Talk:European Union/Archive 26

The mediteranian union! Should that not be mentioned in the article?The EU is a part of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.209 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the Netherlands is not part of the Mediterranean Union. So where do you get the EU (as a whole) is part of it? Arnoutf (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "Union for the Mediterranean" is a collaboration between the EU as a whole and other states bordering the Mediterranean. Hence all EU member states are members of this union as well. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, we are member of the Mediterranean Union, I am really surprised, but then again the renaming was a French ego thingie so why would I be surprised. Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the article and did not really find a suitable location to put this information as ENP EaP are also not mentioned. Perhaps in one of the subarticles ... Tomeasy _{T C} 20:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Med Union is just an EU foreign policy instrument, an engorged Barcelona process to appease Sarkozy's ego. That's the reason the 'EU is a part of it', because it essentially runs it - and it is hardly notable anyway.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea is not that bad, the problem lies in the fact that at the present state the Union for the Mediterranean is a mere THEORY: the commission is still not established, and where is the parlamentary assembly? So, maybe it requires other 2-3 years to shape it clearly as an institution which is HALF EUROPEAN and HALF MEDITERRANEAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.164.118 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this section of the infobox should be changed to capital and largest city. Brussels is at the very least the de-facto capital of Europe and London would be the largest city with a population of 7,556,900. This would put the infobox in line with what is done with member states as well as other politcal or historical areas such as English Counties etc. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to list those current locations as they are where the key institutions are, although "political centres" does seeem a rather strange term. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As you said Taylor, Brussels is the de-factocapital. However, this is not an official status granted to any city anywhere in the EU treaties or official documentation, as far as I am aware. This would render the statement Capital; Brussels very vulnerable to POV or OR criticism. Mentioning political centers, i.e., cities that host major EU institutions is probably less contentious. If there is something strange with this term, it should be changed into more regular parlance of course.

Equally disputed could be the entry Largest city: London. This claim is easily maintained when considering the city propers. However, this measure is especially inapt to describe the relative size of Paris, for which some may claim that it is larger than London. So again, this might call for POV criticism. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the dispute between the largest cities, its definitely one of those two, I just used the given population on their respective pages, of course we would have to choose our preferred definition. I think as long as we stated that Brussels was the de-facto capital and that there is no de-jure capital, there shouldn't be too much of a dispute. I think perhaps that given the modern form that the European Union takes, it should be receive the same format as it would if it were any other state. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally Brussels would have such a position and all the major institutions would be based there so we save a lot of money on travel, but it is not the case sadly. We should stick to listing the key locations currently listed, im still not sure about the term "political centres", but i cant think of anything that would sound a lot better that would go there instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if Brussels is only the de-facto capital. Many countries do not have official capitals. There is no treaty or law stipulating that London is the capital of either England or the United Kingdom, for example. Brussels is the core of European political life. If it quacks like a duck, it generally tends to be a duck!! So I think we should replace 'Political centres' with 'Capital', listing the key cities (Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg in the same way as the Wikipedia entry for South Africa does with Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town), and 'Largest City', listing London. Imperium Europeum (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the term political centres, but listing those 3 cities as "capitals" is not going to be acceptable and will be even more controversial. Brussels is the only de facto capital of the European Union. If it can be backed up by reliable sources i have no problem with that being stated, but cant list the 3 as capitals. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't we list Brussels as the 'Capital', but with a note linking to the bottom of the box stating that this is the 'de-facto' capital and that there are other political and administrative centres, namely Strasbourg and Luxembourg City? This would simplify things, yet provide the extra information for those seeking it. It would also be accurate. Imperium Europeum (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we should treat them equally and the word "capital" is too sensitive still - it will just spark more IP reverts every few weeks and the discussion will return in a month. Political centres is good enough for what we're saying. If we do use the word capital though, we should still list all three. The reality is the treaty declares them all as seats of a major institution.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn´t the EU already regarded a great power even superpower in its own right ? I was looking for references here, but nothing in the article describes the influence and the power of the EU in the world. Why ? While googling I found this: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8762.html. Maybe this could somehow be included here. Marthainky (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In reality if there was political unity within the union then it would be a superpower. However we would need plenty of reliable sources to justify stating it is considered a great or superpower. Not enough have been provided yet to justify inclusion. Obviously if the EU has the UK and France in it, both described as great powers, and Germany, then the EU must be atleast a great power too. But we need sources. This is a debate that would be better held over at Great power, so this article does not say something that article says the opposite to. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The link I found concentrates on the EU power to influence Global Regulatory Regimes. It says: "The great powers--the United States and the European Union--remain the key players in writing global regulations, and their power is due to the size of their internal economic markets." This seems quite knowledgeable. The author, a political scientist, published it in 2008. Marthainky (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is going to need more than one source. Great Power really is the best to raise this, if it gets included as a great power on that list then it should rightly be mentioned here. That article mentions the EU but it does not place it in the list of Great powers, it needs to be there for me to support its inclusion on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree need more than a commercial for a book to show the EU is indeed a great power in the full sense. Arnoutf (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many definitions of Great Power. A few mentions and it should be on Great Power as a possible current Great Power, however to be prominent here there would have to be (approaching) some kind of academic or media consensus or it would get messy in describing it. Considering the term "Great Power" is not really in wide use these days, it is probably not the best term to start with. We'd have more luck talking of it a as a regional power, or talk in real terms of its influence.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also some discussion at Potential superpowers#European Union --Boson (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boson. Marthainky (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, saying the EU is a great power would be the same as saying NAFTA is a great power. The EU is a organization, a mini UN exclusively for Europeans in a sense. It is not a nation and thus can not hold the title of a major power or superpower or any degree of power for that mater.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

Not really. The EU is a unique organization compared to both the UN and NAFTA and certainly much more complicated and country like than both. It can easily be classified as an economic superpower for instance unlike NAFTA.--Avidius (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have:

• European Council - photo of its president - ( Herman Van Rompuy )
• European Commission - photo of its president - ( José Manuel Barroso )

But:

• European Parliament - photo of EP building.

IMO to act consistent and logically, we instead of builiding photo should use photo of the President of the European Parliament, actually Jerzy Buzek Pl2241 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its important there is a an image of the European parliament, i see no real need for an image of the president of the parliament. The President of the parliament has a less visible role than the other two, and the image of the parliament is far more notable. As for the other two, its questionable if they should have images of the people who currently hold the position or an image of the Commission / Council buidlings. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with BritishWatcher. President of te parliament is not a as high profile a functions as either other president. It is the parliament that matters, not its president (ps parliament building is in france which has no freedom of panorama) Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ok I understand now, thanks Pl2241 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tomeasy and Arnoutf, the IP was sticking to the source. Here it is: ‘In 2000...the UK, France, Spain and Germany accounted for 97% of the total budget spent on military research in the EU...The UK accounted for the largest share followed by France.’ Arnoutf – how on earth was the IP edit vandalism??? The Spoorne (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the source some time back, when it was also subject of a talk page section. At some point, I must have missed that the order was changed in the article. When the IP corrected this, I thought they just made it wrong. So, my mistake. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a big issue, but I would be happy to hear other opinions.

The table that lists languages spoken in the EU actually reproduces a Eurobarometer publication. The source has many languages listed with 0% speakers. I think it can be assumed that this means 0 - 0.49% as the smallest percentage listed otherwise is 1%.

For a long time our reproduction did not show the 0% listings of the source. Now, User:RashersTierney insists that these language are reproduced - and with the value <1%.

There are certainly valid reasons to ask to show all languages that are shown by the source. However, the change of the value cannot find my support: If we show these language in order to stick to the source, we should also stick to the value. Note further that <1% is a larger range than 0 - 0.49%. Personally, I would prefer not to show these languages. If we list a lot of languages with 0%, questions arise why not to list others.

Besides all that, the current source referes to the EU25, which is very unfortunate I think. So, if somebody can provide similar infornation for the EU27, it would be the best solution, probably solving the above issue as well. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The table as it stands now is unacceptable because it implies fact that are obviously not true (to overcome this, we need to give much more of the context of the Eurobarometer survey):

1) By providing a long list of languages (including regional languages) it implies completeness, however important regional languages like Welsh, Scottish and Frisian are not mentioned.

2) It lists many non European languaes (e.g. Turkish) as being spoken by <1% of the population; while it omits many other languages that are spoken by <1% of the inhabitants of Europe (for example Swahili, Maori etc etc). If we list all world languages spoken by anyone in the EU (as this table now implies) we need to list all languages with at least 1 speaker living in the EU.

3) The caption other regional languages immediately following Turkish implies Turkish is a regional languages. Additionally this 4% is likely to refer to more! people than the sum of the 13 languages listed as <1%. It seems utterly arbitrary to list a groups of 13 languages that (following TomEasys analysis) refer to at most 6.49% (but is likely much lower) of all EU citizens as 13 lines, and list all other 4% on one line.

Additionally the table has become very long, making reading difficult. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collation of facts, there seems to be no reason for, and in the light of readability a strong reason against this implied full listing (but in truth arbitrarily truncated list see my points 1 and 2).

All these issues would be solved if we revert to the old list. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is acceptable to completely remove the languages that are rounded to 0%.

That would mean removing languages like

• Bulgarian, the native language of 90% of people in Bulgaria
• Croatian, the native language of 98% of people in Croatia
• Estonian, the native language of 82% of people in Estonia
• Finnish, the native language of 94% of people in Finland
• Latvian, the native language of 73% of people in Latvia
• Maltese, the native language of 97% of people in Malta
• Romanian, the native language of 95% of people in Romania

which would be highly misleading. However, it might be more informative to include such information in a separate table.

--Boson (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

@Boson, you list the major languages of EU member states and also candidate Croatia. You do not list all languages excluded by the threshold, e.g., Chinese, Arab, or Turkish. I guess this was intentional, but wouldn't such a selection bring us into even more trouble (1) Romanian's would probably have difficulties to understand that they account for 0% of EU speakers, while their population share is about 4%. Not listing Romanian might be easier to understand as the list also states that it referes to the EU25. (2) The difference made between Croatian and Turkish appears indefendable to me.

I appreciate that a seperate table could help us out of the trouble we are facing by using a source for EU25 not EU27. This table could accomodate the languages that are unrecognized due to this limitation. In this case, however, it is difficult to argue inclusion of, e.g., Maltese in such a table. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to suggest that one should leave out the ones I didn't list here. It was a combination of laziness and wanting to indicate those languages where it would be particularly unfortunate to leave them out, since it would leave out most of the population of a whole country. I presume the original source was intended to include all languages spoken by a non-negligible number of (native) speakers in any one country. It might help to avoid confusing the reader (with 0%) if we included an additional two columns giving the country with the largest number of speakers and the percentage (as in my list above), but I haven't thought that through for languages like French, and the table would still be rather long (unless we used a separate table for the major languages). --Boson (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you would like to add: Chinese - <1% - <1% - PR China - 95% (?) [1]

I do not think this would be helpful. What's the interest here how many percent speak a certain language in some country. How do you find this country in the first place, as for, e.g., Arab?

[1] Footenote: Chinese referes to Mandarin (or perhaps any Chinese dialect?).

I hope some problems of your proposal have become clear.

And yes, I absolutely agree with Arnout's comment that the table is much too long already. Adding to this, I think that blowing it up furher, with obvious information like German - Germany, French - France, adds too little valuable content. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No I would not like to add "Chinese PR China 95%". Unlike the other information, that is not included in the original source. The information does not need to be perfectly up to date, if we do not have a newer reliable souurce, but I don't think we can justify removing languages spoken by the vast majority of the population in any one EU country. How can we present an article that says that Latvia is a member of the EU and that Latvian is an official language, but then implies that nobody speaks it? If in doubt, I think we need to leave the table as it was, with all the countries listed in the source, including those languages rounded to 0%. I think we need a note explaining that 0% indicates rounding and that those languages are spoken by a non-negligible number of people in one or more EU countries; we could add a footnote with more details. I withdraw the tentative suggestion of two additional columns. --Boson (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Re Boson and TomEasy. I can understand that the main (official) language of all EU27 countries warrants inclusion on its own right (We need data for EU27 though). However inclusion of some regional languages and not others remains arbitrary; as well as the inclusion of <1% not EU languages (as it is not clear why Chinese <1% needs mentioning and not Malay which is also spoken by fewer than 1% of EU citizens). It is such subjective decision which I object (or ask to copy the exact rationale why these languages were part of Eurobarometer) Arnoutf (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we must be clear why some are included while others are excluded. Previously, it was easy as we introduced a 1% threshold. Only that the threshold itself can be attacked as arbitrary, perhaps even POV.

If we strictly follow the source, we have to defend why the source lists Chinese but not Malay, or at least why we adhere to this selection.

If we chose to throw out Arab, Chinese etc, and only include Latvian etc. than we have to defend this, and again have to face that our decision may be judged arbitrry or even POV.

At last I would like to repeat my point that it we should not display the value "<1%" as this statement is not equivalent with the statement made by the source.

