is nothing to compare against, perhaps one should look instead at Africa#Culture (which also has a sports heading under it)?- J Logan ^t: 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?- J Logan ^t: 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can live with that, it does all that I feel is needed, it is also stable should additions / deletions occur. SouthernElectric (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems with that idea here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also say its a splendid idea. Again though it does highlight that the sports section really is unnecessary, but I digress! --Simonski (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put it in, if anyone objects please revert. If no one else is complaining though I think this is sorted then yes?- J Logan ^t: 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, there is a problem. The original varsion started with one sentence saying that the EU had little to do with culture. Next it went on to say it had become an EU competence... This gave the impression it was basiccaly nothing to do with the EU. The new version start with the same sentence, but then has some guff and the bit about becoming a competence has become the start of a new section. This entirely changes the meaning and rather implies the EU has become a very important factor in culture in Eu countries. This is surely nonsense, just from considering the figure given that there were 233 projects in one year. Tiny considering the number of countries and scope. There are probably more cultural institutions of one sort or anothe just in London. Why do you want to create subsections anyway? there isn't much text here to divide up. Sandpiper (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsections were (as far as I know) added to give Sports less of an exceptional place within culture. Note that 4 editors agreed before JLogan made the edit.

Placing the whole thing under demographics was not agreed on here. If that would be acceptable I would add sports as a level 3, not a level 4 heading. I is also consensus to keep education and research as a separate header. Why did you suddenly without discussing move them to a level 3 within development? I thought we were getting somewhere here by talking first-doing later. For that reason alone I reverted to JLogans version, please discuss before deciding on your own. Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arnotf. Logan specifically writes above that any objector should revert his change. My own reading of the discussion was that the consensus expressed just above here, which I commented on above, was that culture and sport should be deleted, not amended. The other changes have been discussed before,and it is not my recollection that the consensus was as you describe. My recollection was that either support or no objection dominated for my changes. Sandpiper (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed this above but, Sandpiper, what are you complaining about in J Logan's suggestion, the way the intro and culture sections are written or the concept of the level two and three headings? If the former all we need to do is a slight rewrite, if the latter we are make to square one :~( SouthernElectric (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I had two objections. one, that the text length doesn't need extra subsections, and creating a short one immediately invites people to expand on something which does not need expanding. Two, that the rearrangement somewhat changes the meaning. The revised version seemms to imply that although Culture previously had little to do with the EU, now it does. The previous arrangement implied that the EU has a minimal effect upon culture, which I believe is correct.

I think one of the reasons above for creating a new subsection was to make the sports one sit more happily. In fact, I think the rearrangement did the opposite. As the sole subsection it demonstrates that sport is a sub category of Culture and indeed the content is rather apart from the rest of the section. Whereas, having one section policy and one sport implies that 'sport' and 'policy' are topics of equal standing and both subsections of culture. In fact, if one insisted on having a subsection 'policy', I think it would be more accurate to have a sub sub section, 'sport' coming from it, as the main relevance of a sport section is as one example of EU cultural policy. Sandpiper (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't follow I'm afraid, I do not believe such a small reorder has such a great impact. Perhaps though, you might be able to find a way of rephrasing the reorder to fit with the point you're making? - J Logan ^t: 10:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why it was necessary to creat a new subsection? I don't go with southerns argument that the sports section under culture was a travesty (its not that bad). I agree with Arnoutf that having such a subsection over emphasises sport in an unreasonable way, but the solution to that is to delete the sports section entirely. If we have to have one, this was the least worst place to put one as things stand. Sandpiper (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean the addition of the sports subsection was highly unreasonable, only that I could see SE's argument as it does overemphasize sports. Personally I can live with it. Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper, could you at least come up with some compromise you and the others could accept? As your the sole objector right now.- J Logan ^t: 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you are asking. My view is that for the reasons I mentioned, re-structuring culture as suggested makes it worse, not better. The existence of a sports subsection is already a compromise, but it is not false information, its inclusion is an issue of relative importance compared to other stuff. I don't see how it makes matters better by creating additional subsections which aren't really justified. Sandpiper (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

I can't help noticing that the USA article contains an etymology section about the origin of the word 'America', the naming history of the country and who are called 'Americans'. The name 'European Union' is just as related to the word 'Europe', as 'United States of America' is to 'America'. Why shouldn't this article have the same thing? We could use Europa (mythology), the numerous names of the EU predecessor, as well as the denonym issue. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the denonym issue highly controversial though? I never really voiced my opinion at the time when Sandpiper brought it up but I personally wouldn't even have had a denonym = European in the infobox at the start, simply because I don't think when somebody speaks of Europeans they necessarily mean the EU (though I can live with it on the page and its not an issue worth causing an edit war over). I think an Etymology section would be unwise to include as it could prove to be highly contentious, and more generally, I just don't see it being necessary for the article. I don't think it belongs on the main page is what I mean. Some of these ideas are great for sub-pages, and could really improve project WP:EU but as far as the main page goes I think the info should be limited to what is useful and necessary. Again the comparisons with the USA page are not entirely helpful, in my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ssolbergj but I disagree, I don't think this is a good idea at all, for 2 reasons.

1) In common speech in many languages you say America, meaning the USA specifically. As far as I know the use if Europe for EU is far less common; therefore your comparison does not hold.

2) I think that specific etymology section on the USA page is not a very good feature of that page. It's style and sourcing is pretty weak. So I see no reason to copy that. Also the status of the USA article is GA, just like the EU article, so the current versions are of comparable quality (that does not mean we cannot profit from features on the other, but it does mean we should judge each of them separately on its merits).Arnoutf (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but although I support denonym (and might have even supported keeping "euro" in there - had most of the non-sport uses I found not been porn) I think etymology might be too far. While I do find in my experience European is increasingly being used for the EU, we haven't got that far generally speaking - it just isn't relevant yet. If there is more nationhood one day then maybe, for now - best keep it on the Europe page and link to it. But as Simonski says - rejected ideas here should be pursued on sub-pages rather than abandoned. For a start, maybe European symbols could do with a section on Europa and the bull (given the amount of statues of it that go up outside EU buildings).- J Logan ^t: 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just though I'd throw out ideas. Of course, I know the US page is not perfect. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New ideas always welcome; if we don't allow those the article would become stagnant. Thanks for putting it up on talk before starting to implement it. Nothing personal meant by the (perhaps harsh) citicism; it's always easier to critisise (harshly) then to come up with good new ideas. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

proposal for intro : loose confederation

It would replace "political and economic community" and "with supranational and intergovernmental features", this kind of detail would be transfered to the "Governance" section.The intro should keep it self simple and not try to explain the horrendous complexity of the inner workings.The term explain in just two words the EU,while the current wording lets readers confused.Alternatively "very loose confederation", but i think this last wording is an understatement.Every one agrees that the EU is complicated thingy,for pedagogical reasons/editorial the intro must keep it self simple and short.--88.82.47.6 (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe we can simplify the definition of the EU any further. IMO the actual description in the lead is not only factually correct, but also parsimonious and exhaustive at the same time. On the other hand, other encyclopedias have chosen simpler wording. Columbia Encyclopedia characterizes the EU as "an economic and political confederation of European nations", while Britannica describes it as an "international organization comprising 27 European countries and governing common economic, social, and security policies". I think Wikipedia's definition is the most precise one, though it really does not read well. Wouldn't we lose too much by adopting your proposal? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not supposed to be exhaustive,it supposed to give a quick and simple explanation,so that the reader not interested by the details ,can get what he wants without getting bored.The reader that wants more (what does he mean by loose confederation) can jump to the relevant section (governance i suppose),to get punished for his curiosity.So we don't lose anything,both types of reader are served.Plus in general,it's anti-pedagogical to give all the subtleties of a subject write away,you start simple and escalate gradually.The "professional encyclopedias" know what they are doing.--88.82.47.6 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

according to wikipedia article on confederation,from Oxford English Dictionary.It seems to me that the EU fit well in there.A confederation is a group of empowered states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution. Confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defense, foreign affairs, foreign trade, and a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A confederation, in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states --88.82.47.6 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:OR it does not matter much whether we believe the EU meets the criteria listed in the article confederation. Only reliable secondary sources do matter. I am not sure if there is consensus in the academic literature that the EU is actually a confederation. In most of the literature I know, the EU is described very much as it is in Wikipedia: as a partially supranational and partially intergovernmental organization, the only one of its kind. Maybe someone else here knows a significant body of literature arguing that the EU is a confederation? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, we should stick with the current one. I for one see it as a confederation but that is not the majority view, academically, publicly and so on - and hence we can not stick that in the introduction where it will probably be one of the few things people will remember from this article.- J Logan ^t: 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any change to the opening sentence for the reasons given by Andrzej above. In my opinion its fine as it is. --Simonski (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not perfect, but acceptable and accurate; I do not see that the proposals are an improvement, and would therefore stick with the current version. In any case I am very reluctant to use the word confederation (even it fits within the broader definition) because of the nation like connotations on the word. Arnoutf (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought the introduction is terrible. Mainly because it uses big words which I did not understand when I first met them on this page (and I got a degree mate, and top marks at english language). Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain things, not give readers riddles which they then have to go and look up further. A summary sentence which contains words people will not understand without further research is frankly useless. The EU does not seem to fit the definition given above for confederation, it has no central governement to speak of. It is false arguing to claim that our article should use technical words because other sources do. That is exactly the same reasoning as saying that if a source is written in greek, we should write this article in greek. We should not. we should translate into comprehensible english.

I would go with the Britannica definition, but I note both the other encyclopedias use unambiguous words meaning independent sovereign nations, rather than the 'states' used here, which is sometimes interpreted ambiguously as a non-sovereign part of a larger whole. This is not precise writing. I would suggest replacing 'states' with nations or countries. Supranational and intergovernmental need to be explained. Sandpiper (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agee the first line is very hard to read (although I am happy we lost the really technical sui-generis there):

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features, located primarily in Europe.

Perhaps it would improve if we split it into two

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The European Union has both supranational features being able to make directive which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members.

I kind of like the first line; but am not at all happy about my suggested second. But as a direction perhaps?

I would not use "nations" as that can be interpreted in a way implying the Scots, or the Catalan as its own nation (I think they are); while state would make it clear we are talking about the legal entity. A similar argument goes for countries where England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are countries in the state called United Kingdom. Formal, perhaps but we need to prevent problems there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, No, I would never say E W I and S are countries in the state called the UK. It would sound wrong and be wrong. It is possible to describe them individually as countries, but if a sentence is comparing them to the Uk as a whole, it has to make it clear that are in a sense subordinate parts. This is not my undrtsanding of the EU. It would appear the two encyclopedias mentioned agree with me, as do some of the references produced in the past here, that the EU, strictly, is subordinate to the member countries, not the other way about. Thus the importance of mentioning sovereignty or something similar, just a touch, as those other encyclopedias do. I would be happy with the third alternative, countries, replacing states. I used to consider the word 'state' as synonymous with 'country', but apparently it isn't.

Yes, I like your two sentence structure much better. I am happy mentioning supranational and intergovernmental if their meaning is immediately provided. (in fact I rather like it, I don't object to educating people, just to making life hard for them). Perhaps the re-statement of 'The Europen Union' would read better simply as 'it'.Sandpiper (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the country/state situation. In the case of the Netherlands the Netherlands Antilles are a "land" (lit county); part of the staat (lit. state) Kingdom of the Netherlands. Perhaps the legal stuff in the Dutch situation has coloured my perception of the whole. Anyway, I think the choice "country" / "state" will prove a detail once other people pitch in.

I think the second line of my suggestion is still a bit convoluted (to put in a difficult word ;-) and needs some work. As I made it up while I was writing I am happy if people change it fairly radically as a way to improvement. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy vs Economic policy

I have mentioned this before. The section in the article often titled 'economy' is not about the economy of the EU, but about 'economic policy' made by the EU. The article tagged as 'main article:economy of the EU' has virtually no content which is mentioned in this section. In fact, that article is also something of a misnomer. It mainly concerns itself with comparing the economies of each of the member states. This all rather demonstrates my position, that there is no such thing as the economy of the EU.