I could adjust with any of these options. I just want to be clear about their implications and promote a transparent implementation, which will be accepted by both, readers who just seek an information overview and reviewers who are critical about our methods of extracting information. In the past, this table has frequently been subject to more or less motivated changes by various users and IPs. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem: merely because a language is not mentioned by a particular source is not a sufficient reason for excluding that language where the existence of speakers of that language within the EU can be amply demonstrated by another source. The only solutions are: (1) include 200+ languages which could conceivably be spoken within the EU, or (2) delete the table. The latter is the only workable solution. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that User:Blue-Haired Lawyer is being simplistic in his approach. We should either have a 1% (or 2%) cutoff, or add just enough languages to the list to force the "Others" category to drop below 10% (the cutoff point would be Portuguese). That would also provide a meaningful summary while those users who want a more detailed summary could go the article Languages of the European Union. --User:Martinvl

@BHL The strict logic that you present does not have to be rigidly binding here. E.g., we list the five major cities in the EU, and not (1) every settlement for which evidence can be found or (2) no city at all. This is defensible even if sometimes people come around who want to extend to 10, so that a particular city makes it on the list too.

IMO, BHL's argument rather points out how absurd it would be not to define some kind of cutoff. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But the language list isn't the five most widely spoken languages in the EU. If we wish to use a 1% a criterion the table title should reflect it. (The additional problem being that the source is more than three years out of date!) A better solution would be to list only the EU's official languages. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "<1%" is misleading.

My problem with a cutoff of 1% (which, I assume, actually means 0.5%) is that it gives the impression that the list is comprehensive, in the sense that only negligible languages have been omitted. That may be OK for Chinese and Swahili, but it is not OK for major languages of member states. This could be avoided by choosing a cutoff point of, say, 5% (in the total column) and changing the table title to "Major languages . . ." ; there would probably need to be an explanatory note. It is then obvious to the reader that the table is not comprehensive; and we do not need criteria for negligibility. It also means that the length of the table is even more suitable for summary style. The comprehensive table would then be included in the sub-article that is summarized in this section. --Boson (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Can some one give an example of a "supporting competence" decision. I don't see how that works in practice. It seams that almost everything is under QMV (except CFSP and economic-social stuff), if it was unanimity i would think i had understood. In what way it would contrast with a shared competence. Or especially, a shared competence that can't prevent member states from exercising theres. CFSP shouldn't be a shared competence? When ever the council decides unanimously, they don't prevent them selves automatically from having there own policy? Supporting competences mean the council is on its own or something?--217.112.177.252 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is part of the problem, but these two sentences seem to conflate shared competence and supporting competence (previously called complementary):

However in some areas the EU does not have exclusive competence, it only plays a supporting role. In such middle ground member states may enact legislation only where the EU has not, or they may elaborate the laws of the EU.

Do they need reformulating? Perhaps a sentence is missing.

I don't really see what QMV etc. has to to with competence in this sense.--Boson (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't you give an example? I don't see what it means in practice. Why CFSP is supporting when with a unanimity they can do anything they want? Or even with unanimity they can't? That would be weird.--217.112.178.91 (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In an area of shared competence, both the EU and the Member State have the power to act. The Member States can only act insofar as the Union has not acted. This covers (I believe) most areas of Union competence.

In an area of supporting competence, the role of the EU is to help coordinate and supplement action of Member States. It does not pre-empt Member State action as action under shared competence would. The Union cannot harmonise the area in question if it is an area covered by supporting competence. Very often the EU will "support" by giving money.

QMV has very little to do with the issue. Lwxrm (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting some of my question answered here. So the EU can "support" by promising money, states pay the taxes but get nothing back unless they do what they are told? If this is the case, because of the possibility for abuse, the EU is forbidden to support anything else outside the list? Are they other ways for the EU to be supportive? Other then money. And i still don't see why CFSP is supportive, can some one give an example of unanimous decision of the council in CFSP(or in anything), that would be illegal because its a supportive competence, but would be legal if it was shared? Even NATO try (succeeded?) to harmonize certain stuff, like ammunitions(you can recharge with foreign ammunitions and it will work as expected). QMV or unanimity is important, with QMV you can get forced to do stuff you don't want, so need a constitution; with unanimity decision can have unlimited scope, since you vote for it. Right? I'm wrong some where?--217.112.177.167 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In areas where the EU has exclusive or shared competence, it can - through the appropriate legislative process, usually involving the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council (and, of course, scrutiny by the parliaments of member states) - enact legislation. But a directive introducing obligatory conscription in all member states, for instance, would be beyond the competence of the EU. Is that the sort of example you mean? Your comment about the states paying money and doing what they are told seems completely unrelated to anything being discused here. --Boson (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are saying, that if the council decides unanimously to organize conscription at EU level it would be illegal under the current category of supporting competences, but it would have being legal if CFSP was moved under shared competences? In military matters, the council decides by unanimity and on its own, so i would find it weird that it can't organize conscription on legal grounds, if it ever got politically feasible. They can declare war by unanimity right? In taxation issues too they can harmonize, they just need to do it by unanimity, if that field was under shared competences it would mean what difference from now? Now with something like tourism, that is decided with QMV i'm even more confused, that means that a state can get out voted. I just don't see whats the difference between shared and supporting competences, and don't repeat what the article sais, i can read. A law that is supporting looks like what? And why is it distinct from shared. Lwxrm said that it could be supporting by giving money, a little bit more details about this issue, what they just give money away? "supporting competence" is jargon or something? Maybe i should remind you i'm not a lawyer, neither most of the readers.--217.112.177.167 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my last shot at explaining this. Shared competences are (or can be) legislated through hard power. The EU can require member states to do things and take them to court if they don't comply. In this way the EU has common rules on VAT, consumer protection, and so on. Supporting competences are soft in that the EU funds programmes and research, public health awareness and such. But they can't create binding rules. Even if member states agree to follow a certain foreign policy, there is no legal remedy available to the other member states if one member state ignores the common policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then whats the difference between supportive competences and all the other stuff that aren't in the lists? The EU is forbidden from spending funds or try to coordinate in everything else?--217.112.178.113 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Silence implies consent. I edited the article in those lines."cannot enact legislation with the aim of harmonising national laws" creating agencies and authorizing funds are technically laws, but how many readers will think it that way?(not me) Need more explaining and/or drop the words "legislation/laws" entirely.--217.112.178.196 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, at least as far as I am concerned, silence implies that it should be left as it was. Discussion would be easier if you created an account. Then we would know what contributions came from the same person.--Boson (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately silence implies that I had got bored and had plenty of other things to do. My post was somewhat of a simplification (with supporting competences the EU can pass rules which bind the institutions, for example). In any event your conclusion is wrong. Supporting competences is at the bottom of an inverted pyramid of powers. That the EU can in certain areas use hard power to require member state to do something, does not mean that they can't opt to use soft power to achieve the same result. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

White space

Is it only me, or do others think as well, that this part of the article looks awkward. The 3 columns are not congruent and leave a lot of annoying white spaces left and right. Italiano111 (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

is that true?, there is that in EU is 13 other currencies (in the article currencies of EU)Petrb (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite likely. The reference cited merely states which countries have adopted the Euro, but it mentions that the UK and Denmark have "opted out", and that Sweden and many of the newer EU countries haven't yet met the conditions for adopting the Euro. Looking at the more recent countries to join the EU it looks quite likely that there would be 13 currencies (though obviously this will fall as the newer members meet the conditions for adopting the Euro). A precise reference for "13 currencies" would be good, however... TFOWR 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wooff...It is complicated: ok, there is the Gibraltar pound, and the Swiss franc is the official currency of Campione d'Italia, just to say the first two coming to my mind...But without a firm reference maybe would be better to write the "there are also other currencies used" without place the EXACT number: better vague than wrong... --insilvis (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked here: Currencies_of_the_European_Union#Current_currencies...And there is a problem: how do we consider the Turkish lira? Because with the Turkish lira there are 14 other currencies, not 13. The complete list is: 1° Bulgarian lev, 2° Czech koruna, 3° Danish krone, 4° Estonian kroon, 5° Hungarian forint, 6° Latvian lats, 7° Lithuanian litas, 8° Polish złoty, 9° Pound sterling, 10° Gibraltar pound, 11° Romanian leu, 12° Swedish krona, 13° Swiss franc,
14° Turkish lira. --insilvis (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that those pounds are considered as one currency, thats probably why we have 13 currencies listed in the article Petrb (talk)

I think it's the other way round: Turkey isn't yet an EU member, and the Gibraltar pound is a separate currency to the Pound Sterling, albeit one that's pegged at the same rate. TFOWR 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And why swiss frank is the official currency then Petrb (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See Campione d'Italia: it's because Campione d'Italia is surrounded by Swiss land ;-) It's an enclave within Ticino - an Italian commune, but within Switzerland. TFOWR 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

looks like similar reason why Turkish lira is used in Cyprus so because of that I think both should be listed as currency currently used Petrb (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Cyprus is more complicated. The Euro is the official currency of the Republic of Cyprus, which is an EU member and the de jure government of the entire island. However, Northern Cyprus is governed by a de facto government which is not an EU member. The Turkish Lira, as far as I can see, is only an official currency within Northern Cyprus. I'm no expert, however, and there may be reliable sources available which state that the Lira is an EU currency. TFOWR 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, I do know the situation in Campione d'Italia: there are also German municipalities which resemble the situation of Campione and in these gemeinden the Swiss franc is also used but without a formal agreement between Switzerland and Germany. Instead, there is a formal agreement between Italy and the Swiss Confederation which establishes that the Swiss franc is legal tender in Campione d'Italia: even the Italian Republic pays the salaries to the public officials employed in Campione with Swiss francs, AND Campione is a territory within the European Union, so concerning the Swiss franc there is no doubt. --insilvis (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you do; I was replying to Petrb ;-) TFOWR 13:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case I am for removing turkish lira from Currencies of the European Union so that it would not have different informations than European Union I will do that in 7 days if noone is against, or have some different opinion how to solve that Petrb (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's un-cited there's no need to wait seven days. You could either remove it now, or add a {{cn}} tag after the claim (that might prompt another editor to find and provide a reference for the claim). TFOWR 13:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When swiss frank is used in Italy why it isn't mentioned there as currency? I think that list of currencies should be based on currencies maintaned only by the member states. Petrb (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish lira

I suggest to add it to article, it was reverted back in the article about currencies, now there is 15 currencies (more than in EU article), also turkish lira is used on area of the EU there is information about that on official web pages, I already posted the link in discussion Petrb (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

US dollar is also sometimes accepted but that does not make it a currency of the EU. I would limit this to currency actually issued by a member of the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish lira is used in the Cyprus, I just want to make this clear I do not actually care if it is or not, but have a look in Currencies of the European Union Petrb (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to limit that list the swiss frank should be removed too then, it is issued by national bank of switzerland if I am not mistaken :) Petrb (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we should limit ourselves to currencies issued by EU national bank (otherwise I could argue that the Thai Bath is also used in the EU, since I use a bill as a bookmarker ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the only question is: are there agreements between Turkey and Cyprus that officially regulate the use of the Turkish Lira in Nonthern Cyprus? Posive answer: keep TL on the list. Negative answer: scrap TL from the list. --insilvis (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And what about agreement between Italy and Switzerland? actually Turkish lira is on the list only in the article about currencies not in this article, so those articles have different informations now and that makes them look unreliable for other readers Petrb (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

is it just me (firefox 3.x) or you also can`t click on links directly under member states accession map, perhaps there should be some spacing or blank line added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrb (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the animated map at European Union#Member states? They work OK for me (Chrome 6.0 and Firefox 3.6, Ubuntu 10.04). TFOWR 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

problem is with the text under the box (last paragraph of text related to member states), maybe it has soemthing to do with my OS, I run debian stable, I see half of the first line under the box with map Petrb (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I can replicate that with Firefox (but not Chrome). Depends on the size of the browser: when I resize Firefox I can see it occurring. I seem to recall there's a solution for this, but not what it is - I'll have a dig and see if I can fix it. TFOWR 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked for help ;-) TFOWR 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

due to previous discussions I think we should make a definition of what currency used in EU is here are two examples:

• Official currency issued by member states: 22 currencies + EURO (I like this one)
• Currency officialy used on area of EU: 24 currencies + EURO

Petrb (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the first version (issued by member state) for several reasons. (1) Pragmatic: This is most easy to verify (2) Maintenance: This is probably not changing very quickly, while any country can decide at any time to accept some currency (3) No subjectivity: What does "officially" mean. Does there need to be allowed to be used by law? does it need to be accepted by governmental agencies? does it need to be commonly used in economics? etc. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The euro is the currency whereby EU balances are drawn. EU public officials are paid in euros and all the other currencies but four must be switched to euro in the future. Therefore take conclusions by yourself. insilvis (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant the other currencies than EURO listed as currencies of EU (see the info box in article and Currencies of the European Union) Petrb (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think for this article the first option makes more sense. Currencies of the European Union would probably want to go into more detail, including discussing the Turkish Lira and Swiss Franc issues. TFOWR 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think then that would be great to add line above (between swiss frank and swedish) swiss frank in the table in Currencies of EU with text "Other currencies used on area of EU but not issued by any of memer states" because I do not know yet how to merge cells (only in html) Petrb (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious but how can the EU be said to have a geography? It doesn't own any of the land that belongs to the member states. It is effective politically/economically/militarily etc in all the areas agreed with the member states but a geography how does that figure? Do any other of you agree that we could get rid of the geography section and replace by filling out the sections of the governing bodies of the EU Commission/Council/Parliament etc which seem to me a bit short on detail?Andrewing123 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole is a top end summary, there are subarticles about commussion council parliament so I would not make those overly detailed here.