I have changed the section title to 'economic policy' because that is what the section is about. It never mentions the actual economy of the EU, whether real or imagined. Those of you out there interested in FAing please note that one of the GA reviewers complaints was that 'main article' tags were being used when the article mentioned really wasn't. I don't mean to be petty about this, but I'm not overly concerned about FA or GA or page ratings, yet I seem to know the (sometimes themselves somewhat petty) rules better than those who are interested in this. Sandpiper (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah the nitpicking has started; why do we need a FAC if we can make our own lives much more difficult than any FA reviewer will ever be able to. Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

well, 1) using titles which do not express what is in a section is bad page structuring, it just is. 2) People here who want FA etc need to understand better wht they are trying to achievce, and this is a good example of why they won't get it unless they try a bit harder. Sandpiper (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At 1). No it is n't bad structuring (implying the whole thing needs overhaul) it is just bad naming (which is far easier to solve). 2) I think most people are trying hard, but blunt (rather then bold) editing of many editors makes trying to maintain current level already very hard. If everybody was a bit more polite, respectful and patient on this page we might actually get somewhere. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So why have you changed 'economic policy' back to 'economy'? I am pleased you get my point, which was not that the section needs changing, just its title. I would also point out that the relatively stable structure of this article over the last month or so is not because everyone agrees it is just fine, but because they have politely refrained from changing things. However, we now seem to be entering a phase when people will resume editing to try to improve things. Sandpiper (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

After carefully re-checking it. I agree with you renaming. I meant to leave it your way (as may be seen in my edit summary), but made a mistake there. Although I should have been more careful, that is the risk you take by tinkering at more then one point of something as sensitive as the headings in one go. I restored it to economic policy and the see tag. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, were falling over each other editing. I note the difficulty with making more than one change at once, but it is equally difficult to revert parts of a long chain of edits done one by one. Thanks for changing it back. Sandpiper (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way you were correct with the education under development as well. I put that back. I cannot find agreement of putting Culture (including sports) under Demographics though. It has been discussed but I cannot find agreement on that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much which was it goes but I really don't see why you're nitpicking on this. It could be economy or policy, the single market and euro are both - so is most things. The fact the UK economy is mainly services is a fact of the economy and it is also a policy of an 80s lady I don't like much. (and leave a break before you reply, I've been trying to post this for ages!)- J Logan ^t: 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Should have taken a diner break anyway, may have been less grumpy... :-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that if the title is economy, I would expect it to describe the economy. How many steel miils, the impotance of daisy growing, trade with the USA, balance of payments deficit, trade tariffs, gross national income, inflation rate, bank rate...etc.... It does not mention any of those things. Instead what it talks about is rules which the EU has made about how trade will be conducted. The section describes rules about trade, not the nature of that trade. I think this is once again a throwback to the structure used by country articles, where the section titled economy really does talk about the economy. This section does not, because the EU has no economy in that sense. But even for those people who argue it does, it simply isn't discussed in this section. It isn't nitpicking, it is a mistake which people here have naturally fallen into from trying to make the standard country section fit the EU. Sandpiper (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read [3] to approach this century´s perspective on European Union´s Economy. The term Economy covers the single market, the monetary union, plus (essentially) covers the demanded content in its introduction para. No need to rephrase the section. Lear 21 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But that article seems to be mistaking the EU for a country, the "EU" (the institution) is not a country (yet...), it's like saying that "The economy of the UN is doing well" or "The world Bank is heading for recession"! Multinational-intergovernmental organisations do not have an economy - the member states do even those the multinational-intergovernmental organisation might make policy that it;s members follow (or not...). SouthernElectric (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that observation, any area, small or big, has its economy, the world has one, a town district has one, so why not the EU, which is not only an institution but also a territory? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not (yet) a territory, for example the EU is only an observer at the G8 or UN unlike the countries that make up the membership of the EU, what I'm saying is that whilst all the countries that belong to the UN or NATO have economies no one would start talking about the "Economy of the UN (or NATO)", at beast all we can say is "The EU area economy" - not exactly what section heading are made out of! As for people talking about the world, do people talk about the world economy (what do they compare it to...), they might well talk about world economic trends and the such but that is not the same surely? SouthernElectric (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a geographical area (no need to say "EU area", nobody uses that phrase as evybody understand that it is an area, not just a club, with a population, economic infrastructures and economic activities that can be described and measured. Everybody understand what is the EU economy, it is a very common appelation, no need to invent another by adding "area" unless you want to prove something. BTW, the world economy is also a common appelation. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add further statements here made later then the subheader break below as that will confuse the flow of the argument. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Arnoutf but I need to reply to the comment by Pgreenfinch. Nonsense! You say that "everybody understands", if so why are they reading the article?! The fact is, many people do not know, many people do honestly believe that the EU is a Federal entity (in fact some editors seem to think that, or at least have done), the purpose of this article (and WP) is to inform those who don't know. SouthernElectric (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on, federal or not federal has nothing to do with using or not the expression "EU economy". That expression is not only the most current one but also the right one, to censor it for far-fetched theorizations would be a POV attempt to mislead those who "don't know", by denying that the EU is an economic area (which is how it started by the way, under the name "European Common Market, and later "European Economic Community"). --Pgreenfinch (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the section in this article does not talk about the subject normally uderstood when someone talks about 'the EU economy'. It is departing from the normal understood meaning of the term to use it as the title here. Sandpiper (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic policy, Break for editing and recap

Let's step back in this discussion, and consider the following questions.

1. Is there such a thing as the Economy of the European Union. My personal opinion. Yes there is such a thing, it is about unemployment, GDP's, steel mills, etcetera. Actually all of the stuff provided in the article Economy of the European Union.
2. Does the economical section of this article deal with such economics, or is it more about economic policy? My answer would be. The current section (ie as it is written now), deals with economical policy rather than economy.
3. A section dealing with economical policy can be labelled economy to fit with country structure. I disagree, if it is about the policy, we should label it as such.
4. The section should be rewritten to fit the label "economy" rahter then relabelling the section to "Economic policy" (ie the content rather than the title is wrong). Personally I disagree. Have a look at the Economy of the European Union and see how heterogenuous the economy of the EU is. That is still no more than the sum of the economies of the member states. The economic policies however is in my opinion where the EU is a single entity.

Considering all this, I would suggest to leave the content of the section as it is now; and keep it relabeled as "economic policy" (with a further reading tag to the economy article). Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is one area the EU can be labeled a unified entity or at least achieved a high degree of coherence, than its the ECONOMY ! There is no need start listing Hundreds of arguments to support this thesis. The main section´s first paragraph alone justifies the term Economy. The single market and the monetary union are as well core elements of the ECONOMY as a whole. Certainly the subsection Competition does not fit very well in this context. It is merely one out of many policy areas arbitrarily chosen and can be considered as too specific. It should be removed. Lear 21 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the single market and monetary union only created the single trading area and the Euro zone area, it did not combine member states into a single economic area - that will only come when/if the EU becomes the USoE and thus, the (institution of the) EU can only make policy (that then has to be enacted by each member state). SouthernElectric (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the endless list of references[4] and understand why the term is justified. Lear 21 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please deal in fact rather than journalists POV's. If you are correct you will have no problem citing the relevant EU document that created the 'single economic area. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just on if the EU has an economy or not, of course it does. There is a single market with accompanying regulations, currency, bank, fre transfers, free movement and governance. To say it is just the collection of the member states - well everything is, you could say the UK is the sum of the economies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (although granted some people do not consider there to be an economy beyond London). The World Bank and UN isn't an economy because the economies they are composed of are not integrated nor notable as group to say ("the World Bank is...."). Anyway though, the whole section is not all policy though, the main para lists data on trade balance and GDP etc, that can't be called policy. - J Logan ^t: 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are correct it means that the EU is a Federal entity! Try this, the WTO creates economic policy, it has no 'economy' of it's own, it's members do though and when we talk about economics within a WTO context we are talking about what has happened to it's member states and not that of a office block in Geneva - that same is true of the EU. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3. and the last time [5]  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lear 21 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lear, as you'll hopefully have learnt with the whole CIA article/Sports debate, just posting the same source over and over and not trying to win the other side over in any other way is not particularly helpful. For what its worth though, I don't think here again the wording is particularly troublesome or anything.. as somebody pointed out above, you hear economists/people speak of "the global economy" do you not? To an extent I see what you're saying SE though. I could be convinced either way here I think. --Simonski (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually although I stated otherwise in my recap above, I am also not completely sure about economy/policy. If the case is made convincingly (where exclamation marks and 4 reversions within 24 hours are negative arguments); I might be persuaded, although if we adopt "economy" as title I would suggest swapping the first two lines:

Economic policy framing (current): The EU operates a single economic market[94] across the territory of all its members and uses a single currency between the 15 members[95] of the eurozone. Considered as a single economy, the EU has a nominal gross domestic product of (US$16.6 trillion) [2] (in 2007) amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output[2] It is also the largest exporter,[96] the second largest importer[97] and the biggest trading partner to many countries including very large markets such as India[98] and is one of the top trade partners for many others such as China.[99]

Economy framing (altenative) Considered as a single economy, the EU has a nominal gross domestic product of (US$16.6 trillion) [2] (in 2007) amounting to 31% of the world's total economic output[2] It is also the largest exporter,[96] the second largest importer[97] and the biggest trading partner to many countries including very large markets such as India[98] and is one of the top trade partners for many others such as China.[99]. The EU operates a single economic market[94] across the territory of all its members and uses a single currency between the 15 members[95] of the eurozone.

Does this make sense? Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

@Simonski: I learnt that certain editors are incapable of dealing with facts, arguments and references. That´s why I have provided not ONE source, but rather a list containing Hundreds of references. Lear 21 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your list is that it only shows that the phrase is used (that is the fact your list proves), but it does not provide an argument that there is officially a thing EU-economy captured within the accepted definitions of economy (that may perhaps be derived from the observation that the term is used in all these articels; but that derivation is original research and is therefore an invalid source). Indeed this is an argument made many times before; and it is you (Lear21) who has trouble distinguishing between these interpretations of the sources. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We do it vice versa now: If there are not at least 3 editors who clearly take a stance for a rephrasing including an extended rationale, there won´t be even a start of a discussion. The stupidity and nonsense theorizing has already gone to far. The term Economy is a standard expression covering exactly the mentioned content in this article. Lear 21 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right, such attempts at intellectualism are killing wikipedia, an encyclopedia which normally should be made for normal readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To Lear, obviously one thing you didn't learn is the difference between opinion and fact. Arnoutf made a good point about the usefulness (or lack of) of the link you kept providing. Either way, if SE feels that strongly about it, and if he has at least one other person supporting him here, he's in much of the same position as you were all that time ago regarding the sports section. Disregarding his arguments as 'stupidity and nonsense' isn't going to help anything, for the love of Gawd how can you not realise that? SE you will have to convince me though here, why if you can speak of 'the global economy' can't you speak of the EU economy? Just because the section is headed 'Economy', I don't think it necessarily infers that the EU is fully integrated economically (though there has been significant economic integration in the EU obviously). --Simonski (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

@Lear21, you are simply not in a position to make demands like "We do it vice versa now: If there are not at least 3 editors who clearly take a stance for a rephrasing including an extended rationale, there won´t be even a start of a discussion.". That statement goes against the core idea of Wiki; and basically means the article should be fixed in the current state forever and would be an extension of WP:OWN to talk pages.

@Pgreenfinch: The 'attempts' at intellectualism at this talk page are essential because, and that is core Wiki policy, the text in articles should be based on a sound argumentation. That does not mean the scientific reasoning needs to show on the article, only that it is done in the background. If we leave that guideline we could as well skip the whole verifiability thing at all and write a nice article about how elves and magicians rule the wonderful lands of the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the gnomes of zurich are not members, being in switzerland. Lear, firstly your references are not endless as you say, google only found 2020 of them. Looking at them I see they are indeed talking about the correct and general meaning of the word 'economy', exactly as it is used in the article France#Economy, or Germany#Economy, or Spain#Economy, to mention just the first three countries I chose from the list in economy of the EU. None of these sections talks about 'economic policy'. they all talk about statistics relating to trade in the country concerned. That is why they have the title 'economy', in the sense in which it is normally used and used by the goggle references. In this article, the section in question talks about rules governing trade, economic policy. If you must, we could create a new subsection 'economy' and place in it the general statistics about the economy which are simply in the economic policy introductory paragraph at present. I am still wondering where we should place the information about the EU budget, currently missing from this article. Sandpiper (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last point, under "Governance", as that is exactly what a budget is, finance that allows the "EU" (or any national state government) to function. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

World economy, Bavarian economy, EU economy, Antarctic economy... it's all good to refer to economies on other levels then nationally. Remember that the word economy originally referred to the management of a single household. In that sense, most of us are running our own personal micro-economies. This discussion is so bloody pointless, this subject seems to draw a lot of those. --Bjarki (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So just how many angels can sit on the head of a pin? The discussion is not pointless. In reality, it is a re-hash of the ongoing argument of whether the EU is a country or an international organisation. International organisations do not have economies. It is not acceptable in an encyclopedia to mis-describe something as what it is not. If this section had been about the economy, even as an abstract discussion of the area concerned (as you say, it is possible to talk about the economy of any arbitrary region), then I would not be complaining. But it talks about rules, not figures, so it is not the topic discussed in country articles and described as 'economy'. Since you mention it, I would suggest you read World economy article. It talks about money and trade balances, growth rates, statistics. If you look at Economy of the European Union, you will see it also talks about statistics, and in particular compares the statistics for each of the member countries. It hardly discusses them as an integrated whole at all. User:Sandpiper

At the same time though man, surely the fact that there is an 'Economy of the EU' page and you're not disputing its name, pretty much begs the question why its not alright to have the simple 'Economy' heading for the main page as well? --Simonski (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed another in the series country of international organisation (the confederation discussion see below is another example).

If you look at that economy of the European Union page you will notice that a large part of it gives an overview of the economical descriptions of the separate countries; sometimes given cumulated EU numbers. The content of this (EU main) page) hardly provides such number (while the economy of the EU page hardly deals with the policies). For me that is an argument to distinguish between the two (ie policy and economy), but as said before I can be convinced otherwise. Arnoutf (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto per Simonski, we use the phrase Economy of the European Union for that page and it is widely used regardless. If there is not so much economic data on this page - maybe it is something we should have? We already have some, just a bit more? I don't know, but I find this the height of pointlessness. When this goes for FA they better give us two of them.- J Logan ^t: 10:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But in fact this page does already have most of the EU statistics on the economy of the EU page. That is the other point, that most of that page compares and contrasts those statistics for member states. I don't think we want that here? That page is not misnamed because it does discuss the economies of EU members, collectively and separately, talking about figures not policies. Having looked at some of the country articles I would judge that it could benefit from more discussion about what industries are important and why, but expanding it is another separate can of worms. Sandpiper (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal System

Evidently I missed a couple of minor edits to the section which are debatable. Firstly, somebody has edited the supremacy point slightly, so that it now reads "National courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them, as provided for in national legislation when each country joins the EU". That is only true for Dualist systems, like the UK's. In Monist systems, like the Netherlands, no national legislation is required as international law = domestic law by default. This sentence therefore needs changing/removing.