The issue at stake here is whether the EU is merely a political/economic/military entity or more. If we adopt a strict treaty organisation approach (like NATO, or UN) your argument is warranted. However, free movement of people and shared currency makes it also somewhat of a social/geographic community and makes geography relevant. I would go for the latter interpretation and would keep geography. Arnoutf (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see what your driving at Arnoutf but I'm not sure if yur argument entirely hangs together. The EU goes a bit further than other organizations UN,NATO etc true but free movement of people/shared currency I would no way deascribe as 'social/geographic' that is political/economic. Where would the EU exist on a school atlas poolitical or geographic? I've read the links to EU governing bodies and am not suggesting to include that much detail but the space saved from geography could go to expand these sections which are more relevant to EU and not at all dubious like 'geography'.Andrewing123 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the EU is a largely contiguous area with external borders and free movement of labour, capital, etc. within those borders. Like the USA, it's borders are defined politically, not purely by physical geography. I don't see why, from a geographical point of view, the European Union should be treated differently from the USA. One is a confederation, or something similar, and the other is a federal state, but I don't really see that as a hurdle to treating both as geographical units. Geography does not only include physical geography, and countries have geography sections even when their borders are largely political constructs. Other authorities, such as the CIA Factbook, also give the EU its own geography section. Even if the article didn't have a section called "Geography", I think we we should include information like area, population, what parts of the globe the EU comprises physical features, climate, etc. --Boson (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree on this Boston. There is moe than one currency within the european union. The UK and others opted out of the Euro although there is eurozone. Immigration and trade is not fully restricted between member states but it does not flow completely freely either. You go from California to Nevada I don't think you go through customs. You go from the UK to France you pass through customs. There are varying degrees of membership. As I understand the USA there is no varying degree of membership regarding currency or adoption of certain laws, you're either in or out. Still, I agree with you in terms of climate, population area. It is worth compiling that data and also seperating it into areas governed by certain laws, adopting the common currentcy etc.--Omar418 (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The EU has geography, but no official borders like the US. It is not a country, or nation. It is a virtual union by treaty. Only sovereign governments can ratify treaties. The EU has no constitution. A geography section seems appropriate to show who the members are, but there is no comparison to the US. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd avoid using geography. Such a descriptive, gives the erroneous impression that the European Union is a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It totally escapes me why only a sovereign state could have a geography. It is natural for entities such as regions, continents and federations to have a geometry described. −Woodstone (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@Omar, GoodDay, and TFI, please do not make up rules that do not exist, just because if they existed, they would be useful for you. Political sovereignity is by no means a requirement for articles on Wikipedia to have a Geography section. Look at the sub-divisions of the sovereign countries (Saxony, Scotland, Andalusia), they all have these sections. look at the goegraphical levels on top of sovereign states, i.e., the continents, they also have these sections. Would anyone deduce from my examples that these are sovereign states - I do not think so.

The EU covers a clearly defined territory whose geography can be explained. I agrre with Boson, who BTW did not put the US and the EU on the same level. We all know that differences exist between the EU and sovereign states, but why should this be an obstacle to the description of its geography. Because it does not have a constitution?? Even sovereogn states do not neccessarily have this. Would we remove the geography section from the UK article for this reason? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) What a nonsensical thread! Any area - however it is defined - has a "geography" just as it has a "history". Perhaps more interestingly, the EU also has an (embryonic, still) spatial planning framework, reported here and mentioned (in an outdated way) in the article on the European Spatial Development Perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, please don't make accusations you can't substantiate. I made no rule at all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry FTI. I was refering to "Only sovereign governments can ratify treaties" while we are talking on teh subject of the appropriateness of a Geography section. But agreed, you did not make up this rule. Explicitly, this was only done by GoodDay. So my excuses also to Omar. My intention was simply a rebuttal of the opposition againast such a section by the three of you, but my opening line was not really appropriate. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the section (which I stated), I was just stating how the EU is not like the US. The content shouldn't read as though it's a country, but otherwise it makes me no nevermind. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what I propose to improve the article by including more information on essential parts of EU i.e. governing bodies, and exlcuding less relevent parts i.e. physical geography. You can see expanded governing bodies here; and in the context of the whole article here.Andrewing123 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its absurd to think of the EU as a Non-Geographical place. The Schengen Area alone creates a defacto territory. The many policies on environment, habitat and agriculture are also related to geography. Look at the Spanish EU article, they even include Climate and Rivers. Actually I tried to establish a Climate part, but it was reverted. Seniorfox (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In essence the EU is a series of legally binding treaties with a set of organisational bodies to ensure the good governance of those treaties. It can no more be said to have a physical geography than the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Spoorne (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but both the EU and the Criminal Law Act 1967 do have a territorial application. This is fairly straightforward as far the the Criminal Law Act 1967 is concerned but the territorial applications of the EU's treaties isn't straightforward at all. This is what the geography actually discusses. It point out that it's possible for a place to be part of an EU member state but outside the EU itself. Furthermore: unlike the Criminal Law Act, the EU treaties set up a quasi confederation of states with political boundaries and territory; so I think it is justified to entitle the section geography and refer to physical geography. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Contries are what if not just organisational bodies? The EU has its president, politics, borders (schengen), people has its citizenship, why not to mention geography? Petrb (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The conceptual difference between the the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the EU is, perhaps, best demonstrated by replacing "the EU" with " the Criminal Justice Act 1967" in the following list. For some reason, it doesn't sound right. In most cases, it sounds better if you replace "the EU" with another geographical entity, such as "North America" or "the United States".

• Almost 40% of the EU is covered by forests and other wooded areas
• . . . more than 40% of the area of the EU is used for agriculture
• The area of the EU is just over half that of Australia . . .
• The map describes the current migratory situation at the external borders of the EU in 2008
• Indeed, comparisons of the economic geography of the EU to that of the USA show that Europe has fewer and smaller specialized agglomerations than the USA,
• The changes brought about to the political geography of the EU by the enlargement process have also offered new opportunities to deepen existing relations with the ring of bordering states to the south and east
• The economic geography of the EU is changing.
• the right to move and reside freely within the EU
• The geography of the European Union is so rich and so varied that it calls for differentiated actions and approaches.
• The underlying reasons for this concern the EU’s geology
• The population of the European Union(EU) has increased significantly in recent years.
• sustainable use of water resources throughout the European Union
• Soil Quality in the European Union
• Agriculture is a key factor in the economy of the European Union

--Boson (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

BHL: of course the CJA 1967 held jurisdiction throughout a territory which can be described as having a physical geography. But obviously, that is something quite entirely different from saying that the CJA 1967 actually has a physical geography of its own. Exactly the same holds true for the EU. In both cases this is your ‘territorial application’. (Forgive me for saying so, but if you really are talking as a lawyer, then I’m afraid you are talking out of the wrong end of the alimentary canal.) Petrb: I find your use of the adverb ‘just’ fascinating. Boson: You have described 75% of the physical geography of the continent of Europe – thank you for proving my point.The Spoorne (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Spoorne, the above quotes indicate that, when referring to that part of Europe, people do talk about the geography of the EU and use terms such as "external borders of the EU", "area of the EU", etc. as they would with other geographical entities. Similarly, people talk about the geography of the United States when referring to that part of North America. People do not, however, talk about the geography, area, external borders, or soil of a series of legally binding treaties or the Criminal Law Act 1967. In other words, your analogy does not seem appropriate. --Boson (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Think about Frontex.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious but how can the EU be said to have a Commission, a Parliament, a Council and a Court?Andrewing123 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See the references Petrb (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the lack of controversy this time? What I’m getting at is that the geography section is very questionable, and many here have questioned it. Wherreas the governing bodies are beyond question they are fundamentally what the EU is. So why not expand the governing bodies sections a bit with the space saved from geography. Boson and others have made a good case for including human geography here ie demographics, religion, socioeconomic status etc this is all very relevant and could be presented in map format. But physical geography? No way! What a waste of Wikipedia servers! Do you really think anyone wanting the physical geography of Europe is gonna go searching EU pages? What would would be the point? Theyd get a duplicaton of the full map with big bits missing for Norway, Switzerland and Balkan states, and countless little bits missing for Andorra, Monaco, Isle of Man, Guernsey etc. Worse than useless! You’ve asked for peer review cos you wanna get FA status. From records the main reason you didn’t get it is cos this page is too much like advert for EU – all sources piped straight from europa.eu. So if you want an outside opinion on how to improve this article I’d say stop trying to do the EUs job for it by making the EU look like a country. Instead concentrate on the fundamentals of what the EU is ie drop everything on physical geography/include more on Council Commission Parliament & Court.Andrewing123 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe wiki servers can handle geography section, anyway it is very notable and if you read it you will see it is written like geography of union not of state, there are many informations about the area and that is important. Maybe map could be removed but why this whole section? if you want to reduce it, which part would you remove Petrb (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The map is part of member states not geography Petrb (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Note the lack of controversy this time?" Do you mean this thread was created merely to make your point (if so please familiarise yourself with basic rules of conduct on Wikipedia)?

In any case your logic is flawed. The governing bodies are clear cut and present (nobody disagrees - let's call this white). Geography is not as clear cut (again everyone agrees to that). Based on your observation that the case of governing bodies is white, and geography is not, you conclude that therefore geography has to be out (call it black). To follow the metaphore, your lines of argumentation posits that there can be no shades of grey. Arnoutf (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a new wikipedian an I did weeks of reading before I started any editing so that I would understand how it all works but damn! I missed that page about point! So sorry about that Arnoutf, in my defense I would say I wasn't interpreting any 'rule', but was trying to make my point more strongly it's true. As to shades of grey it seems its you who is colourblind. You fail to make a distinction between political and physical geography.I think the political geography is fine essential even but I think more valuable column inches could be given to more pertinant things about the EU than a doubtful physical geography.Andrewing123 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)(remembered the 'four tildes! credit where credits due!)

And remember Arnoutf - don't bite the newcomer!Andrewing123 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On this page is updated version, feel free to change it as you wish. Geography too. Petrb (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

_____

Please stop discussing the Geography issue in the wrong section. Actually, the present section is a nuisance for all those who try to use the talk page constructively. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article from New Europe may not be a blog entry but it's still a newspaper column written by someone who clearly doesn't know anything about international law. This kind of legal statement in a Wikipedia article a published article in a respected legal journal is required. A newspaper columnist mouthing off doesn't qualify!

You don't need to be a country to have a legal personality. A great many international organisations have a legal personality and can sign treaties but they do so as international organisations, not countries. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, I think I have already eliminated the term "country" from my edit. Insilvis (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped too quickly. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In many comments of FA was said that article contains many problemous images (with copyright or inappropriate license), I tried to replace some, but several of them have no other version, anyone has some suggestion? Petrb (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, this article has a five-paragraph long lead - this is against the guideline for Lead length at WP:Lead; this specifies either three or four paras for an article of this size. Compare for example with United States or People's Republic of China, similar entities in terms of geo-political import. I modified this (and improved it along the way) by adding the para on diplomatic links at the end, as it does segway nicely in meaning out of the current last paragraph. This has been reverted on the spurious grounds that it is "illogical". Unless there are further objections I will revert it to the established format for long articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the incipit is clear:

• 1° paragraph: broader information
• 2° paragraph: "domestic" perpective
• 3° paragraph: "external" perspective
• 4° paragraph: how does it work?
• 5° paragraph: history and developments in brief

But noone devised it in a "preconstituted" manner, it was simply a natural evolution of the article through time.
As specified in the article the EU is an international institution of UNIQUE kind: you cannot compare it to the United Nations, you cannot compare it to a nation like Cina or USA. IMHO the structural incomparableness of the EU can legitimate an introduction with five brief paragraphs instead of four longer ones.
----insilvis (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No - there are lots of "incomparable" things in Wikipedia - none of them have more than four. It's a standard - the intro needs adjusting accordingly. Here are a few "incomparably important" articles by way of comparison, but really, you are wasting your time with that argument - this is the wrong place to debate Wikipedia guidelines. See Albert Einstein, NATO, Universe, Art, Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, Africa for a range of varied "massive" subjects - none have more than four. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A guideline, in contrast to a policy, is not strictly binding and can be disregarded if there are reasons that weigh strong enough, at least stronger than the reason behind the guideline. I think that this judgment is just under discussion, and while it is being discussed, it would be good if the article was not be reverted forth and back.