Secondly, somebody has changed the bit on legislating, so that it now reads "A common feature of the EU's legislative procedures, however, is that almost all legislation must be proposed by the Commission, rather than member states or European parliamentarians". What it fails to clarify however is that the Commission can propose all it wants, but at the end of the day, and I'm quoting from the source referenced for the above statement, "but it is the Council and Parliament that pass the laws. Other institutions and bodies also have roles to play." I would say that whoever has edited the above statement in italics has done so in a way to make it seem like the Commission has more power than it does, and the Member States/Council less in this respect. Which is wrong, in this respect. If nobody has anything to add here I'll fix them both later. --Simonski (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right it should be fixed. I recall these changes starting when some confusion about the different types of EU regulation were discussed. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you think is wrong with the first statement. I presume the Netherlands passed some law when they joined the EU which made the EU law part of NL law? Isn't that what the sentence says? Surely NL courts then make rulings if anyone has a complaint under these laws?

As to the second point, I'm not quite sure what the procedures are, but it looks as though it might need an extra final sentence in that para saying something like "In either case legislation must be agreed by the council ? Sandpiper (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the first point, nope, thats what I was trying to point out ages ago when we had the Supremacy discussion. Monist systems, such as the Netherlands do not need implementing national legislation. Whatever international treaties are signed up to in the Netherlands have direct effect immediately, in the sense that international law is normatively placed higher than national law provisions. Its why Supremacy wasn't such a foreign concept to them and a couple of other Member States. Have a look here for further explanation (though to be honest the article on Monism/Dualism needs serious work - for example the claim there that the USA is a monist system is laughable) - Monism and dualism in international law. Get what I mean? The UK is an example of a dualist system, as is Germany, where international treaties are implemented via national law. --Simonski (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the act of signing or ratifying a treaty automatically makes a new law. How is this not as provided for in national legislation when each country joins the EU. That seems to me exactly what happens. The phrase doesn't say a new act of parliament is passed, or a treaty is signed, or the official town cryer reads it from the steps of the throne and its done. It just says it is provided for, and it is. The wording doesn't explain how the thing is done, it just says it has to be done somehow, which is really why I liked it. Perhaps we might change 'in' to 'by'? I don't know if that would help your objections at all? Sandpiper (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't "provided for in/by national legislation" in every Member State. That is my point, that there are those Member States with monist systems, such as the Dutch, which do not require national legislation here as a Treaty when its signed/ratified = Dutch national law without any national law needing to be passed to give it effect. Yes, you could nitpick and say the sentence is correct because the international treaty, when it is signed by the Dutch, becomes national legislation, but I think the first sentence is misleading, and seems to give the impression that every Member State is like the UK in having an European Communities Act equivalent, which is just not the case! Make sense now? --Simonski (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone content with the proposed fix for the other problem? I didn't put it in because I wasn't sure it was factually correct. As to the seemingly contentious one, I think it amounts to you saying that you want to add a bit explaining that some countries use specific acts of parliament to pass the enabling legislation, while others simply sign a treaty and it happens automatically. Yes, I agree the current version glosses over this distinction, I think it was intended to on the grounds that this is meant to be a summary, not the last word which presumably belongs in 'law of the EU'. I wouldn't be surprised if anyone reading it would automatically thing of the example of their own country, however it works there. Is this detail about the enabling legislation important enough to have an extra sentence explaining it? (Oh, like the ref) Sandpiper (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is - have a look at the way I've changed the sentence now so that it reads: National courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them, as membership of the organisation obliges them to do so. That should surely be enough. The way it previously read I'm afraid read only correctly from certain member states point of view. I think the way it now reads its sufficient, without having to go into further detail. You can't have this article after all only describing things from the point of view of certain member states, even if this is the English language version.

On the second point, I had a look at the changes you made and I wouldn't have a problem with them I guess, though I was not 100% sure that the Council took every final decision. I had imagined for example (its been a long time since I covered the decision-making procedures in detail) that the EU had been set up to deal with some situations more efficiently, ie. by not having to have the Council have the final say on everything, particularly where it is really minor issues. I could easily be wrong, but its why I hesitated from saying 'always'. The reference from the EU page after all says 'generally' rather than 'always'. The reason I had added in that sentence after the point about the Commission however as I felt it had been written to try and make a point like 'the Commission has more power here than the Member States' which was wholly inaccurate. As long as from that sentence it is clear that it is the Council that generally makes the final decision and not the Commission, I'm fine with it. --Simonski (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Grr, I try to read refs, but they can certainly be misleading. I read through the ref you found, which i rather liked and looked at some of the sub page flow diagrams about decisions. I was left with the impression that the council is always consulted and always has to agree (unlike the parliament), but I only know this from reading that source. I don't know why they say 'in general...', but the three possible cases they give all have the coucil having a veto. Is it possible for someone other than the commission to propose legislation (thus making the sentence 'in general')? My objection to your version was mostly stylistic, not content, because I thought your added sentence was going over some of the same material again. I thought, one sentence says what say the parliament has, one says what say the council has. Sorry I can't easily explain exactly why I wasn't entirely happy with it. I have styslistic objections to your rewrite of the other bit, because your sentence claims that national courts are members of the EU. No, states are members, and they generally have courts. I'm sorry to nit-pick, but its the sort of thing which irritates the hell out of precisionists like me (hence also my arguing about titles which do not fit section contents, logical order of presentation, and so on). But I do think that sort of copyedit issue is important, otherwise people will sneer at wiki. Sandpiper (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who found the ref but it wasn't me, though obviously since its coming from the EU site itself I can't think of anywhere better. I can't say though about the council, I'll have a look around and if I ever come up with anything else I'll bring it up but for the moment I guess we can just leave it with the council having the last say all the time then. I'm still not 100% sure thats the case, like we've both pointed out, the word 'generally' seems to confuse matters. At the same time, maybe we should go with the wording of the ref.

As to the first point, as far as the EU goes (and arguably internationa law as a whole), the executive-the legislature-the judiciary= the state. When you speak of a state you speak of it as a whole legally. In the case of Kobler before the ECJ, the idea that supreme courts can be liable for not carrying out their EU obligations was established. It was based on the concept that the state is all its parts. If a national court does not refer a case to the ECJ where it should do, that national court is in breach of EU law and there can be damages against it. I think therefore surely the sentence does reflect how the situation is. --Simonski (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but as a point of english grammar, the subordinate clause refers back to the subject mentioned at the start of the sentence, and it does not make sense to say a court is a member of the EU. This is not written for lawyers (at least I hope not, surely they know this stuff??? Oh god, they're not using wiki to learn law now, are they, instead of reaching for the dusty books? And we'll be getting complaints because someone lost because we got it wrong?????) Sandpiper (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If they ever did rely on Wikipedia for learning about law, they deserve to fail. But alright, I get your point, its not so clear to others perhaps. How about expanding it beyond just courts then and saying: Member States are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them in their national legal systems, as membership of the organisation obliges them to do so --Simonski (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Member states are required as a condition of membership to enforce the EU treaties and any laws enacted under them, in their national legal systems? Member states are required to enforce the EU treaties and any laws enacted under them in their national legal systems, as a condition of membership?

I'm not quite happy about the wording, as per my further two possibilities. If I had my copyediting hat on, i would point out that the meaning of your new sentence is different to the original one. The original one says (or was meant to say) that some change happened to their legal systems at the point of joining. This one leaves it open to just doing things as they go along and changing nothing when they join. I think that is wrong, there was a fundamental change to their legal systems at the point of joining, which their courts then pick up contraventions against as they arise. Your version no longer involves action by the courts, but instead implies to me that their governments take action against contraventions. Both are basically true, but they are saying different things. I thought the points to be got across were that national courts enforce the EU legislation automatically as a result of a legal change which took place at the point of joining. Sandpiper (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Sandpiper (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess to not being 100% happy with it myself, but I was happiest with "National courts are required to enforce the EU treaties and the laws enacted under them, as membership of the organisation obliges them to do so.", because honestly its just factually correct and you could nitpick around it much the same way you could nitpick almost any other sentence in the article. I really think we should go for that one instead. National courts are members of the EU too after all. The reason the sentence was changed was because you were claiming they werent strictly or something. If the new points were true though then what difference does it make??? --Simonski (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Legislation section claims that all of the legal instruments mentioned there require the Council's "approval". Decisions do not always need any involvement of the Council. Look to, for example, the Commission's considerable powers to take Decisions in the competition sphere. The system of comitology at large in the EU also introduces delegated legislation via the regulatory/management procedures 81.102.48.92 (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

editorial proposal for intro :use of the term "loose confederation" or "very loose confederation" or "extremly loose" or "very very loose" or ....

This is not OR.This is an editorial decision, everyone agrees that the inner workings of the EU are very convolueted, a result of endless compromises.An intro must be simple,this is editorial etiquet,in quantum physics we have"In physics, quantum mechanics is the study of the relationship between energy quanta (radiation) and matter,in particular that between valence shell electrons and photons.",this is quite hem according to my standards on the issue, but i understand that theirs no point about talking about hilbert spaces,eigenvalues,operators,partial differential equations,particul-wave duality in the introduction.The intro is,oversimplifying for editorial reasons.For the same reason,it's bad etiquet not to simplify the description.The other "professional" encyclopedias know this very whell,that's why they put theirs simplified explanation in ther intros,they know what they are doing,it's not out of incompetence.The intro manages to be inferior by trying to be fuller.

Some reminders for however answers.This is an editorial decision,not OR,in the same way that Q.P. intro is an editorial decision,not OR,strictly speaking QP intro is shit.Example "european economy" or "european economic policy".I remind you,that in a confederation the states are considered independent,it's a special case of a international organization,in the EU ther is a common foreign affairs and common security policy...... the decisions just have to be taken by unanimity(that's why you rarely hear of them but they exist).The EU has no "army",yes,but each country has it's won "militia",to use familiar terminologies with some editors.If i'm not mistaken,if the EU "decides" to take a military action (by unanimity :)),the whay i understand it is that afterwards it's binding on the members.The european council is the upper house of the european legislature ,not a forum of european ministers,a feature directly copied from the german federal system(=bundesrat),yes in germany,the peopol governing the landers and the peopol voting in the federal upper house are ....... the same.I'm saying this because many consider that because mister brown or merkel or sarkozy,in real term vote in the european council,that it doen't qualify as a federal structure,but as an international organization,in that sence the bundesrat is a "international organizations" travesty inside the federal system of Germany.At my knowledge this is unique in the hol word.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed here after you (or someone using your IP address) raised the same issue two days ago. SouthernElectric (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed,don't attempt to scare people away,i was absent and now it's too beried to atrack peopol in the debate.And it's not the same.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea was discussed (and has been discussed several times) by a large number of editors and most completely disagreed with your suggestion. The chances of achieving consensus on your proposal is incredibly unlikely, and the current status of the introductory sentence reflects a long-drawn out compromise. Read above for the reasons why your idea is not a good one. Writing 'loose confederation'/'confederation' would instantly lead this page to be tagged as possibly non-NPOV, as its clearly a personal point of view, and not one shared by all. --Simonski (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in the table of content and it was discussed, you or somneone using your IP address made numourous replies - see here. SouthernElectric (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not true.I ansered only two times,two times in a row,that realy counts as one.It wasn't discussed i left too almost right away and then it was beried.Lets discuss it one more time ,it's not set in stone.This is not POV,read all my arguments.I strogly doute that the argument was set in this way.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was discussing the introduction, yes I agree it is terrible and Arnoutf and I are still discussing above how to improve it. If no objections are lodged, I suspect we will implement it in the near future. We seem to agree that a slight amendment explaining supranational and intergovernmental as we go along would help. As to whether it is a federal state, my own conclusion was basically that if the members say it is not, then it is not. But also, strictly, the countries have the final say in everything and the central organisation has no authority to change anything. That seems to be the difference. Sandpiper (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you peopol do it in purposse.Why do you argue if it's a federal state or not,clearly it's not.The question is not what it is but what to put in the intro,it's clearly different things.In a confederation by definition,it's the states that have the final say,so you didn't argue any thing,please read all my arguments at the top of the section,they are quite different then the last time.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to show that "loose confederation" it's not a bad simplification.After you read the article of Bundesrat of Germany,do you classify the council as an intergovernmental body,or a federal one?the bundesrat is the almost exact duplicate of the council,is the bundesrat a intergovernmental body?--88.82.47.38 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a sidepoint, because I'm (sadly) doing EU Citizenship at the moment, I'm reading articles/journals which actually describe the EU in a way similar to the start of this article. I've never once read 'loose confederation' used. It might be, because its not an accurate term to use for the current state of the EU. Just a thought. I'm starting to wonder if this is a wind-up actually (ie. the spelling, wtf). Your claims are by default POV as they're your opinion, however you dress it up. You'll need to find sources calling the EU a loose confederation for a start (and then have to convince us that those sources are more convincing/useful than the others that disagree).

Also, The Bundesrat an almost exact duplicate of the European Council? Is that what you're seriously saying? The European Council is made up of 27 Independent nation states... so in effect you're saying its a loose confederation of independent nation states. Isn't that paradoxical? I don't think you're going to sway anybody's opinion here unfortunately. I still actually prefer the current introduction. Wow, so it might confuse people, but its legally accurate. If they want to make Wikipedia for Dummies, we can change it there, but for as long as this is an encyclopedia, the current intro is surely fine. --Simonski (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how the hell are we going to deal with this issue. Its too contentious. I really think that the current intro satisfies all sides of the argument. We are (though I can't speak for everybody) not in a position to accurately define what the EU is when there is not even consensus within the EU about what it is (hell even in academia - one academic will come out with the statement 'the EU is to a large degree a state', whilst another will come out and say 'the Member States remain completely sovereign and independent over the majority of key issues'. If they can't agree, how can a bunch of Wikipedia editors) Anybody have any ideas? I really thought the intro as it is was fine in that it didn't really attempt to address the issue fully. Loose confederation, with all due respect, is not a good suggestion for a replacement however. I have to say now I would oppose strongly this idea. --Simonski (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For the bundesrat=council, i ment to show that the concil is federal in nature,not how strong the central goverment is.Imagine that instead of the senat,every governor of all american states had one vote in the senat.Does this mean that the USA is less of a federation?It would still be a federetion.I whant too show that loose confederation ,or extremly loose confederation,or very very loose confederation,or whatever you whant to say it, is a good aproximation for the introduction.The issue is to have a good aproximation for editorial/pedagogical reason, so i'm saying that sources are not needed,this is not content,it's just the wording of the introduction,that by good etiquet should be simple,and push the explanation in a relevent section,for example the intro of quantum physics is laghable,but should not be changed."legally accurate",all lowers i asked told me (after some thought) that the EU really was a confederation. --88.82.47.38 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But do people understand what the word 'confederation' means? If you want to change the intro, I think you need to state more clearly exactly how you would wish to reword it. (Incidentally, it seems to have changed at some point in the fairly recent past) Sandpiper (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong, I do believe the term "confederation" is quite an accurate description of what the EU currently is. But this view does not seem to be shared by most of the literature on the EU. As far as I know, most scholars argue that the EU is only one of its kind because of how it combines intergovernmental and supranational elements. Although opinions range from "just another IGO" to a new federation in a period of consolidation, this appears to be the most widespread view in the literature I know. 88.82.47.38, could you please cite any influential sources defining the EU as a confederation? Without them, this discussion somewhat lacks substance. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well my arguments are as follows,the intro must be simple for editorial reasons,i think that something about it is said in the editorial guidelines,or what ever they are coaled.Thus it's not a OR since we acknowledge(in the intro) that it's not "the real reality",we never claim it to be true and that we are doing a simplification.Quantum physics intro is a example of this trend,or the EU in some other encyclopedias.Something like "The EU is complicated stuff but if it's seen as a loose confederation,it's an approximation".Currently,the intro reads like math.--88.82.47.38 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

With simple I agree. However as we all agree the EU is a complex thing, there is a fine line between being accurate and overly complex, and simple and not correct enough. Personally I think that the connotation of a "state" that surround the word confederation push it beyond the acceptable correct level. Also this (implicit) connotation makes the word (which looks a simple single word) a very complex construct, that may raise more problems in understanding then longer more precise phrases. (although I agree the whole supranational wording is unnecessarily complex as well). Arnoutf (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Confederation is kind of close, however it is oversimplification of the issues and would mislead - particularly as there is no real set definition of confederation and is used at random for different things. The EU has never, to my knowledge, been described as such. I for one would describe the UK as a Presidential Republic with a national ribbon cutting service, I think that is more accurate but its never described as such and is a gross simplification. No, we have discussed the intro over and over, you might want to go through the archives and see the arguments there first.- J Logan ^t: 10:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there we get into difficulties because there is a huge vested interest creating literature describing it as a parliamentary monarchy. Nonetheless we should not use the words something uses to describe itself unless those words normal meaning suits the reality. I do not agree we cannot use the word confederation simply because most technical references use different ones. Part of our job is to translate out of jargonese, and this is essential to writing wiki. People often forget that what is normally considered original research is essential to write any encyclopedia. In this case, I have similar potential objections to confederation as to intergovernmental and supranational. yes, I do and did understand these words general meaning, but I did not understand their meaning when used here in the intro to describe the EU. Any rewording has to make sense to the average person with no legal/political background. The first paragraph ought just by itself to make sense and give a good, quick, simple, explanation of what it is. Sandpiper (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. We should translate "supranational" and "intergovernmental" into English instead of redefining the EU as a "loose confederation". What I mean is something like: "...is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. It is governed partially by its own supranational institutions (such as the EU's supreme court) and partially by the governments of its sovereign member states." Of course, the sentence describing what "supranational" and "intergovernmental" mean should be less awkward than mine and it may be placed elsewhere in the lead. But I think this is the best direction towards accuracy combined with understanding. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support something like that (see my own suggestion a little higher). I was also struggling with the second line, that will need some deliberation to get it right. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer Andrzej's idea too here. Either way as long as its not just dummed down so people can understand it when the current (or the description that was there like last month but seems to have been altered slightly) version is accurate. --Simonski (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the wording proposed by Arnoutf in another thread: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The European Union has both supranational features being able to make directive which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members." But I am afraid many readers would not understand what exactly the part "supranational features being able to make directive which are binding to its members" means. I also believe any reference to supranationalism should make clear that an organ independent from sovereign nation-states makes decisions binding to these states. Moreover, the word "directive" might be mistaken for Directive (European Union). Dependence "on agreement between the different members" should be presented as significant yet not absolute (e.g. decisions by ECJ and ECB). Here is my update that hopefully addresses these issues: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. Depending to great extent on agreement between members, it shares intergovernmental features with other international organizations. But the European Union also has its own independent supranational bodies, able to make decisions binding to sovereign member states." Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good start, althoug I would try to trim down the second part a bit: something in the direction of this might work? "Its functioning depends largely on agreement between members, an intergovernmental feature it shares with most international organizations. The European Union also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions binding to member states." Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your new version sounds perfect to me. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the introduction is not the place to elaborate the question "how the EU institutional body is working" while using "meta-political theory" definitions and further explain them. The introduction gives an overview to the article and includes the most significant activities of the EU. That is already the case. The current version and its content is stable, readable and sufficiently comprehensive. "Things should be simple but not simpler" - The opposite is true as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.101.141 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Right direction but I'm not sure about "largely on agreement between members", the majority of issues are covered by the Community and its supranational methods/institutions, not the intergovernmental method.- J Logan ^t: 09:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There is no single answer to the question how intergovernmental the Union is. Not so much in everyday agenda, but quite a bit in principal questions. So, let us replace "largely" by a more neutral word, such as "partially" or "to some degree". Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you ignored the separation below.Intergouvermentalism is just a dessision-making method,it doesn't, tell anything about how strong the union is.The current proposal,and current wording just propagates the misunderstanding.The example with Germany shows that intergouvermenatalim is not mutually exclusive with federalism.The current "bug" with the intergouvermental council voting legislation,will very probably survive well after federalization of the EU.So either you add the explanation on the intergouvermental method of desision making,either you avoid the issue by removing it al togather.It is a fact that peopol doing the amalgam intergouvermental=international organization like UN and supranational=country.How are you going to account for that in the intro and staying simple at the same time?--88.82.32.84 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction revision comfort break

I've had a look at the intro. I think the current first para needs breaking to remove the history stuff into a separate para. The remaining stuff defining the EU should make the first para by itself. I think we will continue arguing about exactly how to word it, but I'm going to be bold and separate off the history para right now. The intergovernmental bit seems to have been shoved to the end of the para where it doesn't really make sense. I shall rescue it from there and insert Arnoutfs proposal (more or less, for the time being, which I think is closest to the current. We can then argue about exactly how to phrase the second sentence (the first seems reasonably accepted).Sandpiper (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, on looking at the old second para I see it talks about exactly what the eU does. My view is that the supranational etc bit best belongs after the explanation of the sort of things it does, so I have place it at the end of the second para. This gives us a one sentence simple definition opening para, and a second longer one giving a bit more detail. I thing the legal theory explanation of it being supranationl etc is better placed after the practical explanation of what it does. Sandpiper

Andrzej, I don't think it matters whether people understand the word directive in its ordinary sense, or take it to mean EU directives. Either would be appropriate in this very simple example. I also think going into a little more detail about the degree to which it is supranational or intergovernmental is fraught with difficulties in this short space. It is seriously contested between editors exactly where the balance lies. The best way to solve such difficulties is usually to make a careful explanation in as much detail as is needed, which we try to do lower down the page. In a short space like this you basically have to take a stand coming down on one side or the other, and that is a problem. Sandpiper (talk)

All your changes make sense to me, but I would prefer the version of intergovernmental/supranational stuff discussed above to the one you have reinserted. So, I suggest we should replace "It has both supranational features, being able to make directives which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members" by "Its functioning depends to some degree on agreement between members, an intergovernmental feature it shares with most international organizations. The European Union also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions binding to member states." It is not much longer, yet it explains the basic difference between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism somewhat more clearly. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of my proposal is too remove the other technical details from the intro,(fisheries,agriculture...).Firstly i recently edited the intergouvermental article,so don't look there for a neutral opinion.A couldn't find source,but the way i understand it is that intergouvermental is not meant to mean unanimity among the governments,just that the governments are discussing among them selves,from there you can have votes ,with some ponderations,vetoes for all or just for some.For example the UN security council is considered intergouvermental.The example of Germany, show that intergouvemental elements inside a federal state is not a travesty(for those protesting,yes i saw the term used that way),thus intregouvermentalism is not mutually exclusive with federalism.I'm saying this because apparently everybody has concluded that the two are mutually exclusive and only pure supranationalism can be used in a federal state or a confederation.What i whant to say is that the reason that you(the editors) are so opposed to "confederation" is that you are ,your selves misinformed about what intergouvermentalism is about, intergouvermentalism is just a way of decision making,it doesn't determines by it self how strong a union is.The current wording just propagates this belief.--88.82.32.84 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly man, your intentions are honourable but your proposal isn't really going anywhere here. Its not going to gain any support. I think the intro post-Sandpiper's change is absolutely fine. It is impossible to say what the EU is in one sentence, and it is completely unwise to try and dilute the intro any futher. --Simonski (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The way i understand, about what an intro have to be,is that it must be "dilute".Ferthurmore,how do you account for the missconseption on intergouvermentalism in the intro?Shouldn't we explain something about intergouvermentalism in the intro?If you have a foggy idea of intergouvermentalism, you automatecly have a foggy idea about the EU.If i take the quantum physics article,according to your way of seeing things,we should mention in the intro, hilbert spaces,eigenvalues,linear operators,partial differential equations,particul-wave-probability duality....--88.82.32.84 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

duplicate responce from the previous section.Intergouvermentalism is just a dessision-making method,it doesn't, tell anything about how strong the union is.The current proposal,and current wording just propagates the misunderstanding.The example with Germany shows that intergouvermenatalim is not mutually exclusive with federalism.The current "bug" with the intergouvermental council voting legislation,will very probably survive well after federalization of the EU.So either you add the explanation on the intergouvermental method of desision making,either you avoid the issue by removing it al togather.It is a fact that peopol doing the amalgam intergouvermental=international organization like UN and supranational=country.How are you going to account for that in the intro and staying simple at the same time?--88.82.32.84 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me there after "will very probably survive well after federalisation of the EU". For me that says its all. Your proposal is not representing a NPOV or describing the EU from an objective standpoint, rather you are simply describing a school of thought about what the EU is. I don't see any 'misconception on intergovernmentalism' in the intro. If somebody has a foggy idea about intergovernmentalism, they can go read about what intergovernmentalism is. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the Ladybird book on the EU. I'd suggest channeling your enthusiasm elsewhere here and helping out on other sections where you are more likely to have ideas that people can agree with. --Simonski (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, and this may shock people, I'm actually with Lear here on maintaining the status quo as to the intro. For me the way it was was fine. Though I thought the Sandpiper version was also fine. I'll be happy with either, just not this loose confederation Disney's guide to the EU type idea. --Simonski (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I liked arnoutf's suggestion because it gave a simple example of supernationalism, and another of intergovernmentalism, which I felt was necessary to help readers understand what was meant. But I also liked the fact that it did not attempt to explain what degree of each was present in the EU, or anything about what implications this might have. The guiding rule is that we should describe the EU as it is now, not as it might be, or even what it is popularly thought to be. yes, easier said than done. There is an enormous fog of people out there claiming it is all sorts of different things. At the moment it is not a federal state. Anon, I'm sorry, but your writing is not entirely clear to me, so I am not completely sure what you are arguing for, so I might be answering something you did not mean. But I don't think the article can contain any trace of a suggestion the EU will inevitably become a federal state, because it is not inevitable, and I would not be at all surprised to find it does not change in its basic structure in my lifetime.

I moved the history section down the running order in the introduction because I do not think this is the most vital information. It is normal to talk about what a thing is and does, before talking about how it came to exist. But I thing the logical structure of the article should be: first a one sentence definition of what the thing is, next a short section summarising the highlights, which someone could read and get an overview, then the body of the article giving greater details. I think it very important that the introduction mention things like fisheries, agriculture, coal and steel, single market: all the highlight important issue for the EU.

Andrzej, I don't think we can say depends to some degree on agreement, because I think the fact is it depends almost entirely on agreement. I would much rather use a form of words which avoids implying any kind of degree of one or the other in the introduction.