Personally, I have no strong position here. For once, I liked the logical structure that was in place, while I also like the idea of rendering the lead conforming with the guideline. Moving the second para at the end of the fifth makes the content slightly less easy to follow, I think, but it may be an acceptable solution. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't being "reverted forth and back" - I made a bold change and it was reverted - now we're discussing it, as per BRD. As for the guidelines, you need a good reason for waiving a guideline - I was just pointing out that "importance" is not one. Also we don't reflect "incomparableness" by the length of the text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's indeed what I meant. You made a bold change, it was reverted, and now it's being discussed. That's how it should be. I was just arguing against the possible continuation you proposed here: "Unless there are further objections I will revert it to the established format for long articles." Tomeasy _{T C} 21:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean without discussion and consensus. I think the last paragraph and para 2 could be combined along the lines suggested - any other views welcome. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, have a look on this page first what you find would be rewritten lead, if you have any suggestions, try to improve it, I think that lead should be rewritten according to the manual of style. Any improvements are welcome above were several disputes concerning it already Petrb (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Insilvis, just because the EU may be unique doesn't mean the article has to be. Articles are not really supposed to take up the characteristics of their subject-matter. (See: a fairly extreme example.) The manual of style isn't an arbitary list of rules but rather is supposed to represent a good way to write articles. The main reason the lead is too long is the unwillingness of editors to accept summary and dispense with detail. Here's my effort at a shorter lead for what it's worth. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it Petrb (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite like it too, but was anyone complaining that the lead was too long? I saw two complaints about the article: some paragraphs are too short, and the lead has too many paragraphs. A different solution would be to have longer paragraphs. How many sentences should a typical paragraph have? Three, five, seven?--Boson (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is exactly same just reorganised lead on my testpage if you think this one is too short, anyway if you think that Blue-Haired Lawyer made it too short, feel free to improve it, it's just sandbox, I see that only most of history was removed so I like even short one, no need to have huge and confusing lead full of things which are not necessary. Petrb (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are several images being discussed in terms of relevance. You may want to join this discussion here Seniorfox (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this article deserves to be nominated as featured, let's now review what all needs to be finished or updated and what it does not have for succesfull nomination I looked on the result of previous nomination and I think most of the things has been already fixed now, maybe some more reliable sources from books should be added Petrb (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It might or might not be seen as an FA issue, but at the moment the article comes across a bit like an EU factsheet - there is very little sense of the storm of controversy and criticism that, for example, surrounds the repeated inability of the EU to have audited accounts, corrupt activities, disgraced former Commissioners, inability to deal with various crises, the crisis of the Euro, etc. I'm not saying it should all be critical but I don't see how it can avoid those things. Of course, there will (sadly, as with all governmental articles in Wikipedia) be a dedicated team of "defenders of the EU" here to prevent that happening. But it should. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

that would be in conflict with neutral point of view I believe if it was reliable the creation of criticism section is possible Petrb (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of having a criticism section is brought up frequently, so that a generic answer has been formulated here. Of course, this does not mean that this consensus must never be changed. It can be challenged like anything else, but it would be helpful if such a challenge brings up something new, and not just a repetition of the usual things. My opinion is that the things mentioned above by James would equally apply to country articles, which obviously do not have a criticism article. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't imagining a seperate "criticism" section - I don't like those either - I was more just commenting that the tone of the article is very bland, almost as if the EU had never encountered any difficulties and was all marvellous - hardly the reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely though, "bland" is what something like an encyclopaedia article shoud be like. Neutral by nature is bland. It's not meant to be an interesting piece of writing such as a novel - unless of course the subject matter is interesting, in which case the material should take precedence over style anyway. Gammondog (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not required as critera for FA anyway Petrb (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article should have a lot of facts about the EU, so it's not bad if it has certain similarities with a fact sheet. Positive and negative attitudes toward the subject of the article should receive the same prominence as with other topics (such as dogs and spiders, perhaps). We should also avoid UK-centric debates; this article is not the place for lengthy discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of particular forms of governance, corrupt politicians, etc. The same applies to debates about Westminster MPs' expenses and Scottish grievances in the article on the United Kingdom. If we want featured status, we should probably avoid anything that is likely to become a magnet for political activists. --Boson (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a hint there that criticism of the EU is a purely UK position? Hmmmm. Anyway, putting that to one side, the comparison is a false one; the EU is an institution and a political and organisational body - it is not a nation-state like the UK. Therefore criticisms and commentary are relevant, just as they would be for any organisation. I read the guideline in the FAQ and it is incorrect - Wikipedia does tolerate well-sourced notable criticisms of public insitutions. This is not advocating a criticism section - the FAQ is right about that - but it doesn't need to be a "factsheet" which ignores widely known negatives about the EU. The current crisis of the Euro is for example wholly ignored, as is the repeated difficulties surrounding the budget and the Commission and the relationship between the EU and member states' peoples. These are very big ignores. 07:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you make such section then? If it will be constructive and neutral there will not be a reason for reverting that but critism of euro should be in it's own article for instance, note that many experts like Vaclav Klaus (president of Czech) have critism of EU mentioned in his own article Petrb (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not a "section", but some material - and not "criticism", but accurate and NPOV reportage of major issues like the Euro crisis. If this article is assumed to be a major article on a major insitution then it needs to mention the difficulties as well as the mere facts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Euro crisis was (emphasize on "was") an Anglo-Saxon invention, it can not be considered NPOV and should not be part of the article. The integration of so called "problems" or "criticisms" are frequently demanded by UK based editors only and reflects therefore a single national view. The article should concentrate on defacto proceedings and realities created within the European Union, the chat about it should not be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.187.180 (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a good idea if those who advocate the addition of criticism make some concrete proposals.

BTW, this section was not targeted on the criticism issue only. Other issues can be mentioned, and subsequently be solved, that act as obstacles to FA status. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I think some informations are outdated for instance in section economy, there are also old statistics in demography but I can not find new data for it, sources were all working when I was last testing them, but need to check it once more Petrb (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure one of the main obstacles to FA status will be the number of references to online EU sources. When referring to EU legislation, policy, terminology, etc. europa.eu may in fact be the best source, and the references are easily verifiable online, but this will probably not satisfy the reviewers, so we probably need to replace a lot of references with references to printed works. Some people may even prefer dubious media sources to EU sources, but I think - where appropriate - we should include both, where available (i.e authoritative source and reliable source). --Boson (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this was the major concern when it was assessed last time. I do not understand this criticism for the reasons Boson mentioned, but it is a good suggestion to try to add independent, reliable sources to the authoritative ones of the EU, where possible. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It was an odd criticism that somebody raised but you can only assume it'd remain a barrier if this article was nominated again. On the EU criticism point, I dont see this being a UK only point, but at the same time somebody above already got it spot on - an encyclopedic entry is supposed to be neutral, and dry or whatever. Its not supposed to be a discursive essay on the positive and negative aspects of the EU. Delving into the topic of criticism against the EU would be basically opening a can of worms, with an endless number of points to discuss. --Simonski (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a peer review request if you want you can participate on it Petrb (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Review has result: in first line we must improve links and references, there is a need for more references in history, we also should update current links if possible to meet verifiability criteria better (more sources, more stable links, more clear) Petrb (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see lead was modified to 4 paragraphs, that's good, but the one in middle is quite larger than others, anyway what do you think about this:characteristic of the EU (and its predecessor bodies) in my opinion is the ability of member states to pick and choose to some extent what parts of the EU they participate in and what parts they do not. So not every EU country has adopted the Euro. The EU also allows non-member states to participate in aspects of membership to some extent - so not all EU countries are in the Schengen Agreement, but some non-EU countries are, and the EEA and Western European Union are / were the same way. I think this should be in the lead somehow.(copied from review) Petrb (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph became to bulky, a seperation to 5 different parts looks more even. Seniorfox (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Headers

I have merged several headers but it was reverted, I don't see problem in merging parliament and council, sections are so small and so corresponding that they could be put together. Or not? Petrb (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was there a need to merge them at all? If sections are going to be under the same header surely there should be rational basis. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It was in one comment in FAC, but your improvement is good, better than mine, thanks Petrb (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this, I don't think that idea of splitting courts was very good because it made small sections and according to manual of style it is better to merge small sections to large, so I think it would be better in Courts as h3 (put it back). Petrb (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Institutions" under "Governance" ? "Governance" without "Institutions" ? Or just "Institutions" ?

Petrb, sorry for reverting it.

My concern is this: the section is named Governance, and then you read

"The institutions of the EU operate solely within those competencies conferred on it upon the treaties and according to the principle of subsidiarity (which dictates that action by the EU should only be taken where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states alone). Laws made by the EU institutions are passed in a variety of forms, generally speaking they can be classified into two groups: those which come into force without the necessity for national implementation measures, and those which specifically require national implementation measures."

So it is clear that we are illustrating the institutions of the European Union. And they are mentioned also in the article lead (= Important institutions of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens.). Therefore placing an "undersection" with the title "Institutions" seems redundant to me, so IMHO it should be avoided... Anyway, I try to make also another suggestion: why not changing the name of the paragraph directly? I mean, from "Governance" to "Institutions" ? insilvis (talk) 9:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with this but budget should be somewhere else then? Idea was to reduce headers in toc. Petrb (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice question, I don't know. However there is a small advantage in this "placement": before the "budget" section there is the "courts" section, and the last court to be described is the court of auditors, which controls the EU budget, so it is easy to follow the "description"... ----insilvis (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article can contain everything we have to say on the EU. Do we really need to know that the Gibraltar Pound is used within the EU or that a few people speak Hindu? Similarly information about the EU's non-existent health policy is just out of place. I realise that few editors will agree with everything I've deleted but I think we have to all realise that there are limits to what we can have in a single article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you remove some important stuff it's welcome. I've seen that you removed paragraph about currencies and obligations to switch to euro that looked important to me. Petrb (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The obligation to join the eurozone is discussed in the second paragraph in the Monetary union section. What I deleted just duplicated this information. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am new here, and User Boson has recommended I seek consensus on the most appropriate treatment of the audit opinion. My earlier brief summary of and reference to the most recent audit opinion of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the EU budget has not been accepted by all users. It should be noted that the Court of Auditors opined that there were material errors in respect of the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. I haven't yet had the time to look at all the reports back to 1994 (contributions by those who have would be particularly welcome) but understand there may be similar reservations each year. This is clearly unfortunate as it would have made our task simpler had the auditors been able each year to endorse the EU's exemplary governance. It would be good to have suggestions of how best to encapsulate this information within the budget section of the main page (for instance should only the most recent audit opinion be summarized and referenced, or should there be some indication of the nature of the audit opinions for earlier years also?)

User Boson has also suggested fuller discussion elsewhere, with a link. Guess the EU Budget page is currently the best place for this. Any other suggestions? Thanks,BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of points:

• The Criticism section at Court of Auditors obviously needs some TLC (the title of the section is part of the problem) but, on reflection, since this is not just a budget issue, the main discussion should perhaps be at Talk:Accountability in the European Union and any changes/aditions should first be made in that article. In that article the information could be presented in a wider context and could be discussed in some detail. Better links could be provided from other articles. When a consensus version has been arrived at there, we could consider what part of that information is important enough to be summarized (with a link) in the top-level EU article or other EU sub-articles. As it is, the Court of Auditors itself, as a fairly minor institution, doesn't get much coverage.
• As regards, looking at the reports back to 1994, care should be taken to base any interpretive statements on secondary sources.