Lear has been banned for 3 weeks for repeated page reversions, but I see we have attracted a knowledgeable anon IP who has reverted the page. If it goes on i shall ask whether anyone can investigate the IPs to see if they are from the same source. If it was someone other than Lear, I would be happy for them to identify themselves on this page and explain. While I think the edit comment is cart before horse, it is something to consider as we try to restructure the article. Sandpiper (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this article.Strickly speaking other organizations have supranational and intergouvermental aspects,so saying that the EU has that doesn't explain much,it obscures more then anything.Peopol(including you), have an intuitive inderstanding that supranationalism=federation while intergouvermentalism=international organization.I argue that peopol think they know what intergouvermentalism is about,so they will not investigate further, my sets of examples show that you find intergouvermental elements inside federations.Just an example with russia,there are over 100 subunits in the federation,for beter coordination they have inplemented regional organizations(like in international organizations),the seats in the federal concil was appointed by the federated units,and could be recould at any time(i coul this intergouvermental element,Puting changed the constitution since then).For the EU getting federalized,i was making a parallel with germany(it started as a confederetion of independent states) in that the way legislation is made,will probably survive a federalization,i was arguing that the intergouvermental aspect of the EU,on it's won, doesn't give any significant information on the level of integration.Summary:

• peopol have a distorted vision of intergouvermentalism and they will not dig any further since they don't know that they don't know.
• A bunch of other io have a mix of supra/intergovermental,the reader assumes that it's about the same type of organizations,but this is not the case.--88.82.32.84 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing what you can find on wiki. Two articles essentially both about suprantionalism. However, this doesn't convince me that we need to go into the issue more deeply (more deeply than the revison by me/arnoutf) in the intro. Sandpiper (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can live with most of the current versions to be honest. Most of the supranational stuff etc is gone in one of these, but IMHO it still represents the essentials, which is after all the goal of the intro. I could accept the more expandeded version as well. Having had a heavy day of work I kind of have lost the thread of this to be honest ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

88, please accept that there is no wish here to have 'loose confederation' or anything like that used in the intro and save yourself some time here. Instead I'd suggest channeling your enthusiasm here into helping to tweak slightly the current intro, an approach favoured by almost all the editors who have replied since you opened this discussion. As far as I have seen not one editor has been in favour of your suggestion so come on, change gears here? --Simonski (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I can go for the current version or the ones proposed above (can someone post the final version down here just before? Tad lost in exactly what words we have now). But not confederation. For a start, it may be a simplification in one sense, but if your a new reader, what does that word actually mean? I don't think you can read much from it at all and may be misled by its simplicity. Hence it really isn't an improvement.- J Logan ^t: 09:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are specifically arguing about 'loose confederation', the definition of confederation fits (though it is arguable whether readers will understand it without explanation), but 'loose' is a bit thorny. In some ways it is loose, in others it is quite tight. The EU is very skewed towards its original goal, which is creating a single market, and its quite 'tight' on that. Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well exactly. In some economic matters it operates federally, but you can't call it that here because federations traditionally are heavy in foreign affairs - as opposed to recycling. No matter what term we come up with it will never fit properly because of the unique (i.e. wonky) development of the EU.- J Logan ^t: 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well done, that made me laugh. I can just see it in the intro, EU is a tight federation responsible for recycling. Kinda puts the world into perspective. You know, a satirical cartoon would be fun somewhere if we are going to have all these pictures. Sandpiper (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And people wonder why no one takes the EU seriously. While Bush can force an invasion, Barroso can force a common driving licence - well we have to be ahead of the Americans in some areas don't we. How they manage with all there different licences lord only knows, but at least a driving licence isn't as unpopular as an invasion. Cartoons would be fun though, save us the trouble of messing with copyright issues - just draw them all! Problem solved! What was this discussion about again?- J Logan ^t: 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok what the hell, can we have some agreement here before people start carrying out these changes. The introduction is now absolutely horrible. That sentence about 'the phrase European Union' really has to go in my opinion, it doesn't read well at all. Can we go back to what it was beforehand and then come to some sort of agreement? In the process we can pretty much now just ignore as irrelevant discussion on the 'confederation' idea and concentrate on how we can supposedly improve an arguably already fine intro? The federation discussion is boring now and not the sort of thing we should be discussing here. The fact is there is no agreement between the member states on the issue, no agreement between academics, no agreement between us mere wikipedia editors, so there is NO POINT in trying to deal with the issue. Contrary to what is claimed, in my opinion anybody who tries to come up with some minority held view on what the EU is can either be accused of coming out with Original Research or harbouring a non-NPOV view (and that is mainly aimed at 88). Can we get back to business please? --Simonski (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to business comfort break

I agree with Simonski... "the phrase..." is in my opinion awkward. Let's review the intro version of 31-jan midnight (arbitrary choice)

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty seven member states with supranational and intergovernmental features, located primarily in Europe. It traces its origins to the European Economic Community (EEC) formed in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome among six European countries. Since then the EU has grown in size through the accession of new member states and has increased its powers by the addition of new policy areas to its remit. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty established the current legal framework. The Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007 initiates a ratification process in 2008 and is amending the existing treaties. It is intended to come into force on 1 January 2009.

The EU creates a single market by a system of laws which apply in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.[3] It maintains a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy.[4] In 1999 the EU introduced a common currency, the euro, which has been adopted by fifteen member states. It has also developed a role in foreign policy, and in justice and home affairs. Passport control between many member states has been abolished under the Schengen Agreement.[5]

With almost 500 million citizens, the EU generates an estimated 31% share of the world's nominal GDP (US$16.6 trillion) in 2007.[2] It represents its members in the WTO and observes at G8 summits and at the UN. Twenty-one EU countries are members of NATO. Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. EU citizens elect the Parliament every five years.

Noticing that this discussion has focussed on the problems with the first line in that version; now look at the most recent version.

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The phrase European Union applies at the same time to the area and community and to its institutions.

The EU comprises a single market created by a system of laws which apply in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital.[3] It maintains a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy.[4] In 1999 the EU introduced a common currency, the euro, which has been adopted by fifteen member states. It has also developed a role in foreign policy, and in justice and home affairs. Passport control between many member states has been abolished under the Schengen Agreement.[5] It has both supranational features, being able to make directives which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members

With almost 500 million citizens, the EU generates an estimated 31% share of the world's nominal GDP (US$16.6 trillion) in 2007.[2] It represents its members in the WTO and observes at G8 summits and at the UN. Twenty-one EU countries are members of NATO. Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. EU citizens elect the Parliament every five years.

The EU traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community formed among six countries in 1951 and the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Since then the EU has grown in size through the accession of new member states and has increased its powers by the addition of new policy areas to its remit. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty established the current legal framework. The Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007 initiates a ratification process in 2008 intending to amend the existing treaties.

If I compare these versions I notice the main differences are: (1) The history bit is moved to the end. (2) The explanation of supranational and intragovernmental is moved to the back of the regulations section, making the opening sentence shorter and (3)The line "The phrase European Union applies at the same time to the area and community and to its institutions." was added. I hope you guys agree with these observations. I will continue with my opinion.

1. History to end. I am ok with this, but I don't see much of an improvement over the other version, I am neutal in this
2. Splitting of supranational. I think splitting the first line was a good move. I am neutral about the placement, in front or in the back of the rules section. If we put it in the back of the regulation section we need to solve the fact that the first paragraph becomes very short, e.g. by merging it with the second para
3. Phrase EU I think this is not a good addition, both because the actual phrasing is awkward (e.g. the word phrase is not needed), but more so because the argument seem tautological. Can we come up with a single international organisation that does not refer to its members (the geography) its own name (mmm) and its internal bodies (for a country this would even be ridiculous). So I think this line does not add any content and should therefor be removed. Arnoutf (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to all of the above.- J Logan ^t: 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. It would be better to remove the "phrase EU" sentence and to merge the first sentence ("The European Union (EU) is a political...") with the second paragraph ("The EU comprises..."). Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Arnoutf (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you guys do not mind, I would like to go back to the last sentence of the first paragraph. I still think we should replace "It has both supranational features, being able to make directives which are binding to its members, as well as intergovernmental features, as it depends on agreement between the different members" by "The EU's functioning partially depends on agreement between members, an intergovernmental feature it shares with most international organizations. The European Union also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions binding to member states." Here are the main advantages: First, the old version says the EU "depends on agreement between the different members", which is not always true. ECJ does not care about agreements between states, does it? Second, the new version gives a specific example of intergovernmentalism (IGOs) and also implicitly refers to the EU as an international organization, which is basically the legal status of the EU in the international law and a frequent description in the literature. Third, some readers might mistake "directives" in the old version for legislative directives. Well, it is not a big deal either way, but I think the proposed version is slightly better. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The first version is shorter but a bit harder to graps for the lay-reader, the second more precise but longer. I can live with both (and agree it is not, and should not be, a big deal). Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely in many ways though, the introduction is the most important part of the page. If this section is not a big deal, then the question has to be what is? I have to admit though after reading it again, the current version (as I'm typing), without that 'the phrase EU' bit is actually fine by me - though I did like what Sandpiper had done with the taking a new line after "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe". That was a nice touch that should be put back in. --Simonski (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I slightly reorganized the order of sentences in the lead.[6] Now, the first paragraph sums up what the EU is (e.g. single market, common policies), the second paragraph is devoted to the EU's institutions and governance, and the third paragraph outlines the history. Basically, this structure existed before, but few sentences seemed to be out of this order. I hope you will like this change. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support for the one sentence first para. This is a principle I strongly support for any article, that the very first sentence should be a complete (if very short) definition of the subject, and placing it by itself makes this quite clear. I think this helps improve wikipedias usefulness. We offer three types of article in one, single line definition, short intro summary, and longer explanation. I agreee with comment above that the intro as a whole is important.Sandpiper (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re the addition proposed by pgreenfinch, saying the word EU may be used in different contexts. As I understand it, his point is that the EU may be considered as the institutions and rules, or may be considered as an area/country/federation and be talked about collectively. I think Lear has argued this, eg with sport and economy, and googling 'EU this' and 'EU that'. On the whole, we talk about the institutions/rules, and i think this is correct. However, I am not sure it is not worth mentioning in the intro that there exists a different usage, whereby people may be referring either to the the whole thing as a place, or as an international organisation. I agree, this would not be an issue with a country, but the point is that despite not being a country, it is sometimes though of as though it were. We argue about this quite a bit, which supports the suggestion that it ought to be mentioned. Though I don't think the form of words as proposed would do, it needs improving. Sandpiper (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems very pointless to me, does it matter? People will understand any usage used on this page and it is obvious to most. Adding a sentence like that would probably add to confusion in it being an unclear statement of something that wouldn't usually be mentioned.- J Logan ^t: 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Logan. I really strongly oppose the placing of Pgreenfinch's sentence back in. It seems wholly unnecessary. I think the distinction is clear throughout the article itself without requiring it at the start. Surely as a compromise it can be omitted, but the other changes kept? --Simonski (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So, are we done here?

Just to check, do we have a consensus here then on the current state of the intro? It would be handy to have one before he who violates his edit block returns and just reverts whatever changes have been made (which of course will just lead to another edit ban anyway). I for one can live with the current version, but wouldn't add anything to it. Anybody else have any major problem here? --Simonski (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I carefully read it and am fine with most. However, because of the new structure more emphasis is now placed on the last line:

The Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007 will amend the existing treaties when ratifification is completed in 2008.

This line is fairly vague as it does not mention in what way it amends. From the text this amendment could be as little as clarifying an ambiguous text; or as massive as being almost a constitution. Therefore I think we need to amend this line. Suggestion; which I am not completely happy with, so please respond (my considerations, keep length down as much as possible, try to find a neutral point of view - ie not saying the the amendments are good)

The Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007 will amend the existing treaties in a way that will extensively update the political and legal structure of the Union, when ratifification is completed in 2008.

Sorry for stopping you consensus building Simonski, but I think this important enough; it is only this single line I am having problems with so I do support a consensus on every other bit of the text. Arnoutf (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem man, I mean if we aren't done here, we aren't done here after all! We have, from what I understand, 2 more peaceful weeks to reach one anyway! :P

I see your point on the Lisbon Treaty. I think most objective people who step out of the whole 'Constitution' debate will agree with the idea that "We are currently working with rules designed for 15 countries, when we now have 27 in the EU - the rules need updated." So perhaps a mention to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is a response to a need to reform post-Enlargement. However, I personally think that we should go with your idea as it is relatively neutral/objective/doesn't say anything that could be nitpicked at. After all, why the Lisbon Treaty is being ratified is open to debate/non-NPOV considerations. So I'd be fine with you sticking that extra bit onto the sentence on the Lisbon Treaty. As long as we avoid trying to summarise what the changes are in a sentence, as they themselves are also open to debate.

Other than that, any other problems? Have we got a compromise of sorts here? (I'm referring to those who brought the issue up in the first place including the confederation chap) --Simonski (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

well, in furtherence of this debate I read the Lisbon treaty article (again). I still would not care to say whether it 'extensively update(s) the political and legal structure of the Union'. I could go with any of it except 'extensive', which seems to be debateable. Surely, an extensive amendment would be, abolish the parliament and make the council elected. Now that would be a change, but does this treaty really do more than tinker? I seem to recall also that the last treaty was touted as necessary changes to allow for the expanded EU to function effectively, so this is hardly a novel change either. I do not think the introduction should have more than one sentence about lisbon, and really only as a note that it is happening. If we include more content in this article about Lisbon, I think it needs to go elsewhere in the text, where the treaty will cause a change. Arguabley, this makes sense for us, because if the treaty passes those sections of the article will have to be amended anyway, and the necessary changes will already be here. The question would be whether it is still to early to effectively double-up every section with an explanation of forthcoiming changes which still might not happen. Alternatively, we might place a paragraprh at the end of the history section with the highlight changes (perhaps as a subsection by itself so it appears in the index, since I think this is an important issue).Sandpiper (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Extensive maybe too much. Suggestion - delete; or replace with "significantly" ? Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Its still a value judgement. Any adjective says it is important (or eg 'minor', unimportant). I really don't know whether it is or not, but I do know some people are quite rabid about it. I also don't like us claiming it is important, if it isn't (or contrariwise, unimportant).Sandpiper (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "significant" is sufficiantly weaker compared to "extensive" but ify ou would favour the "delete" option I am ok with that. So we go for something like: "The Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007 will amend the existing treaties in a way that will update the political and legal structure of the Union, when ratifification is completed in 2008." At least this gives some hint what it is about otherwise there is (in my opinion) no sense in adding it in the lead at all, which has to be readable as a stand-alone summary. Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stuck it in, though i've also changed "in a way that will" simply to "to" as the complexity was bugging me. Sandpiper —Preceding comment was added at 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)--Autosigned by SineBot--)

Now, I do also have a problem with the line The EU's functioning partially depends on agreement between members, where I have similar difficulties with the word 'partially' as I did with 'extensive' above. In this case I would be inclined to come down of the opposite side, not 'partially', but 'largely'. I'm not quite sure where you place 'qualified majority voting' with regard to requiring agreement, but I would say it was still necessary to obtain agreement. An element of supranationalism does creep in, just not enough to describe the remaining need for agreement as 'partial'. Ive changed it to 'Some areas of the EUs functioning depend..' Sandpiper

I agree your argument is reversed here. partially is non-quantified and does not say how large the part is, while "largely" assumes more knowledge. I think you are right, but if anyone objects the search for a good source for the largely will be more demanding then for partially. I am happy to leave it for now. Arnoutf (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Righty, anything else from anybody? From my point of view aside from that sports section and a couple of other debatable sentences here and there (which are obviously there to cater for the alternative view of the EU, ie. taking the member states as a whole under the EU banner even where they dont really act together as the EU) this page now seems alright. Considering the variety of views held by the editors its at a reasonable state just now isnt it? If it were me I still don't know if I'd ever give it FA though, simply because that'd be like saying 'its 100% accurate' when because of the contentious nature of the subject, at the moment it will never be. --Simonski (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

and another section, debate on lead

I read through again and was struck by this claim that the EU has 'supranational bodies'. I'm not sure I could name them (plural), especially since they are distinguished by the way it is phrased from those areas of the EU which work intergovernmentally. Would anyone care to suggest a list to justify this statement? (not for inclusion, just to satisfy me it is factual).

Another point, I quite like the lead, but I am bothered a reviewer might come along and start arguing why it does not accurately summarise the article. Now, I think it may well summarise the important points of the EU, but that is completely different. I support a lead which does its job, not one which slavishly mirrors the article, but others may not. In particular I noted the mention of the agriculture and fisheries policies right at the top. This is entirely correct given their historical importance, share of budget and continuing source of wrangling, but you would never know it from the rest of the article.

I also rephrased the sentence of EU statistics to be consistent with the rest of that paragraph, talking about things from the perspective of members. Sandpiper (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you bring the first point up, as it was actually discussed in a seminar I was at today. The ECJ itself is the most obvious example, as it is acting independently of the Member States. I guess the Commission would also be considered a supranational body as well (and maybe the parliament, not sure). You could probably nitpick but I'd say these bodies are mainly supranational bodies, to answer your question (obviously for each it could be argued that there are intergovernmental features as well but they are mainly supranational in nature). --Simonski (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the way the article is currently structured, it says there are some intergovernmental areas, but then goes on to say some institutions are supranational, ie not at all intergovernmental. I also immediatly thought of the court. Arguably, the commission is acting supranationally if it is acting by itself enforcing EU legislation, but when proposing new measures, they have to be approved by the parliament (sometimes) and the council (always). Given the council is at least largely intergovernmental, then the commission/EU can not act supranationally to create new legislation. What implications the fact that all EU legislation is therefore derived intergovernmentally, including that which is enforced by the commission or court has on this, I'm not quite sure. The upshot though is that I am uncomfortable arguing any part is entirely supranational, never mind more than one. It is an issue of precise meaning: I'm quite happy saying some aspects are IG and some SN, it is using language which pins it down which is troublesome. I think I am going to have a stab at improving this by replacing 'bodies' with 'elements' in the article, and see if it reads better next time I look at it. Sandpiper (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would heavily oppose that change though to be honest. The sentence as it stands reflects a long established view on the EU. The ECJ is described as a supranational court at the very least. Like I said, you could nitpick that sentence and try and somehow qualify it, but I don't see how the ECJ can be considered to be in any way an intergovernmental court, particularly post-Reform Treaty with the abolition of the pillar system. And also, the fact that the Commission's proposals ultimately get dealt with by the Council and the Parliament, I don't see how that would change the fact that the Commission was supranational in nature. Whilst you may be uncomfortable arguing that the EU has supranational bodies, I'd honestly say the majority of experts on the issue don't share your discomfort. At the very least, I would encourage you to propose what you're going to change here rather than just going ahead and changing it. I think the editing re: the intro has highlighted that people are crossing the line between WP:Bold and WP:I'm just being a bit rude actually. But anyway, I'd really, really argue against this last concern of yours. --Simonski (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As this concerns my wording, I would like to jump in. I support Simonski's opinion here. The ECJ is a textbook example of supranational bodies. I do not know any author arguing that the ECJ's extremely activist rulings are somehow "derived intergovernmentally". ECB is another supranational body independent from national governments (although its affiliation with the EU is somewhat complicated). The European Commissioners and members of the EP are supposed to decide independently from the governments of their respective home states. Of course, the intergovernmental organs (the Council, COREPER, etc.) exert extraordinary influence on many policies. But this fact does not contradict existence of other, supranational bodies, able to shape policies in their domains without much (or any) interference from member states. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Supranationalism requires not merely a group of people not appointed to their task by the country affected, but also the power to act. The commission is in the position of an expert group appointed with a remit defined intergovernmentally, whose task is to come up with proposed legislation to accomplish that remit. The intergovernmental council then has the power to accept the proposals, suggest amendments, or reject them and tell the commission to start again. The commissions supranationalism is further diluted because individuals are appointed by the council member states and inevitably represent those states. The parliament similarly has powers of veto, but again while it may fit the definition by its composition, it has no powers to impose its decisions. Curiously, the wiki article on supranationalism at least currently argues the EU may not be a supranational body at all.

I say again, the difficulties are that the current wording implies the existence of multiple, exclusively supranational bodies. I read the ECB article, but sadly remain rather unclear as to what its powers actually are. It sounds as though it is a good example of a supranational institution, but to what extent is this a major part of the EU, to counteract the intergovernmental nature of the main elements? Is it truly exclusively supranational?

While some people editing this page seek to dominate its content by edit warring, others also seek to dominate its content by denying editors rights to edit. That is wholly against the founding principles of wiki, particularly when an article has as many pitfalls as this one. Stability is not better than accuracy. Whatever anyone may decide at the conclusion of this particular discussion may be overturned by the next editor to visit this page, and rightly so. Rudeness has nothing to do with it: are you suggesting that any of the serious editors here is editing in bad faith to deliberately make the article worse? Sandpiper (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does n't the wording"Some areas of the EU's functioning depend on agreement between members, an intergovernmental feature it shares with most international organisations. However, it also has supranational bodies," shows that the EU is not exclusively supranational; so I see no contradiction with the supranationalism article.

I think your other point is interesting, but would go close to original research. Taking In any case, although this is all very interesting it is at a level of specialisation in international law that would in general not benefit the regular reader. I would say that there is at least one truly supranational body: ECJ (which can enforce EU regulation over national law); and several bodies that could be classified as such ECB, commission, and some others. For the lead I would say that this would justify the use of plural in the lead. If you want to discuss the details I would suggest starting an article supranational bodies of the EU or something similar. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandpiper I was mainly meaning that its far better when contentious changes are discussed before implemented. I've felt at times like you have just gone ahead and replaced things/edited things which do not have agreement and are in the middle of being discussed, look at the whole debate over the structure of the page for example. That tends to just lead to edit-warring. As for here, I would still be of the opinion that the ECJ and ECB at the very least are supranational, and the Commission might be considered so too, regardless of the Intergovernmental roadblock that is eventually placed infront of it in the form of the Council. I think if anything you should be looking to qualify the wording after the statement 'the EU has supranational bodies...' if you get what I mean, rather than change a statement which is agreed with by most. --Simonski (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you 'ignore the intergovernmental roadblock of the council', then any think tank or discussion group which proposes changes to the law but has no power to impose them is also a supranational organisation. I think the element of being able to carry out the change despite the protest of a government is the heart of the thing.

Arnoutf, the difficulty is that while this is not a specialist international law analysis, it does need to reflect any such debate when stating bald conclusions. If the specialist debate says this is a tricky issue, then we can't simply come down on one side. We already have the article Supranationalism#Supranationalism in the European Union, and it says what I have just reported. It is at least very close to contradicting this current statement here. One of them is plainly wrong.

As to editing, there are things on this page which I hesitate before changing which I would change as a matter of course on any ordinary page. This page is frozen in glue and could do with some more intervention from time to time. As a matter of course, anyone overviewing any page should look at any edit with a presumption that it improves the page unless it clearly does not. Similarly, even where some very odd edits sometimes appear, it is important to try to figure what the person meant by them, and whether they might have a point, even if not as quite currently expressed. And perhaps finally, it is important to try to read a page as a newcomer would with no knowledge of the subject or any massive debates which might have happened about one phrase, and try to figure if they really make sense. Sandpiper (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that at the moment this discussion has convinced me that the best way to phrase the two sentences would be to replace 'some areas of Eu functioning depend on agreement' with 'most areas...', and then leave the second sentence as was 'However...'. This would be the correct summarisation, mostly by agreement, but some areas supranationally? Sandpiper (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the exact lines you are proposing, but it seems reasonable. With regard to complex intnl law, I agree it should be correct, but we should not lengthen the text, especially in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, I lose the internet for a few days and totally loose track of what is going on here. From what I gather skimming through maybe we should say that decisions require agreement between member states together with the supranational bodies (majority in Council and Parliament)?- J Logan ^t: 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Going by your definition of supranational Sandpiper then the ECJ is very much about as supranational as it gets (anticipating that you'll probably say well what about Member State process - well within the EU sphere when the ECJ says 'no, this is not the case, this is how it is to be' it is saying to the Member States that is how the rules of the EU are to be interpreted, if you don't like it, go and change the rules. The number of cases before the ECJ where so many Member States have intervened in the proceedings only to lose the case is vast in number). I would also say the Commission is as it pretty much acts independent of the Member States in choosing which companies to go after in Competition Law etc. So the EU does have supranational bodies in my opinion and this should be stated in the intro. However, the sentence which follows the statement, which reads: "able to make decisions binding to member states" should be replaced with "which can act independently of the Member States". That would surely soothe your concerns here Sandpiper? --Simonski (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that was a section I had decided not to worry about (though I did earlier change 'to' to 'upon', but it got swapped back). Changing that section of the sentence as you describe changes its meaning. For example, the government of Iran acts independently of the member states of the EU also, but that does not make it supranational or able to make binding rules in the UK. I think we should make clear that what this is about is the ability to make law in any member state against the wishes of that state. It is important to say that, it is just that it is also important to get the balance right. Yes the EU can do this in some respects, but in other important issues it can not. Wikipedia argues that the ECJ is not supranational, because the rules it enforces are clearly constrained and created by a series of intergovernmental agreemenets, the governments concerned can change the rules and do so quite frequently. I don't mind counting it as an essentially supranational body for this debate, becaus I think it fits the definition although its scope is more constrained than some would argue. Similarly, the ECB is a good example, but I remain convinced the overall balance is more towards IG than SN decision making. Quite a number of people think an independant central bank is a good idea, and an independent arbiter of the rules (ECJ) is also necessary. But they are ringmasters, not players. So far, the states have kept very firm control of power for themselves. Sandpiper (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's" representation of the ECJ as not supranational clearly reflects the view of whatever editor heavily influenced the page. A lot of academic writing on the issue would come to the opposite conclusion. Its like your points just there, they are fair points, and some academics would agree with what you're saying, whilst others wouldn't. Its a point of view, much like the issue of whether the EU itself is mainly Supranational/Intergovernmental in nature. I think personally the current intro reflects a middle ground which exists in general writing on the issue, and we should not try to replace generally held opinions with our own, if that makes sense. If we qualify every statement within the introduction because they are contentious points, then the intro will be massive. You could easily argue that the ECJ does create law which is binding on the Member States until they re-draft the next treaty. Its happened on numerous occasions. I still am not convinced that the statement the EU has supranational bodies is wrong. It does.

Clearly though this debate is reaching a saturation point, so it might be useful here for people to state what their opinion is on whether the EU can be considered to have supranational bodies. So far, from what I've gathered (and correct me if I'm wrong), its only Sandpiper who has a problem with the statement in itself? --Simonski (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ECJ decides independently from governments of member states and its decisions are binding. The ECJ's activist rulings not only interpret the EU law, but also help create it. At least this is the most common view in the literature. The ECB is responsible for the monetary policy of the Eurozone. Again, its decisions (e.g. setting the interest rate) are binding and independent from the will of governments. I do not understand why Sandpiper believes the "overall balance is more towards IG than SN decision making" in case of ECB. If the ECB were an intergovernmental institution, the Euro would be already devalued to the level of USD:-) Two clearly supranational bodies (ECJ and ECB) are enough to use the plural in the lead. But we can continue. The Commission, for instance, makes binding decisions independently from national governments in the area of the economic competition. The European Medicines Agency approves new drugs for all states without any interference from the governments... Isn't it enough? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Supranational Bodies

Ok, so just to try and get some consensus here on the intro to try and stabilise it (because I still suspect that a certain somebody is going to come back in a weeks time and try and revert it, so we would need to have a consensus in place to make it easier to ignore such action).. Do you have a problem with the following sentence in the introduction to the EU page: "However, it [the EU] also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions binding to member states" (please keep your explanations short if possible!) --Simonski (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No - I for one think it reflects a generally held position on a number of the EU institutions, particularly the ECJ. --Simonski (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• No. The prevailing consensus in the literature is that the ECJ and ECB are supranational and not intergovernmental bodies. In addition, there are several other supranational bodies (listed in my previous comments) able to exert their power in some areas. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• No. with 2 caveats: that it should read 'binding upon' (or maybe 'on'?) and not 'binding to' as a matter of language, and that the previous sentence be beefed up slightly rather than saying 'some areas..', perhaps 'much of the EUs functioning depends on agreement..' Sandpiper (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• No. Not fantastic but it works and its an agreement, same as above.- J Logan ^t: 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

Comments on the Above

Thats fine by me Sandpiper, and I would agree that 'upon' seems like the better word to use. I personally would have no problem with you 'beefing up' the sentence in the way suggested. --Simonski (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposed wording ("binding upon" and "much of the EUs functioning") too. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fiine with me. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP reversions

I see we have had reversions today from three anon IP addresses all belonging to HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH [7] [8] [9]. I see that there was another yesterday amongst the multiple reversions by Lear [10]. Sandpiper (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Lear21 has been blocked for edit warring here. I have no evidence this anon user is Lear21 (although he is also German), and I hope he is not, because that would be block evasion which would look very bad on his record. Arnoutf (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently an IP claiming to be Lear posted objections to lears block, also from Hansenet. Sandpiper (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lear violating his block! Shock horror! I'd never expect that from such an upstanding member of the community!- J Logan ^t: 09:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

EU 'hard core'

Is there anything written about the proposal for a EU 'hard core' of nations? It's been proposed since around 95[11] and continues to be proposed [12] --neonwhite user page talk 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That notion is somewhat related to multi-speed Europe. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the most recent article is from 2005 (just after the French-Dutch no's in referenda). Also note that the 95 proposal called for (at that time) very pro European countries, regardless of size (it included Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) to be this group; while the 2005 proposal called for the large countries to take the lead. I recall he small countries being fairly upset about this as such a core group of large countries would almost inevitably shift the power balance (even more) to the large countries. Any way, the UK does not want to commit itself.