--Boson (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In agreement that this whole area needs much fuller discussion elsewhere, but unsure as to whether the initial steps should indeed take place on that page. Were one to use User:Henrik's stats tool I imagine there would be quite a difference between the number of views of the EU page and of the Accountability in the EU discussion page. I imagine that there is also a discrepancy in the number of Users watching and contributing to the two pages. Am a little concerned that, were we to start there, the audit opinion may not reach the main page in a timely fashion. Think it would be good though to include a link to the 'Accountability within the EU' page within the ?Wikilinks? of the EU page, as I believe it is currently missing. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Surely the most important fact about the EU is not the combined population of its member states or its GDP. If people want to have this information in the lead fair enough, but surely it has not place in the first paragraph! IMHO the GDP info fits much better with the sentence on the single market as its shows how big the single market is. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the reference to regional integration is largely meaningless. There is no need to jump into this fairly complicated concept in the lead where we should be concentrating on the essentials. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree the first paragraph maybe should not be as first but is important enough to be there, if you want to move it lower do it but do not remove it please, it is interesting, anyway I would merge it with second paragraph. Petrb (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that someone deleted the part about the European Central Bank. Because the ECB is the most powerful European institution together with the European Council, IMHO this deletion is nonsensical. Therefore I shall edit the page back in order to reinstate the deleted section about the European Central Bank.
----insilvis (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would respectively disagree. Neither the ECB nor the Court of Auditors really belong on this page. I suspect you'd be unlikely to find comparable bodies in any country article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find this "discussion" you speak of, Insilvis. What I have done is not delete info on ECB but rather place in with our other info on Monetary Union. This is in line with the thematic approach of the article. The Federal Reserve has more power in the US that the ECB does in the EU but is only referred to in footnotes in the United States article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would assist the Blue Haired Lawyer here. The ECB is important, but is usually rather an independent institution which is not seen as part of a political "Governance". The ECB issue is also covered in the EMU part, so I don´t see the necessity to refer to it twice. The other institution, the Court of Justice, is probably better placed in the "Legal System" part. Seniorfox (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The EU institutions are seven: so why not regroup all of them under the "Institution" section? Moreover: It is true that the ECB is an indipendent institution, but its president is nominated by the European Council. Moreover the ECB IS the most powerful institution of the European Union, therefore the question should be reverted: is the EU independent from the ECB or not? ----insilvis (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mainly because we have to look behind the veneer of the treaties and decide what are the most important institutions. Merely because they are all given the status of "institution" doesn't mean they are equal in power. Before Lisbon we gave the European Council the most prominent position notwithstanding that it wasn't an institution at the time.
• Secondly because, as far as I can see, you're in a minority of one as far as the ECB is concerned. There are many independent central banks in this world. How many countries have you heard of where they central bank is the most powerful institution?
• Thirdly because the ECB, the ECJ and the CoA easily under thematic heading in ways that the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the Commission don't. The ECB looks after monetary policy so it makes sense to include it under our section on monetary policy. By similar logic the Court of Auditors come under the budget section and the ECJ comes under the legal system section. To do otherwise results in the unnecessary repetition of material. This is also why it made more sense to rename the heading "Political institutions". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"How many countries have you heard of where their central bank is the most powerful institution?". That is the point: the EU is not a country but the ECB has the SAME powers of the Federal Reserve (I know that the targets are different because the ECB must keep the prices stable while the Federal Reserve must also watch the unemployment rate, but this is a difference "by principle" and not related to the practical powers of the ECB). Therefore there is an actual disproportion of power in favour of the ECB here in the EU (I am writing from Italy) compared with all of the other institutions. There is no other place in the world where a central bank has so much power. IMHO it seems ridiculous, in that specific case, to split the institutions in "political" and "non-political" ones: the main power of a nation is that of printing paper notes, and in an area (like the eurozone) where this power is demanded to a supernational institution it is implicit that this power "overpowers" all the other powers by default and in particular here, where there is no central government able to implement fiscal policies directly (as in the case of the eurozone). I remind you that this years the ECB President attended almost regularly to the European Council, as the ECB were the 28th state of the European Union. Keeping the ECB together with the other institutions help to understand the pivotal role that this institution has in this unique "puzzle" that the EU is.----insilvis (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're partially answered your own question. Even as central banks go the ECB has limited powers and is basically put into a straitjacket by the political institutions whose rules it has to follow. The main power of a state is the legitimate use of force, the capacity to levy taxes and wages wars. You also forget that the ECB is just part of a network of eurozone central banks. He goes to meetings. He doesn't have a vote! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In Italian I should say : "fette di prosciutto sugli occhi" (slices of prosciutto put on both eyes). Just because you open your eyes, read this article appeared today (29 Dec 2010) on the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703814804576035682984688312.html

Just a very very brief extract:

The politicians were shaken. Mr. Trichet had been propping up Ireland's banks for months with emergency loans. Translated from banker-speak, the warning was clear: Mr. Trichet was threatening to cut Ireland off.

Over the next two weeks, the ECB played hardball. Behind closed doors, it threatened to shut off cash it was providing the banks, and scotched a plan to salvage the weakest lender, Anglo Irish Bank.

Irish officials insisted publicly that a bailout wasn't on the table: Political leaders feared a voter backlash at the loss of sovereignty a bailout would entail. But on Sunday, Nov. 14, Mr. Lenihan quietly dispatched a team to Brussels to hold preliminary talks in case a rescue was needed.

Two days later, euro-zone finance ministers gathered in Brussels. They urged Mr. Lenihan to accept the money and stop the market panic from spreading. "You have to do it tonight," Mr. Trichet told Mr. Lenihan.

Ireland still tried to resist. Then, on Nov. 18, at their monthly meeting on the 36th floor of the ECB headquarters, Europe's central bankers delivered an ultimatum to their Irish counterpart, Patrick Honohan: The ECB would disallow use of the Irish central bank's emergency loan program unless Ireland took the bailout.

That weekend, Ireland formally asked for the money.

You said that the main power of a state is the legitimate use of force, the capacity to levy taxes and wages wars.

Hence, let us take the practical example of the Irish crisis. The ECB forced the Irish Government to accept the plan (as the WSJ article described), and because of this plan the Irish Government shall increase taxes in various ways, but not only: the are some "odd" obligations within, like the one which impose that each Irish family shall have a "water meter" in order to take account of the water consumption (surely this obligation is aimed at privatising the Irish water utilities in the future). Of course, the ECB would not declare war against Ireland if the Irish Goverment did not accept the plan: the ECB simply threatened Ireland not to buy Irish Government's bonds anymore, i.e. not to give a single euro to Ireland anymore. So the ECB gave a 24h ultimatum: accept the plan, or Ireland would be swept away by financial collapse, and in the modern world this is worse than being invaded.

As you can clearly see, the ECB forced the Irish Goverment to accept a plan that Ireland did not want. In a normal country the central bank is submitted, in a way or in another, to the will of the government. This is not the case: the ECB is responsible only before financial markets, not to the EU citizens. The same WSJ article reports that a strong "argument" intercurred between Sarkozy and Trichet over that precise point: "You're going to destroy the euro", Mr. Trichet shouted. "You don't realize how serious the situation is," he told Mr. Sarkozy. "Maybe you're talking to bankers," Mr. Sarkozy snapped back. "We are responsible to citizens."

Giving a judgement about this matter is not my task. As an editor of Wikipedia, my task is just to express the plain information in the simplest way as possible. According to the treaties, the EU institutions are seven, ECB included. So, dividing the institutions between "political" and "non political" ones has very little sense when an institution like the ECB (which in that scheme should not be considered "political") is able to influence the political decisions of the EU in a so drastic way.

As I have already written concerning with that specific case, keeping the ECB together with the other institutions help to understand the p i v o t a l role that this institution has in this unique "puzzle" that the EU is. ----insilvis (talk) 2:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm missing anything, but I saw one time that somebody had taken the sensible step of just merging the culture and sport content into one section, without the need for a sub-section on sport. This seems to have been reverted to some extent by somebody. The sport section was only really ever there to appease Lear, who unless he is back in some other guise, no longer frequents this site. To me the usefulness of having sport as an individual sub-section is entirely questionable, given that there is a clear distinction between bodies such as UEFA and European sporting bodies, and the EU, the former having minimal involvement with the latter. Given the current length of the subsection, surely the minimal content that is actually relevant in it could just be merged with the culture section itself. This article is beyond the advised length enough already without the addition of information that is irrelevant to the subject of the article. --Simonski (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the section should be renamed "Culture and Sport" (and the subsection heading removed and the two "main/see also" articles put into a single main/see also line). But I don't see irrelevant information about "UEFA and European sporting bodies" - all content is relevant (it is about the EU internal market and the Treaty of Lisbon). I would question the validity of the claim that "Under the Treaty of Lisbon sports were given a special status which exempted this sector from many of the EU's economic rules." - but I don't see irrelevant content. Alinor (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

CHF is used in Campione d'Italia, but is missing from the infobox. See discussion here. Alinor (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And US dollars are used in oil trade. That does not make these official currencies of/in/issued by a EU member state. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many others this need new consensus I am for changing euro + 10 + 2 to 10. No need to list every currency used in EU. Petrb (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For a currency to be listed/counted/mentioned it has to be both A] declared official by government of EU member state (or subnational government of special territory of EU member state) and B] in territory covered by EU laws.

So, no, there are not "many others". The currencies declared official by governments of EU member states (and their subordinates) are the Euro, 10 others for countries that haven't yet entered the Eurozone, and 2 in special territories - CHF (Campione d'Italia) and GIP (Gibraltar). See Currencies of the European Union.

USD is officially used only in territories outside the EU (Turks and Caicos, British Virgin, British Indian Ocean Territory). Other currencies are also officially used (XPF, AWG, ANG, SHP, NZD, FHP, XCD, KYD, BMD), but again only in territories outside the EU.

USD may be used for some trade or other type of transaction (oil trade) - just as any world currency that the contracting parties choose to utilize. This does not make such currency official, legal tender or whatever. We don't add USD/EUR to infoboxes around the world just because they are used in some transaction.

TRY fails one of the criteria - it's not declared official by Republic of Cyprus, but by TRNC (TRNC is not recognized by Cyrpus and the EU) - or fails both criteria - because in addition the EU law application is suspended in the territory outside of Republic of Cyprus control (e.g. TRNC territory where TRY is used). Alinor (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why fork the discussion here and there? Alinor (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is watched by more people, concerning list of currencies why to list some currencies you can't even prove with references that are being used on area on EU and are officialy recognized? What about other currencies which are used on area of EU? Can you proove that there are exactly 2 more currencies? Petrb (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "you can't even prove with references"? I thought these are obvious to you (since you didn't disputed it) - from Campione d'Italia we have ""Comune di Campione d'Italia" (Italian). Retrieved 2009-01-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "... pur essendo territorio italiano Campione è doganalmente ed economicamente svizzero. Così pure la moneta e la rete telefonica. ("... although being Italian territory, Campione is customs-wise and economically Swiss. Also the currency and the telephone network.") " and from Gibraltar pound we have "Government of Gibraltar (1934). "Currency Notes Act" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-08-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)"

CHF and GIP are the only officially used currencies (sources above) in territories where EU law applies (Art.52 TEU, Art.355 TFEU), other than the Euro and the 10 currencies of member states outside the Eurozone.

So, your questions:

• why to list some currencies you can't even prove with references that are being used on area on EU and are officialy recognized? - sources showing that GIP/CHF are official currencies in these two respective territories provided above. Sources that EU law applies in these territories ("area on EU"?) - Art.52 and Art.355.
• What about other currencies which are used on area of EU? - officially or unofficially used? For officially used see next question. For unofficially used currencies we should copy the List of circulating currencies not only in this infobox, but in all country infoboxes too.
• Can you proove that there are exactly 2 more currencies? - yes, all territories listed in Art.52 TEU and Art.355 TFEU are listed here (see first column for "Application of EU law") along with their official currency (last column). There are no unaccounted for territories (if we use Euro + 10 + 2).

In fact, the problem here is that the only EU currency is the Euro (official currency of the institutions of the EU) - that's why it has 'de jure' behind it in the infobox. Listing the "+10" or "+10+2" or "+10+X" and this are just ideas of Wikipedia editors. I don't object on listing GBP, DKK, CZK, etc. - but if we are going to do this we should do it consistently and following criteria A] and B] above. Alinor (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but last consensus was to list only currencies which are being issued by member states, it makes sense it's unclear if those two currencies are only or if there are more. Some users mentioned even russian rubel that is why I think it would be best not to specify number of them, number of oficial currencies is clear, it's 10 Petrb (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no reference that proves there are exactly 2 more currencies that is what I meant. Petrb (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have reference about the "+10" either. It's equally obvious/clear the situation of the "+10" and "+2". We have references about where EU law applies (member states, special territories) and about what currency is official in these territories. It's not a "single reference" but this doesn't make it less relevant.

"it's unclear if those two currencies are only or if there are more." - same applies to the "+10".

russian ruble, USD and others are not official/legal tender in territories where EU law applies. That's why there is no reason to list them.

If you think that there is some additional currency than the "Euro+10+2" - just say so. But I don't see any reason why GBP and CZK should be mentioned and GIP and CHF - not mentioned. All of these are official currencies in territories where EU law applies.

Otherwise your position looks like "there are more people know who are the Member states of the European Union (and what their currencies are) than who are the Special Member State territories and the European Union (and what their currencies are) - so we should mention only the former and not the latter". So should we just delete everything that is not known by most readers? Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to give additional information to the readers and not just what they already knew?

We already make one artificial/arbitrary distinction ("Euro + 10 + 2" instead of just "Euro + 12"), by not mentioning CHF/GIP by name - in no case should we go further by not mentioning the "+2" at all. Alinor (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And this distinction is added to the decision to put currencies other that the Euro in the infobox (these are not "EU currencies", but merely "official currencies of EU member states")

Also, if we are going to list all currencies issued by EU member states (regardless of EU law application to the territory where the currency is official/legal tender) - then we have to list "Euro + 10 + 2 + XPF, AWG, ANG, SHP, FHP, KYD, BMD and even XCD". Alinor (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated before, I think issuing of the currency by an EU country is an important issue, as that means the EU can have control over the currency, e.g. by ECB or EU commission treaties. This makes it completely different from CHF over which no EU institute has control; for that reason alone it should not be listed as a currency OF the EU. In any case, as far as I know in the italian district Euro is also legal tender, so CHF is a secondary currency there.

GIP is yet another special case, as this is a coin issued by a sub-country entity (and GBP is legal in Gibraltar). If we go down that part, why not include Scottish and Northern Irish Pound as well. I think we should stick with nationally issued currency in the infobox, and further explanations should be made somewhere in another article. Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"EU" is not some absolute ruler that has control, etc. There are Treaties of the European Union, secondary EU law based on them and Institutions of the European Union that implement these. Nothing here deals with the issuance of currencies other than the Euro (of course I speak about direct control/rules - as economies/budgets are interrelated there are influences, etc.; also states in procedure of joining the Eurozone enter ERM-II where they aim to keep their currency rate to the Euro in a specific band - but again - the control is by the non-Eurozone state and not by the EU).

Currencies other than the Euro, currencies issued by national banks other than the ECB, currencies to used by EU institutions - these are not "EU currencies". So, both CHF/GIP and CZK/GBP are NOT currencies of the EU. These are merely official currencies in territories where EU law applies (but not the parts of the EU law dealing with currency circulation - because of Euro opt-outs and derogations).

We, Wikipedia editors made a decision that in addition to the "EU currency" (Euro) we should list/mention in the EU infobox some relevant non-EU currencies. But now it seems that we have disagreement about what currencies are relevant.

I propose the following - for a currency to be listed/counted/mentioned it has to be both A] declared official by government of EU member state (including subnational government of special territory of EU member state) and B] in territory covered by EU laws.

Decision by government to declare a currency official legal tender is more important that who is the issuer. If EU member state Malta had declared USD as official legal tender should we exclude it, just because it's not issued by Malta itself?

"Nationally issued" - so you challenge UK sovereignty over Saint Helena, Gibraltar, etc. or France sovereignty over Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, etc.? I understand what narrow meaning you put "nationally issued", but I fail to see this definition described somewhere. If we are going to add all currencies issued in EU member states, regardless if the territories where they are issued/official legal tender apply EU laws or not - then we have to add XPF, AWG, ANG, SHP, FHP, KYD, BMD and even XCD.

Do you state that CHF is not official legal tender in Campione d'Italia? Is the source I copied above wrong? Do you have another source conflicting with it? What do you mean by "secondary currency"? Secondary official or just "another currency unofficially used by the people"?

GIP is not a coin. It has also banknotes, but this is irrelevant. It's a separate currency - unlike the Scotland notes that are just a different design of the British pound. That's why GIP has a separate currency code unlike the Scotland notes. And yes, GBP and GIP are both official legal tender in Gibraltar. That doesn't make one of them less "notable" than the other.

So, keeping in mind that "issued by EU member state" includes many currencies not currently listed, that "issued by EU member state" has no relation to the EU itself (the EU as defined by its treaties, law, institutions - not by the "mechanical sum of states" - it isn't anything like that) - what do you think about the A]+B] definition above? Alinor (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"We, Wikipedia editors made a decision that in addition to the "EU currency" (Euro) we should list/mention in the EU infobox some relevant non-EU currencies." Can you show me exactly where and when "we decided" that, as all discussion seem to gravitate to a consensus to only include currency by EU countries at the national level (i.e. not GIP but GBP). Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to upset this discussion too much but there is only one EU currency: the euro. All the other currencies (legal tenders) used in the EU are merely the currencies of EU member states or parts of EU member states. It's just like the distinction between languages which are the official language of an EU member state or of part of an EU member state, and the official languages of the EU itself. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnoutf - the consensus about "issuance" you refer to is exactly a decision "that in addition to the "EU currency" (Euro) we should list/mention in the EU infobox some relevant non-EU currencies." - because as I have pointed above and Blue-Haired Lawyer also points after your comment - the only EU currency is the Euro. The rest are not EU currencies.

Blue-Haired Lawyer, you are correct. What I argue here is that if we are going to mention other currencies than the Euro itself, then we have to be consistent and to mention all of them, no just the "main +10". If the consensus is that we should not mention non-EU currencies such as CZK, GBP, etc. - then of course there will be no need to mention GIP and CHF. Alinor (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Blue Haired Lawyer. I like your approach. How about indeed listing only Euro; as it is indeed the only currency OF the EU. And to help people who may object add a footnote stating "Besides the Euro there are several other currencies in legal use within the European Union." That would solve the whole issue without having to set up any subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria (which most of the discussion above, including my own posts has been about). Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, anyway if you want to list all then don't exclude TRY, perhaps we could add about other 20 currencies which might be found on area of EU too. Petrb (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with either "Euro" or "Euro + 10 + 2". I don't see any reason to use another set of currencies.

Petrb, why should TRY be mentioned? It is the official currency of TRNC - a state that isn't member of the EU and its used in Northern Cyprus - a territory, where EU law doesn't apply. So, there is no relation between TRY and the EU.

"add about other 20 currencies which might be found on area of EU". What currencies do you refer to? If these are some set of privately used/not legal tender such as List of circulating currencies - I would like to know the criteria for choosing some of these over the others - and I don't think we have a good reason to mention such privately used/not legal tender currencies (and other infoboxes don't mention these either).

And what is this "area of the EU"? Alinor (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there is relation between northern cyprus, see page of EU, there is mentioned that there are discussions between the governement of northern cyprus and EU and also where is declared that the other currencies are official to EU, I am now talking for instance about swiss franc or gibraltar pound, I can't find any reference. Petrb (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here http://ec.europa.eu/cyprus/turkish_community/index_en.htm Petrb (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I said that there is no relation between the TRY and EU (because there is no relation between TRNC and EU)

"there are discussions between the governement of northern cyprus and EU" - the link that you gave doesn't show that - it just shows that EU would like Cyprus to reunify and support these talks and would support the people/economy/etc. "in the areas in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control" trough some special means. Actually the link you supplied NEVER mentions the TRNC. It uses "Turkish Cypriot Community" and other phrases - and that's because the EU doesn't recognize the TRNC.

Also, even if there were EU-TRNC discussions - having discussions with somebody doesn't mean that HIS currency is YOUR currency (e.g. there are discussions between the EU and Croatia - that doesn't make the HRK a "currency of the EU").

"where is declared that the other currencies are official to EU" - what do you mean? As Blue Haired Lawyer and I have said - the only "EU currency" is the Euro. All others, including GBP, CZK, etc. are NOT currencies of the EU, but merely of its member states and their territories.

Or do you question that GIP is official legal tender in Gibraltar? For sources on that see my comment above from 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC). Alinor (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

issuers

Infoboxes mention only the official legal tenders of the infobox country/territory - not all privately used currencies. Infoboxes mention all official legal tenders of the infobox country/territory - not only those issued by the country/territory institutions. For example - Panama infobox lists the USD.

If somebody thinks that the issuer is nevertheless notable - this can be mentioned in a footnote. Alinor (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, I can do little with your statement, as it is phrased as a very strong statement of fact.

Although it is positioned as a fact; I have only your word to assume it is indeed the case, as your post does not refer to either a policy or guideline; nor to representative overview of all infoboxes in Wikipedia and how these address currency. A single example is not convincing in this regard. Arnoutf (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this obvious? All over 200 infoboxes are examples of 'not listing all privately used currencies'.

And here are more examples about currency not issued by institution of the infobox country: Ecuador, El Salvador, Andorra, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, Vatican City, Liechtenstein, Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Timor-Leste, Kiribati, Tuvalu.

What do you disagree with in my comment above? Alinor (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not necessarily agree, or disagree with your statement above. I cannot, because you personally on your own claim to lift an indiscriminate collection of examples to a fact. There is just a random selection of examples; which can never (ever) support a strong statement of fact (i.e. showing more white swans does not prove all swans are white). So I cannot udge whether your statement has any value whatsoever. Following precautionary and Popperian approaches my Null Hypothesis must be that your statement has no value; and since you have provided no valid arguments of the opposite, I cannot reject that. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You can ask this question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (if this is the place dealing with these infoboxes) - "Do infoboxes show in the currency field: the 'official legal tender', 'privately used', 'issued locally', something else or a combination of those?"

Do you argue that the answer will be different from what I describe above or do you simply question the wording/arguments that I used in my answer? What do you think that the answer is? Alinor (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody explain what the part Development refers to ? PRISMALYTIC (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph titled "urbanization" (9.1) claims: "One third of EU citizens live in cities of over a million people." However, if you take a look at the list of major cities in the EU and then add the inhabitants of all cities of over a million people, you get a total population of approximately 40 million people living in such cities (of over a million inhabitants).

However, the EU has approximately 500 million inhabitants in total. So if you divide 40 million by 500 million inhabitants, you get a percentage of only 8% living in cities of over a million inhabitants. So the first sentence in this paragraph is definitely wrong and should be corrected. (Maybe it's a third of the EU population living in cities of over 100,000 inhabitants - that seems to be more realistic to me, but I don't know if it's true, so it should be checked before).

--79.253.217.242 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. To state the figure 100'000, even though it appears realistic to me as well, we would need a source though. The current source link is not working. I remove the statement for the time being. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the source. The data is stated to be from 2003; so, even if what it was intended to mean was true, it may not apply to the present EU anyway. --Boson (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if there was still the EU15, I would discard the source as unreliable. The real value, wherever it may be, was nowhere close to one third. Maybe they used some weird definition of whom to count as an inhabitant of such a city, e.g., all of the people living in Randstad while in fact nobody in the Netherlands lives in a city larger than 1 million.

Unfortunately, I failed finding a reliable source for a population percentage living in cities larger than X. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to get some input on this: German Union. Is it verifiable? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for deletion (PROD). The content is almost certainly incorrect (to the extent that its meaning is at all clear). --Boson (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we have the full map of the EU i.e a map encompassing Reunion and Guiana. Adam4267 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We agreed before that the map should (1) show continental EU at a decent size, with (2) limited distortion of norther territories (like northern Norway). This requires something like the current globe centered on central EU.

This will distort outlying territories. Guiana is actually on the map depicted in green (although very much distorted), Reunion is just too small anyway to show on a map of this scale but Madagascar (its closest neighbour is there) so it is likely the position of reunion is on the map (but the island itself being smaller than a single pixel maybe not).

If you can come up with a map with a better depiction of Guiana and Reunion, while keeping continental EU large in size and undistorted, please give an actionable suggestion how that map would look like. Otherwise, we cannot act on this suggestion as I have no idea how such a map can be made. Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Italy has a population of 60 000 000, France has 65 000 000, how can be more native speakers of Italian then French in EU? If we add the Francophone population of Belgium ( 6 000 000 ) there are more people speaking French as their first language than Italian. In the article it is written that 13% of EU speak Italian and 12% of EU speak French as first language, I think this is not correct here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.145 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See note and cited source. The survey was carried out at the end of 2005 and was based on the population with a minimum age of 15. This would seem to tally with OECD statistics, which indicate that in 2005 the corresponding populations for Italy and France were about 44.5 million and 42.6 million respectively. Hopefully, there will be some updated statistics for the EU-27 sometime. --Boson (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason is related to immigration within EU: there are a lot of Italians and Italian descents who live in Germany, Belgium, France. So here the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.2.236 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What is with Frankfurt am Main, Germany?

Frankfurt am Main, Germany is a other political city, because in Frankfurt there is the headquarters of the ECB (=European Central Bank). The ECB are the institute for the money and the currency politics in the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.45.140 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot add all cities with EU institutes, so we decided to only list "political" institutions (council, high court and parliament). Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we add all cities with EU institutions? The only one missing is Frankfurt am Main. --Glentamara (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Euhm no, the bank is an institute, not an institution (the latter having a role in political power).