So no, I do not think there are any movements to form a core group for integration, although (as PGreenfinch stated above) there are some differences in speed, but that seems to be on issue by issue basis rahter then coming from a commited core group. Arnoutf (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the main EU article page is the correct place to write about things like the proposals for a Mediterranean Union, or the UK proposal to have Israel/Russia etc join. That would go elsewhere (ie. a sub-page) in my opinion. --Simonski (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of the constitution/lisbon nonscence this proposals are avoided for now,wait until after the ratification of the current treaty.So the absence of proposals doesn't mean that the "perversion" isn't in the air.--88.82.32.84 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

It's not about whether it will happen or is feasible, that's not for us to discuss. it's about whether there is anything written about it in any of the various branches, considering there are plenty of articles and papers on the principle, does it need a seperate article or can it be included in say Economy of the European_Union. --neonwhite user page talk 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a tiny issue though, really not relevant for the main page even where there are sub pages.- J Logan ^t: 09:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been much written about it in journals and the media therefore it complies with notability policy. --neonwhite user page talk 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable in general yes, but not for the main page. This is meant to be a summary of the European Union, there are loads of strand theories and proposals and we can't mention them all for lack of space. We do not even go into United States of Europe.- J Logan ^t: 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic figures

They've kindly provided some collected EU and euro area figures for us: [13]- J Logan ^t: 10:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise there were so many japanese. The US has an impressive share of GDP, and the Euro area has a much better trade balance than the EU. Hmm.Sandpiper (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is interesting isn't it, though do remember it doesn't include intra-EU, which is a hell of a lot. Still though, odd contradiction given the point of it all... Still, we have some original figures in euro for once, not perfect but if we run into problems we don't need to keep converting.- J Logan ^t: 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This figures are still a little bit misleading,what drives up EU export/import it's Switzerland and Norway.Imagine,if a state enclaved in the USA was independent,but retained a open border.I think that Switzerland,on it's won,account's more then the USA in commerce of the EU,if it's not,then it's very close to the first place,and even that it's something like 20%-30%.--88.82.47.180 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We cannot help that without reverting to subjective reasoning. By the way, I seriously doubt the importance of Switzerland, especially for imports. On your other example (I know I am oversimplifying the issue here) Canada has only a singly neighbour; locked to the Northern polar region and is not unsimilar to Norway in that sense. Thus we might argue that US-Canadian trade inflates the US numbers. Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea.Your suggestions look very good.From a strategic security POV,a analisys of where that trade goes is important,one thing if it's with Switzerland,an other if it is with say soudy arabia or china.As for switzerland,i don't remember the numbers,but in deed it's a good proportion,it's more integrate with the EU then USA-canada ,plus smaller countries trade more with the outside.The comparison with canada ,it should be taken in to acount, in a USA/EU on there commerce,on EU and on USA articles.--88.82.47.180 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some information on trade with Switzerland and the USA here --Boson (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that making special rulings on Switzerland would be subjective as almost any country has some kind of special relationship with each other country. That means most such decisions are likely to be arbitrary based on the POV of a group of editors and hence original research; and that, if alone, for that reason we should stay well clear of this idea. (From the link of Boson if find that EU-Swiss export is about 80 billion. With a total of 16 Trillion the named 80 Billion (i.e. 0.08 Trillion about 0.5%) with Switserland is really marginal.) Arnoutf (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Borders of EU

Why Cyprus Island is in blue? EU has no "contol", no EU flag in North Cyprus? Am I wrong? --Ilhanli (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In law, the entire island of Cyprus is in the EU. Yes, the north is not subject to EU aquis, but it is still part of the Union. 81.155.125.119 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Spectator sports are popular in many EU member states"

The image Image:Campnoumatch.jpg in section "Sport" is captioned "Spectator sports are popular in many EU member states". But seriously, is there any EU member state in which sport is not popular? Shouldn't this just read "Spectator sports are popular in the EU". (And, frankly, is there anywhere on earth where spectator sports are not popular?) --SJK (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right; I would not mind removal of the "many" here. As there needs to be a caption, this one is at least neutral, while indeed it does not seem to add anything beyond the trivial. However, it has proven almost impossible to come up with a stronger, yet acceptable statement, as the whole sports paragraph is a bit of a problem (see a lot of discussions). Arnoutf (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems perfectly pointless to connect popularity of spectator sports to this political entity, yes – they are certainly equally popular in North America, Australia, and probably other parts of the world as well. Couldn't the image simply be saved by captioning it with "Football (soccer) is the most popular spectator sport in the EU"? We need a citation for that, but that should be easy enough. -- Jao (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we are getting back into the murky waters of the sports debate (also see: European Union/Frequently asked questions).

To be honest; in my opinion there is indeed little connection between the political entity EU and sports; while there is some more connection between the geographical/cultural entity of Europe and sports. For that reason it will NOT be easy to find a reliable source stating that Football is the most popular sport in the EU (while it will be much easier to find such a reference for Europe).

I would strongly suggest to leave this section apart; besides some very minor copy-edits as most efforts so far has resulted in an explosion of arguments and counter-arguments effectively paralysing any progress on the larger article. Arnoutf (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

I was rather struck by the news yesterday about Kosovo. If the stories are to be believed, the EU is taking the prime role in enabling Kossovo to become a country, and then presumably a member of the EU. This sounds awfully like the EU taking a major role in world affairs, as an entity. Not entirely unprecedented, perhaps, because it has spent billions encouaging the independence and then accession of former soviet block states, but a clear example of the thrust of EU foreign policy, humanitarian policy, and likely accession states. But this does not come across in the article. This is traditional, expansionist, empire building. Sandpiper (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the List of states expected to recognise the Republic of Kosovo, there is a surprisingly large number of countries (member state or not) waiting for the EU's position: i.e. they consult their foreign policy decision by that of the EU. I agree that this sort of 'influence' does not come across in the article, although it is hard to define and verify, and quite controversial. Rossenglish (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its also key to note that there are around 7 Member States who at the moment will not recognise Kosovo as an independent country. This doesn't mean that it won't help out there. Don't know how relevant it will be to the discussion but it might be useful to view it simply as the EU doing what the AU would do in a similar situation in Africa, or any other regional organisation would do where the UN might also be relevant. --Simonski (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether this should go into this main article or that it is more something for Foreign relations of the European Union or Common Foreign and Security Policy. In any case I think it shows that the foreign policy of the EU is not very solid, rather an example of an international organisation (of disagreeing independent countries) than a federal state. Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not so much whether 7 member states are disinclined to recognise the country, but whether the EU collectively has already done so by sending aid etc etc. Maybe the reluctant members sleepwlked into it, or maybe the EU did it by itself, which is rather more intertesting. I dont know about the AU. Is it actively creating new states to become members? Sandpiper (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're taking a very cynical view of the EU's involvement in Kosovo here. It could easily be argued that its just that the majority of Western-thinking states in the world believe that an independent Kosovo is best for the peace and security of the region. Within the EU, its the majority of member states that believe this. My point about the AU was more related to the Peacekeeping idea - the regional organisation nearest to any boiling point/conflict is generally encouraged by the UN to take action in the region. Here its the EU. The EU hasn't actually 'recognised' Kosovo yet per se, and I doubt it fully will as a whole. Thats just my two cents though. The idea that the EU just got involved in Kosovo though 'to make a new member' seems a bit ridiculous though (apologies if thats not what you were suggesting). --Simonski (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the International reaction to Kosovo independence declaration page, "The European Union (EU) on 18 February officially stated that it would 'take note' of Kosovo's move, but leaves the question of recognition to its member states.[74] The Union is sending the EULEX mission to Kosovo, which includes a special representative and 2000 police and justicial personel". --Simonski (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is cynical. Rather, the EU is acting as an independent international entity in its own right and furthering its own interests. One the one hand it has no authority to officially recognise the state, but on the other it is helping it to build the organisations of government which create a state. I feel this is being somewhat dressed up, where it is mentioned at all, as humanitarian aid. Sandpiper (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to put something on the mainspace page (ie is this relevant for the main page)? If so it should be on the international relations section and it should be a very short "one-line" statement with a good external source. I would not mind if we say this is not important enough for the main EU page; in that case we should move this discussion elsewhere. Arnoutf (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Something to go into detail on the FR page I think, but some mention of growing foreign policy influence in general would be good - if we can find a good source?- J Logan ^t: 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think its pretty clear here that if the EU didn't act here, NATO would. I view the EU's involvement here as NATO inspired, with it being like NATO wearing an EU disguise to give the whole Kosovo plan more legitimacy. The whole thing just screams 'US foreign policy' to me. But I guess that is going outwith the discussion re: the EU page. --Simonski (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course someone would, but why the EU and not NATO? NATO is already dealing in the peacekeeping, they don't do the civilian missions which is why it was left to the UN. THe UN has wanted to drop it for ages because of the cost and the trouble of it, the EU is moving in because they will be anyway and they are the actor in the region.- J Logan ^t: 11:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

economic policy

Apparently ' investment was at 21.4 percent' in 2007. Of what??? Does anyone know what this statistic refers to who could amend the intro to 'economic policy' to explain it to a reader (ie, including me). Sandpiper (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC?

Why isn't this a FA? Nergaal (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In recent months the page was quite unstable, particularly on the Sports section issues/nature of the EU in the intro etc. Now that its a bit more stable I would say probably the nature of the topic and the fact that many points covered within it are heavily contentious might make achieving FA difficult. Still, worth a try I suppose. From my experience, I think much credit here has to go in particular to Arnoutf and Logan for their work on the page (and attitude in any edit discussions), supported by many others along the way. Would be interesting to see what a reviewer says. --Simonski (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem like things are slowly being wrapped up now, are there any issues left people want to kick around or shall we give it ago? It would be about time, we've been working on this for nearly a year and I for one would like the external opinion even if it is a no - so we know where on earth we are heading with it.- J Logan ^t: 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Budget section

Recently a brief section on Budget was added to the economic policy section. I think this information is a nice addition, but I doubt whether its placement is the most usefull. For one it is a very brief section, so a separate subheader seems over the top. On the other hand expanding much on it seems unnecessary as the core information is in there, and we have to be careful not to enlarge the article even further. It might be an idea the merge this line into the general section of Economic Policy (i.e. directly under the level 2 header) instead of giving it its own level 3 header. What do you think? Arnoutf (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a tad too short as a section but I doubt it could be expanded much while keeping it within the scope of this article.- J Logan ^t: 11:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is important, and I agree it is in the wrong place. It is not a policy of the EU at all, but a nuts and bolts thing about how the EU operates. I am not sure where to put it, but it might be better in the section titled governance. The budget is what the institutions get paid from, and spend, and indeed is a political issue somewhat as per the politics subsection there. Sandpiper (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

European Council ≠ Council of the European Union

Why on earth hasn't the European Council got its own section?? The fact that the European Council is not the same as the Council of the European Union is basic knowledge about the EU, and I know that most of us here know that, so why hasn't it been done before? We need to rewrite parts of the government section in order to properly describe the concrete roles of the different councils. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't technically separate from the CoM yet, totally informal and its powers are technically from the CoM also. Not perfect but I think the division is clear enough.- J Logan ^t: 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article explains that there are two councils, at least in name, though in practice they are essentially the same thing. That is my impression of the facts of the case, ministers from member states come together to decide a particular area, and different misinsters come depending upon the nature of the subject. Sometimes it is the head of states, when stately matters are to be discussed. I really dont see that the councils differ sufficiently to split them into separate sections. Particularly, if what you are suggesting is missing is a better comparison of their different roles. The council in whatever guise is the third and most important wing of the EU government, representing the states. The other two are the appointed officials of the commission, and the parliament. Sandpiper (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

From the current article text: (irrelevant parentheses removed)

“ Highest-ranking political leadership in the EU is primarily provided by the European Council, which is the Council of the European Union, meeting in the specific composition of the heads of government of the member states, plus the President of the European Commission. ”

- Sounds misguidingly like: The European Council of presidents and prime ministers = 100% of the Council of the European Union.

“ The rotating Council Presidency is taken by each member state in turn for a period of six months, during which the relevant member chairs all meetings of the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The member state holding the presidency typically uses it to drive a particular policy agenda such as economic reform, reform of the EU itself, enlargement or furthering European integration. ”

- So now it's suddenly referred to as the "Council of Ministers". The text says that the European Council of presidents and prime ministers is the Council of the European Union - but at the same time it says that the EU Council is composed of national ministers for specific areas. Sometimes it just says the Council.

I haven't read the Lisbon Treaty articles on the new definitions of the Council and the EU Council. I'm however sure that mixing the Council of Europe should be our least fear, this article's various definitions of this body which is, as you say, currently one single thing, are very unclear, confusing and much harder to understand. From what I've seen, the European Council and the EU Council are de facto treated as two different bodies today, and this clear separation and clarification should be provided in this article. I still think two separate sections are needed. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The ref listed for that section from the EU website [14] describes the council of the european union in very similar terms to those we use. They discuss the councils (various) as one section, the parliament and the commission in separate sections. In that sense, we are mirroring the source.