If we start adding institutes, just from the top of my mind: Pisa has EFSA, The Hague has Europol and I am convinced there are many many others. Arnoutf (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

EU has seven institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the Court of Auditors. (art. 13.1 TEU). So no, there are only four cities with EU institutions (Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Frankfurt am Main). Then there are plenty of agencies, and of course we cannot add all cities with EU agencies. --Glentamara (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok you have a point there, yet the Central banks is not usually considered a political institutions, making its seat not necessarily a political centre. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to recommend someone change it back to the EU flag as i noticed the change on Monday January 31, 6:33 EST (Toronto)I would like to change it, but don't know how, you may delete this topic once the change has been made. --+Zack 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)AddZack

I don't understand the table under 'Demographies - Urbanisation'.'Density' is not defined, I assume this is 'Population density', but it does not say, and units are not provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.88.76 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor constantly changes on his personal feelings, that nominal gdp is not as good as PPP, thats så wrong, nominal is as good as ppp, and his personal feelings about it don't matters, and don't delete the Exclusive Economic Zone it is very importent to show the territory that the EU states has control over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.172 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While information may have merit, please read WP:LEAD to understand BHL's objections. In addition, please read WP:BRD, and understand that what he did was not vandalism. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this post before. An Exclusive Economic Zone is an area off a state's coastline where the state can claim exclusive economic rights to fisheries and under-seabed natural resources. The Common Fisheries Policy does not created a common or shared EEZ because it only concerns fisheries, and then within certain rules. As far as nominal GDP goes, it's mostly just a reflection of fairly arbitrary international currency exchange rates which ignores inflation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer: I don't think the EU has an EEZ and the cited sources do not support the statements. As I understand it, only sovereign states have an EEZ. I suppose this could be replaced by a statement about fisheries policy, but that probably doesn't belong under Geography. So I would suggest removing the statements. --Boson (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying that English is the most widely spoken language in the EU is one thing but claiming it is a lingua franca is really quite another. If we were to include such an opinion it should be attributed and possibly counter balanced with an opposing opinion, although I'd prefer just letting the facts speak for themselves. As it stands the currently cited source is third rate and should be removed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, English may be (close to) a lingua franca in specificEU domains (e.g. academia, or international governments, Wikipedia editing) but there is no way that a lowly educated person Estonia can use English to communicate with an equally lowly educated person from Portugal (just to take two geographically and linguistically very different countries). In fact, Italians and Portuguese may do better trying to communicate in some form of Roman language instead of English. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But seriously guys, from a practical standpoint... What we do in Europe is speaking the national language at home but English across European borders. It is typically not so that two guys from Spain and Poland speak French or German with each other. If one has to speak another language than one's own one switch to English. The only time one speak another language than English is when switching from "the cross border language" (English) to a specific national language, that is, when visiting that country. One only speak French when visiting France or talking to a French speaker. One simply don't go to Finland to speak French or Portugese if one is born and raised in Greece. That does not mean English is spoken at one's home country (if it is not Britain, Ireland) or when visiting say France or Germany as one may try to speak French in France and German in Germany. That is, one speak English when communicating "across borders", such as on the Internet. It means everybody has a national language and English is becoming the common second language across Europe, driven by technology. And everybody does know English as everybody uses English on Internet, twitter and watches CNN International, Russia Today, Aljazeera English or other such English speaking technology anyway! Now, such is the very definition of a [lingua_franca].83.176.225.95 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

French overseas territory of Mayotte will become a French overseas department on 31 march 2011. Does this mean that Mayotte will become part of the EU and should there be adjustments made on the EU territorial size, population and GDP in the infobox and article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.210.164 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be part of the EU, although updated figures would have to wait for first official French figures to update and then for EU figures. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the current implementation of the article's info box, but wouldn't it be possible (and beneficial) to automate it? I mean it could calculate the total population (area, density, GDP, etc.) based on the data of the EU member states' articles. The only thing you should do is to set the country as the member of the EU and the system would automatically extract the data from the article for that country and supply it to the EU's total. Too complex? An idea for the Wiki's programmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.117.240.39 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Article starts with the following sentence:

"The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe"

This is clearly wrong as European Law, including the Treaties, say the Member States has to be European. That is: entirely located within the European continent. "primarily in Europe" must therefore be changed to "entirely in Europe". 83.176.225.95 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Being "European" does not necessarily mean "entirely located within the European continent". France is a European country, but parts of France are not located in Europe. --Boson (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But those are "Outlying territories", such as "Canary Islands belongs to Spain" or "Martinique belongs to France". There are special EU laws applying to Outlying territories. Wikipedia definition: Outlying territory "is geographically separated from its parent territory and lies beyond Exclusive Economic Zone of its parent territory". That is, all countries in the EU under EU Law naturally has to be entirely European in the sense that the geographic area of a Member State cannot lay outside of the European continent without being separated as an outlying territory to the parent Member State. Furthermore, the outlying territories of the member states are defined as being outlying territories of the Union, in the Treaties. Therefore, the text: "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located primarily in Europe" should be changed to "The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 Member States which are located entirely in Europe, except for geographically separated outlying territories beyond the exclusive economic zones of their parent states."83.176.225.95 (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No they're not. The Canary Islands are full parts of Spain, as are Ceuta and Melilla. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion, and now(ish, depending on politics) Mayotte, are parts of France, and full parts of the EU, and lie outside the commonly accepted geographical definition of Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to sound stupid or anything but what was the African territory of France on the European Union enlargement gif that appears only in 1957? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Algeria. At the time it was an integral part of France. When it became independent it left the European Economic Community. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This comment in the article "The island country of Cyprus, a member of the EU, is closer to Turkey than to continental Europe and is often considered part of Asia" seems a bit strange. Although it's true that Cyprus is within what is generally considered Asia that isn't based on a "closeness to Turkey" test. In fact you can be in Turkey itself while being in what is generally considered to be the continent of Europe so it's a bit confusing to contrast closeness to Turkey with closeness to continental Europe. Probably makes more sense to refer to the fact that Cyprus is East of the Bosporus. 87.254.66.133 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That is 2 separate statements. First that Cyprus is "closer to Turkey than to continental Europe" and second that it is "often considered part of Asia" there is no indication that the one is a consequence of the other. --Khajidha (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Flag depicted as the Flag of the European Union is actually wrong. The EU does not have a flag per se but, they just use the flag of the European Council. My point is that the European Union and the European Council are two different things. Some countries are members of the European Council but not the EU and vice versa so the Flag may apply to some countries that are not neceserally part of the European Union.

So at least it should be noted as such77.58.148.100 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC) TheEditor

Not exactly. It was developed by the Council of Europe (not the European Council) for use not just by themselves but also by other pan-European organizations. In 1985, the flag was adopted as the official emblem of the European Communities (which have evolved into the European Union). --Khajidha (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, from the Flag of Europe article, emphasis added: "In 1985 the EU, which was then the European Economic Community (EEC), adopted it as its own flag (having had no flag of its own before) at the initiative of the European Parliament. The flag is not mentioned in the EU's treaties, its incorporation being dropped along with the European Constitution, but it is formally adopted in law." Viciouspiggy (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you both for the clarification and the thorough explanation. As for the Council of Europe, I just translated "Europarat" from german; didn't know both existed.

Trivia: European Council is in fact "Europäischer Rat" in DE. And there is also a Council of the European Union, in German "Rat der Europäischen Union"

I promise I'll do the Wiki research BEFOREHAND next time, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.100 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked a political union is a kind of state. As the EU is not a state, it cannot be a political union. And delinking the words in the lead hardly changes this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I changed it a couple of days ago (see my edit) from "union" to "partnership" after reading the linked political union article - the EU certainly isn't a "state" of any kind! However my edit was reverted here. I notice too that the official EU website describes it, not as a union, but as a partnership here. -- de Facto (talk). 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. "Political union" can be a compound noun meaning a particular kind of state, and linking to this entry indicates that this meaning is intended, which is inappropriate here. However "economic" and "political" can be used as normal adjectives to qualify "union" in other meanings of "union" (as in "European Union", "African Union", etc.). When two such adjectives are applied , it is obvious that the compound term is not intended. Similarly one can have "unfriendly and friendly societies", but linking to the compound term friendly society would change the meaning inappropriately. "French teacher" can have two meanings, but in the sentence "French teachers and farmers demonstrated for higher pay in Paris", it would be inappropriate to link to French language (rather than French people). In other words, context is important, and linking can disambiguate or change the meaning. There is every reason not to interpret "economic and political union" as a political union which is also "economic and". Try replacing "political union" with something similar "An economic and federal state"? "An economic and sovereign state"? "An economic and confederation"? Personally, I don't think there should be any confusion, but if some people are confused by the collocation of "political" and "union" we could change it to "political and economic union". --Boson (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the EU is very much political, and as its name indicates, it's a union. Hence, the EU is a political union. Further semantics would IMO be a distraction. European countries have decided to create the EU, and consequently it's probably safe to say that the definition of "political union" has been/is being be adapted to the new reality. - SSJ ^t 02:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And, on what europa.eu says: well, rather more officially, the president of the European Commission holds his annual Speech of the Union in the European Parliament. And Cathy Ashton's title includes "of the Union". There's no point in trying to dispute the fact that the EU refers to itself as a union. - SSJ ^t 02:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Boson. We probably do not want to link to political union as the use of this compound noun would be at least disputed. However, we can certainly describe the EU as a union (I think that is also SSJ's main point). When we do so, we can be a little bit more concrete and mention what nature this union is: it is political and economical. Boson's suggestion to use this exact sequence puts the statement on very safe grounds, I find. Tomeasy _{T C} 02:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon gentlemen, allow me join the discussion please.

One key aspect that differentiate EU from any other "international organization" is the legal notion of citizenship. Quote: "Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship." (TEU, Title II, Article 9). Article 10 continues: "The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy. 2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament". Furthermore, the EU citizens rights are detailed in the articles 20-23 of the TFEU). There is no legal concept of "citizen of NATO", "citizen of UN", "citizen of WTO", "citizen of NAFTA", etc. The words "citizenship of the Union" and "directly represented at Union level" clearly suggests a de Facto confederal/federal structure, an unstated statehood.

This definition of EU citizenship is very similar with the Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution, which reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". Please observe that a citizen of the US is also a citizen of that State, just like a citizen of a EU member-state is a citizen of the whole Union. Viewed from the prism of the definition of citizenship, EU and US have a similar statehood structures: Unions of States.

--socrate76 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Yes but when you delve deeper into both concepts, it is clear that citizenship in the USA brings with it the rights and obligations that nation state citizenship does, whilst EU citizenship is clearly, to quote the treaties, "additional to national citizenship" and does not replace it, nor does it carry the same meaning, rights or obligations as national citizenship does. So in reality, whilst you may wish to try and compare the US and EU concepts of citizenship - one carries significant weight, the other is a largely political, relatively empty concept. --Simonski (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect and you don't provide specific examples. "Additional" to national citizenship means "to expand the scope geographically", not "to add more rights and obligations". "To expand the scope geographically" means that most (but not all) national rights are now extended from one member-state to all member-states. Please read Articles 20-23 of the TFEU. I see that the fundamental rights are all there: an EU citizen in a member-state other than his native, can move & reside freely, can be taxed and receive state benefits, can vote or be elected, can move capital, goods and services without any customs or duties, can acquire properties and land. Abroad, it can get consular protection from embassies other than his native state. These rights and obligations are pretty fundamental and solid to me. They provide a lot of substance to the notion of an EU citizen. Please provide specific examples for significant differences between what a national citizen (of an EU member-state) can do that an EU citizen cannot. There are examples, I know few, but in my opinion they don't weight as much as the rights I enumerated above. But let's see what you come out with. I think you confuse rights and obligations of a citizen, with access to certain state services based on the state/county/city of residence. This happens in US a lot, too. For example, citizens of Massachusetts have universal health-care in their state, but a citizen of Illinois visiting Boston cannot benefit from that universal-health care. This happens despite the fact that both citizens of Massachusetts and Illinois are also US citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrate76 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the geography section is completely pointless. It begins with the sentence "The territory of the EU consists of the combined territories of its 27 member states with some exceptions, outlined below", which basically says the territory of the EU consists of the territory of the EU. We know what the EU consists of. The rest of the paragraph goes on to describe the difference between the EU and Europe, as well as giving a nice explanation of the cypriot political situation. None of this is directly relevant to the EU, and it should probably all go. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article is littered with unnecessary images. I see no reason whatsoever to show a Spanish vineyard or birds of the Danube Delta on a page about the EU. I would suggest deleting all but strictly relevant photographic content.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much clutter. The page also takes a long time to load. We should try to avoid stacking images (where they are no longer next to the text they are meant to illustrate) or sandwiching text between two images (or between an image and an infobox). And we would need very good reasons to include images side-by-side. Also images of groups of unrecognizable people or illegible text should be removed (possible exception for very iconic, recognizable documents). Images should illustrate the text in some meaningful way. We should not use external photographs of non-iconic buildings to illustrate the institution that resides there. We should aim for compliance with MOS:Images.

So I suggest removing the following images, which would reduce the number of media files to something more in keeping with the usual number of images for a featured article about a country (which I would normally expect to have more images tham a geopolitical entity like the EU).

I generally agree with this, although I'd opt to keep the Court of Justice photo (to have a photo in that section), the map of the Eurozone, the windfarm, and the pictures in the Culture section. Pictures should be proportional to text, and I theorise that the large number of pictures is because there is currently 54kb of text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have boldly removed the first two images, which were creating layout problems. If there are any objections, they could be restored from here. [Since restored] I have noted the ones you wanted to keep in the table below. If there are no objections, I would say we could start removing the others in about a week. -- Boson (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I´d like to see the strange German stamp image removed. The foreign relation emblem either.The rest looks ok to me. I´m a little confused about the Rome Treaty. This is basically the foundation. Geomant (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with the importance of the Rome Treaty. The problem is whether an image of a lot of unrecognizable people sitting round a table, apparently doing nothing, adds anything to the article. Obviously, in an article on the Chaffinch a picture of a chaffinch adds a lot, because it tells the reader what the bird looks like, which ornithologists generally regard as important. The Rome Treaty image tells the reader nothing about the Rome Treaty, and it doesn't symbolize European integration in any meaningful way. Given that the image also creates layout problems and is not visually appealing, there seems - to me - to be little reason to keep it. Perhaps we need to make the criteria for inclusion of specific images explicit. -Boson (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Uuuh... These photos are not that bad, after all. I mean, they are there for historical purposes. If problems with layout arise then delete them, but only for layout reasons. Otherwise, they seem to be fit IMHO.