I also do not interpret the text in the article as you do, particularly when your extracts are read in context. To me, it makes a specific definition of the European council as the council of the european union, when composed of heads of state. This seems to be correct. The article goes on to explain that the chairman of the council is the rep of the state currently holding the presidency, and mentions both the european council and council of ministers, to specifically make it clear that this applies in either version of the same council. Yes, I agree it is confusing, but then so is the explanation by the european commission. This also makes exactly this distinction of the european council (of heads of state) being distinct from the 'normal council meetings', yet still somehow the same. I agree it is unfortunate to have so many councils with slightly different names, but then they only have slightly different functions and compositions. Sandpiper (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to give my 2 cents, and sorry to repeat points already made, but it is always emphasised in a legal sense that the European Council and the Council of Europe are two completely different things. The Council of Europe is different because it involves non-EU Member States such as Russia, Moldova, Montenegro etc. Its better to think of Council of Europe = European Court of Human Rights and European Council = European Union. But it would certainly be a mistake to think that they are reasonably similar. I never thought this page misrepresented this fact but I'll check again at some point. Certainly on the second point, 'European Council' and 'Council of Ministers' are interchangable terms. But I agree with SSJ's first point regarding the quote Highest-ranking political leadership in the EU is primarily provided by the European Council, which is the Council of the European Union. Perhaps in brackets it should say here "not to be confused with the Council of Europe" or something, or just have the sentence reworded? --Simonski (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Simonski we are not talking about the Council of Europe at all, that is something completely different. I agree that the European Council and the Council of the European Union should be treated seperately. There is a distinction between the two. It is a formal distinction that should be mirrored here. Their roles, in my mind, are very different in the Treaty and in political reality. The Council of the European Union (articles 202-210 EC Treaty) actively takes part in the creation of legislation and Member States have differing voting powers. The European Council was an informal meeting of the Heads of State normally bi-annually. After the TEU (article 4) it was FORMALLY introduced into the institutional framework of the EU. It has a very general role of formulating the policy direction of the EU. It is not, to my knowledge, directly involved in the legislative process. (All of this is based on my vague memory of institutional law of the EC and as such may be a bit patchy). The section merging them is a little misleading and possibly factually inaccurate Lwxrm (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, the penny just dropped. Right see I thought it was a Council of Europe - European Council issue, whereas instead its a Council of Ministers - European Council issue. In that case, I dunno, to me the section doesn't really define well what the difference is between the CoM and the European Council.. definitely there's scope for clarification here. How that would be done, um, is another issue! --Simonski (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This debate seems to be shading into the one below on whether the ECB is not an EU institution, because it is not named as one in the EU treaties. Similarly, this applies to the Europen Council which equally does not exist as an independent institution? Sandpiper (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would qualitfy as a body though. Arnoutf (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly see the link with the argument below. The European Council has a different role and institutional position than the Council of the EU. The European Council is not involved in the legislative process, other than at a VAGUE policy level. This is very different to the Council of the European Union that is DIRECTLY involved in the formulation of the detail of legislation and is part of the legislature. It normally has a final say over whether a particular legal instrument is approved. Lwxrm (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see it like that. The European council is simply the council of the EU with different delegates attending. It has many different incarnations where the countries send along a different person to represent them for different purposes. In one sense it makes less decisions, but in another it makes rather more, since its business has to do with changing the fundamental treaty rules rather than interpreting existing ones. My point here, though, was that if the section in the article titled 'governance' is talking about EU 'institutions', then the European council is not one if we are taking strict definitions as proposed below, so should not be discussed in that section alongside the others. My view is that in reality the EC is simply the CofE in a differnt composition, basically the same 'institution' and should be discussed in one section. This seems to be the view taken by the europa website explaining it. Sandpiper (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I think EC and CoE are very similar. Actually in my interpretation the EC is the specific CoE of government leaders (where there is also a CoE of ministers of the environment; but that has no own name). I would suggest to add a double main artilce reference at the top of the section; by doing so we make clear that with "council" we mean both councils, which in my opinion would solve 99% of the problems. Furthermore I think that the text of the 2nd paragraph in the section solves most of the other issues. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well the European Council is not included in the 9 configurations of Council that are described on the Council website (eg environment). It is also described as different within the FAQ section of the Council website. Dealing with other points raised in this discussion, it is NOT informal nor does it derive its authority from the Council of the European Union. On balance maybe I am being a little picky. One final point, the Lisbon Treaty will treat them as different bodies which is suggestive that they are different. Lwxrm (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To start at the end, once the lisbon treaty makes them different, then so will we, but it can only make them different if they are currently the same. I agreee that what the EC does is different in nature to the stuff done by the other incarnations of the council, but that seemed to me merely a consequence of organisizing councils with the correct membership to carry out certain tasks. I think probably what we have is a process of evolution, where the EC has become increasingly distinct to the point where it is about to be given legal separation, but it hasn't arrived yet. Arnoutf, yes I agree we should have two mains given there are two separate relevant articles. Sandpiper (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well to start with the Treaty (the primary source of all such matters), that treats them differently. I didn't suggest that the Lisbon Treaty made them different, just that the division is made clear and the EC is turned into an institution. Or to continue to the Council's own website, that also treats them differently. It is not included as a configuration of Council Lwxrm (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is implicitly accepted as an alternative form of the one council. (hooey...shades of lord of the rings creeping in here... One Council to rule them all, One Council to find them, One Council to bring them all and in the darkness bind them (sorry)) Sandpiper (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checked back here and it occurs....doesn't it go on Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,, so thats the nine versions of the EC in its different configurations. Spooky, eh? So who are the elf lords who get three, and the dwarves who get nine? Presumably the commission would have to be the elf lords, and the parliament the dwarves. Sounds about right. Don't know about the numbers, though. Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's agree it is similar (ie meeting of a certain type of minister, in this case prime minister), but also slightly different as it has a larger political vision as mission. So I think we should all be able to live with a reference to similar, without implying one is a specific form of the other. I have been bold, put it in and removed the tag (I think this should have been solved by some discussion and some text tweaking, and that the tag was an overly large action in the first place, but that is my POV). Arnoutf (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of ECB as an "institution"

There is something irksome to my mind in including the ECB as an "institution" of the EU. I think this is even more so when it is grouped with the other "big 5" institutions. The Constitution Art I-30(3) may have justified this (and more so Lisbon where it is grouped together with the other 5) but the current institutional framework does not justify classing it as an "institution proper". Indeed there is much controversy (over political scrutiny and independance) in such a classification. I would probably go as far to say that it is factually inaccurate to describe it as such. Other than that there is some great work going on here. Lwxrm (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ECB isn't an institution at all, it is just a separate independent body. If you're talking about the list in the intro, the European Council also isn't an institution. It should read "institutions and bodies". Any objections?- J Logan ^t: 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope sounds goods Arnoutf (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sceptical of this. When I asked people above for examples of how the EU was supranational, the two best examples suggested were the ECJ and the ECB. It is very odd to argue that the ECB is not part of the EU, and would exist at all if the EU did not. It may technically be freestanding and not rely on the other EU organisations for any part of its legal framework, but the EU is plainly a collection of bolt-on components which together make it up. I'm also a bit puzzled by the difference between an institution and a body. They both seem to be words meaning a collection of people carrying out a task and I would use them interchangeably in this context. Sandpiper (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, institution is defined by the treaties - so it is not an EU institution. Second, there is a difference or they wouldn't be spending so long arguing about the effect on the ECBs independence on making it an institution. "and bodies" does not hurt, and is accurate.- J Logan ^t: 11:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, i thought someone might say that. Having been reading round this a bit I noticed somewhere it said the treaties defined certain 'institutions'. Unfortunately, the article does not explain that what is meant here is institutions defined in the treaties, rather than just institutions. This point had gone completely past me until just now, so I assume it would also have gone past any ordinary reader of the article. Yes, I expect anyone just reading the intro would simply think it was badly worded talking about the same thing twice. Having now discovered that institutions has a non-standard meaning in the context of the EU, I would still be tempted either to use it alone or one different word in the intro (as almost certainly readers will understand it, correctly, in the ordinary sense, and the intro is a summary). We can't really pretend that the ECB is not an EU institution in the normal sense when we go on to talk about it in the body of the article about the EU. (similarly schengen agreement?) If it is felt important to make a distinction between treaty-institutions of the EU and related others, then we need to explicitly explain this somewhere, and we don't. Its no good hinting at it and arguing over precise forms of words when no ordinary reader will ever understand the nuance.

Incidentally, I am not convinced it is possible to claim the ECB is an entirely independent entity. If the EU was cancelled tomorrow, together with all its harmonising legislation, etc, would the ECB still be able to function? Does the fact that it happens to be created in a separate treaty really make it a non-EU institution in any real sense? Perhaps it would be better to call all of them institutions, and explain later that some are defined by maastricht, others by whatever. Dare I say it, if european culture and sport are relevant to this article, there is no way the ECB is not an EU institution. Joining the euro is a condition of being a member of the EU? (by the way, I was just reading an old page for reference, and I think the recently reworded intro is much better, even if we are still picking at it).Sandpiper (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the ECB wouldn't survive without the EU, that doesn't mean it is not independent in the sense employed here. Independent from political and (to a degree) legal intervention from the "institutions". This was a monumental step for the Member States, where national banks are not always fully independent. It marks one of the extraordinary steps taken towards supranationalism and it is for this reason I feel the insertion of the word "body" is important. The fact it is created in another treaty is not what precludes it from being an institution. The Court of Auditors was made an "institution" in TEU. As for the argument on the readers' perceptions of the word, I don't think that is an acceptable reasoning. Just because few people would notice, doesn't justify it being factually inaccurate. Within the context of an article ABOUT the EU I feel the word "institution" should be used only to describe what the EU itself considers to be an institution. Lwxrm (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The last is an argument about writing good prose which people will properly understand as it is meant. My initial point, at least, was that as it currently stands, the article does not make clear what you are saying. It makes no reference to there being anything special about an EU 'institution', as distinct from a government institution, research institution, stamp collecting institution. The article does not explain this point, and I would expect that few readers would understand what you mean by 'institution'. The article is therefore, if you consider this issue important, currently misleading. I am not personally convinced this technical point of definition of the word is important to the article (though I am not opposing explaining laterin the article that certain things are defined formally as 'institutions', and some are just institutions.)

I also do not think the article places any stress on the ECB being 'independent'. There is no real distinction made between the ECB and the parliament, for example, with regard to how independent of the EU they are. But since I am considering it, in what way is the parliament less independent than the ECB? Or how is the commission more subject to influence than the ECB? Taking the example of a national government, there might be many institutions created by different laws (read treaties, for the EU case) which have markedly different degrees of independence or interrelatedness. But they would still come under the umbrella of things created by the same process to carry out parts of an overall task. Sandpiper (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we are going to go around in circles on this one. Apologies for my constant mention of independence in the above section, I was attempting to redress what I perceieved to be a misconception of what I had meant by independence. It is the lego-political independence that partly explains WHY the ECB is not an institution. I still believe it would be wrong both in fact and law to describe the ECB as an institution of the EU. The EU does not describe it as such and the academic writings similarly herald its exclusion from the list as a step to supranationalism. The amount of controversy surrounding Lisbon in this respect also makes it useful not to apply a blanket "instution" definition. To prevent a cycle of similarly sentimented posts, I will refrain from re-posting unless some new line of reasoning is forthecoming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwxrm (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I regard the EU as independent of the national governments (to a degree) and thus class both it and the ECB as similar independent entities which get on with it by themselves. Thus I was not especially considering whether the ECB is independent of the EU or not, that being irrelevant. Both are organisations which form part of the wider 'EU' which is what we have written about in this article, not simply the definition in the treaty on european union. My primary consideration is to what extent any of these organisations are independent of the member states, not of each other. My impression also was that the independence/non integration of the ECB with the EU had a lot to do with the way it evolved as an institution which states signed up to one by one, rather than as a EU whole. Sandpiper (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel we are becoming side-tracked away from the point of this section, over whether the ECB is an institution and whether it should be regarded as such. The EU doesn't believe it to be, I fail to see the controversy. Lwxrm (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is whether we accept the view of the EU on this. As is being debated currently in the FA review, wikipedia seeks to give a rounded view on a subject. The EU itself may not regard the ECB as part of itself, or as a specially defined thing it calls an 'institution', but outsiders viewing the whole setup may disagree. In the general sense I would say there is no question but that it is an institution of the EU. Editors here even write about it in that way. If the article is to make a distinctin that it is not an 'institution', it also has to explain what an EU instituion is, which it does not do at this time. Sandpiper (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture, European culture month

I was just checking refs and discovered that although we mention the European culture month scheme, it has in fact been suspended and is currently not operating. It may still be worth mentioning because it is certainly something which the EU was doing, and may do again specifically in non-EU countries (presumably as a PR exercise). Or then again, maybe we should just delete mention of it. It seems from the ref I found that it has been somewhat superceded by the city of culture scheme. Sandpiper (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION OF FAQ

Criticism move

I didn't want to fit why I moved a sentence in the criticism sentence in the edit summary. I moved the sentence stating that criticism is discussed on a topic by topic basis into the section intro and bolded the key point. I think that this will more clearly justify why there's no criticism section. Rossenglish (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Political centres

If the 'political centres' issue ever comes up on the talk page again, or if anyone wants to add this question to the FAQ (I may do it if I get time to find and summarise the reasons for the decisions), I thought I'd find the discussions beforehand. The last major consensus was at Talk:European Union/Archive 14#Capital city, and before that it was at Talk:European Union/Archive 11#Brussels. Rossenglish (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Images??

I don't think this page should have any images (unless essential for understanding). It is directed at editors as neutral and simple information. Making it look nice might give the wrong message, that this page contains article information in itself rather then only a tool to smoothen editing. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, this isn't an article it is just an FAQ! In appropriate to decorate it pointlessly. - J Logan ^t: 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I see what you mean. I removed them. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 08:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Country? Federation? International Org.?

IT's CLEARLY neither a country or a federation!!! It's a (unique) kind of Int.Org.!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.83 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is what we explain here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25