--79.10.167.137 (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo brings substance to the article. I mean what is next, removing John Trumbull's famous painting from the United States Declaration of Independence article?! How can we have a quality encyclopedia if we remove reproductions of photos of a historical importance for the article they are included in? This is the role of the original photo: to teach you, me, others how it looked like when they founded fhe Union. It puts faces next to the names, otherwise how will you ever learn them?

I thought some of the images were quite valuable, Lisbon Treaty for instance. Thats why I inserted them again. Hope everbody is fine with it. Geomant (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how they're that valuable. Images exist to give a greater understanding of the text to the viewer. The Lisbon picture at least doesn't cause text sandwiching with the other images. The others do. The Seoul one I find particularly pointless; a picture of leaders at a G10 conference hardly brings greater understanding of the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with the G20 meeting. I can understand some pictures of meetings that do not really give a greater understanding but might just conjure up the inaugural spirit at the start of a new phase in an organization's history, so I would accept some justification for the Lisbon Treaty meeting, but the G20 picture merely implies that one of the many people standing around actually represents the EU. The picture would be more appropriate in an article on the G20. And I don't really see the justification for the Airbus picture, except that a bit of blue sky might lighten things up if there were too few images; as well as a number of financial institutions, Shell, BP, VW and Daimler are higher up the Global Fortune 500 list, if we really feel the need to include a related picture. --Boson (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Action	Image	Comments
	[[:File:Treaty of Rome.jpg|thumb|left|The Rome Treaty was signed in 1957 and came into force in 1958. It created European Economic Community.]]	...
		...
...		Remove - Overflows into following section
Removed		Remove - Overflows into following section
...	File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4300.jpg	...
Removed		...
...	File:Colour enhancement of EUCoJ.jpg	keep Keep, but float left.
Removed		Remove
Removed		...
Removed		See above
Removed	File:Eufor222.jpg	Remove - Overflows into following section
Removed		...
Removed	File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2373 Vertrag von Maastricht.jpg	see above ...
...	The eurozone (in darker blue) is constituted by 17 member states adopting the euro as legal tender. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt am Main governs the monetary policy.	keep map of euro area Keep both.
Erasmus students removed		...
...		keep image of windfarm Keep wind farm image.
...	Turku in Finland (left) and Tallinn in Estonia (right) are the European Capitals of Culture in 2011	keep both images Keep both.

The article now contains:

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Britain spent more than EUR 69 billion (EUR 89.5 billion) on defence last year

Which is it € 69 or € 89.5? One of them could have been meant to be US$ or GB£? −Woodstone (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Boson (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the proposals is correct---no EUR here and no GBP either. The source was reporting US$ figures, and the value in parenthesis was a conversion to local currency for the local readers. I corrected this. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

12.5 billion Euros does not convert to US$16.282 trillion. From the IMF report Ref #18) quoted, the US$ amount be US$16.282 BILLION, not trillion.

With a combined population of over 500 million inhabitants,[17] in 2010 the EU generated an estimated 26% (€12.5 billion or US$16.282 trillion)[18] of the global economy, or 20% (€14.34 billion or US$15.170 trillion) when adjusted in terms of purchasing power parity.[19]

W.D. Linch9/9/201176.116.216.23 (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this article was recently put up as a candidate for FA status by someone who did not experience previous attempts; so I thought it might be a good idea to list some of the issues raised in previous reviews in one place, namely here. The major issue seems to be the preferred use of independent (i.e. non-EU) sources. People may disagree with the reasons for its failing on previous attempts, but it is the FA reviewers' opinions that count. If we don't add more independent sources, there is little chance of getting FA status, and re-nominating without addressing concerns raised previously will not encourage reviewers to invest their time and effort.

I would suggest we address these issues before making any more nominations. I would also suggest that after addressing issues of content, referencing, copyright, image, layout, and structure, we do some final copy-editing and then request a peer review. Some of the issues are rather old, so they may have been fixed in the meantime. Feel free to intersperse indented comments (e.g. {{Done}} or "already fixed", to indicate where issues have been fixed.

Content

• "The writing is OK, but it's not comprehensive (Criterion 2b). "
  • "In particular, there's little information on the relationship between the Commisssion, the European Parliament, the Council, the judiciary, and the governments of the member states. There are links at the bottom that probably say more about this, but it should be provided here in summary form."
  • "There's nothing about the budget, how revenue is raised and what it is allocated to. There's nothing about language in the institutions themselves. "
  • "Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are non-members: tell us why.
• "Noumea is missing from the parts of France that are not on the main map."
• "there seems to be little in the way of criticism of the EU or controversy in the article. Again using third party sources more should help with this."

• "One of the things that is somewhat characteristic of the EU (and its predecessor bodies) in my opinion is the ability of member states to pick and choose to some extent what parts of the EU they participate in and what parts they do not. So not every EU country has adopted the Euro. The EU also allows non-member states to participate in aspects of membership to some extent - so not all EU countries are in the Schengen Agreement . . ."

Citations

• "Some references do not provide enough information. "
• ". . . some references missing required information (ex. retrieval dates for web sources)"
• "uncited sections"
• " . . . there is a remarkable dearth of books used as sources"
• "large sections cited to the European Union itself" (this is criticized by most reviewers)
• "Another problem (and this was pointed out back in 2008 in the last unsuccessful FAC) is the heavy reliance on EU sources. . . . There are many books on the EU and it is covered by many newspapers and magazines and scholarly articles as well."
  • We should add third-party references as well.
  • We should consider (occasionally !) adding comments if the EU source is indispensable.
• " uncited opinion[s]".
  • I propose adding "citation needed tags" as a first step, to show where references are needed specifically.
• "Many inconsistencies in reference formatting"
  • We should check all references for consistency.
  • Perhaps we should consolidate more references (especially where there are 3 footnotes for the same statement).

Links

• " way way way overlinked " (WP:OVERLINK)
  • We should review all links and remove any that don't really add much, especially in the lede.
• "The disambiguation links checker in the toolbox in the upper right corner of [the FAC] page (EL checker there too) finds several dab links that will also need to be checked."

External links

• "The Link checker finds . . . dead links and others which may be problems. These would need to be fixed before FAC."
• "Do all . . . external links meet WP:EL?"
• "Several of the external reference links are problematic. One needs you to log on, another is timing out and a third is dead. "
  • We should check all links again and remove/replace deadlinks and password-protected sites (unless there is a very good reason to retain them).

Images

• "None of the images licenced as non-free have valid FU rationales."
  • May have been fixed, but all images need checking.
• Possibly some images are not correctly labeled as public domain (possibly derivative works of copyright material). e.g.
  • File:Eirepas.JPG (image and arrangement possibly copyright)
  • File:Carte_Européenne_d'Assurance_Maladie_France.jpg
  • File:04CFREU-Article2-Crop.jpg
  • File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG.
• "Too many images - stacking, sandwiching of text"
• "WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between right and left justified images, but there are such sandwiches . . ."
  • I suggest removing about five more images, including ones with potential copyright problems

Structure

• "Long ToC, many short subsections - merge to improve flow and increase accessibility"
• "One-sentence paragraphs disrupt text flow and should in most cases be merged"
• "Overuse of Main article hatnote. You can link within the text or use a different hatnote if it not a true daughter article"
  • We should check this and either fix the problem properly (i.e. bring the sub-article up to scratch and summarize it in the section) , or at least refrain from use of {{Main}} which implies a sub-article and use of summary style.
• "The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. "

Style and grammar

• "Some problems with grammar and flow - needs general copy-edit to achieve clear and professional prose"
• "Take the opening sentence WRT to grammar and logic: . . .' primarily located in Europe.' . . . Why is it that we need to highlight the fact that ?Cyprus, is it, is a little way from Europe? Is this so important that it can't be said in the body of the text? I'd rather be told some other important fact, such as "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states that has emerged since the 1950s/the world's first superstate/blah blah")". Saying it's in Europe is an unfortunate repetition."
  • I would suggest we move the information that not all of the EU is in Europe to the body and/or a footnote, being careful to edit the first sentence in such a way that it remains correct.
• "The article is written in a fairly choppy manner - there are a lot of short paragraphs (one to three paragraphs) that disrupt the flow of the prose. Where possible, I would combine the short paragraphs with others, or perhaps expand them if needed."
• It needs checking against WP:MOS

--Boson (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When measuring the shire size of the EU economy, I think we should use the nominal GDP. The PPP is more useful when measuring standard of living not the weight of a country in the world economy. After all China officially became second largest national economy only last year when it surpassed Japan by the nominal size of its GDP, despite it had a larger PPP GDP since the year 2003.--Avidius (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As nominal GDP is based on exchange rates it is the best measure of the value of an economy internationally. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistics on military spending provided by SIPRI follow different currencies. They need to be unified into either Euros or US Dollars. 89.242.200.208 (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Watchers of this article may be interested in the deletion discussion of EU Propaganda. (Maybe some of the content can be saved and moved here?) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially Germany....219.148.85.225 (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand you. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatia become a member of the European Union. --88.239.48.45 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. Just the "contract to join the club" was signed (the Accession Treaty). It now must be ratified by Croat people themselves, and by each of the existing 27 member states. If all goes as planned, Croatia will become the 28th state of the Union on July 1st, 2013 --Socrate76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.93.33 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is a mistake in the current article:

"European Council" and "Council of the European Union" refer to the same thing. (They might be linked to 2 different pages though!!!!)

BUT you are missing "European Parliament" as an important institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.26.197 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

European Council and Council of the European Union ar not the same thing. The first is the councile of the head of states and the second is the councile of the ministers. UE have 2 site, separetly for the European Council and Council of the UE.

Yes, PE is a very important institution of UE and it is in the article.--Mahetin (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Greenland not green on the main map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.62.145 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a part of the EU. It left the EEC in 1985, see: Greenland–European Union relations(Connolly15 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

Obviously on the wikipage "European Union" there are portraits of nearly all presidents there are of institutions of the European Union. Stressing "nearly" ... apart from the President of the EP - Martin Schulz. That's unacceptable, especially regarding the fact that according to existing law the EP may be regarded more politically powerful than ever before.

Please, may somebody add a current and appropriate photograph of Mr Schulz ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.170.112 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Czech Republic, Poland etc... may be in either Eastern Europe or Central Europe depending on your definition but they are to the east of the pre-2004 EU, hence why we describe it as "eastward expansion". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sensible. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The current globe image at the top of the article is pretty, but useless for close inspection. I had to go the the members of the european union article to find out the most basic fact about the EU: who's in it. I suggest we replace the image with this one:

Which gives you that basic information at a glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar map in this article in the section "Member states". The purpose of the map in the infobox is to indicate the location of the EU itself. --Boson (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone already knows where the "European Union" is on the globe. It's in Europe! What people don't know is exactly which countries are members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the reason for the section entitled "Member states" (with map).

You may like to look at previous discussions of the map, including:

• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#Mercator projection
• Talk:European Union/Archive 22#The Orthographic projections

--Boson (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the map proposal because it does not reflect the European Union's view of Europe's political geography. Why? Because the European Union has never agreed that Kosovo is a separate country to Serbia. The map ignores this showing Kosovo in exactly the same way as each other non-member state. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In case any one thinks I am being pernickity, just check out the official map of the of the European Uhion here [1] from the Europa website. Kosovo is shown on the map as part of Serbia. I do not wish to get bogged down in the politics or nuances of all of this. The simple fact is that the EU's own official map appears not to show Kosovo separately. It is also notable that Kosovo is always referred to in official EU documents as under the relevant UNSCR (under which it is under UN interim administration). 86.45.54.230 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This a discussion of map projections. Arguing about which countries are part of the EU is a separate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which page you were reading - no one here is discussing which coutries are in the EU. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone does need to know (quickly) which countries are in the EU:

• The infobox has a field "Members" Clicking on "show" next to the number 27 will display a list (with links to the individual countries).
• The section Member states has an animated map that shows the member states (now and in the past).
• That section has a link to Member states of the European Union.
• That section starts with the sentence "The European Union is composed of 27 sovereign Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."

The unlabeled globe image seems to have established itself as the infobox standard. It is also used for the United States, for instance.

--Boson (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a statement in the article that the EU borders 19 non-member states. The sentence also contains some source links - including the CIA website but I have not seen anywhere where it is said that the EU borders 19 non-member states. Does any one have a source? It may be right but I would like to see where this is sourced. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See the article Geography of the European Union for a list. --Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The European Union is not a confederation — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyrrhusEP (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A confederation is a "permanent union of political units for common action in relation to other units." Seems to fit the definition to me. Also, many reliable sources use the term to describe the EU. Some even go further and describe it as a federation. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no law or constitution to say that the EU is a confederation, nor does the EU describe itself as a confederation. All EU members are independent states, this must be reflected in the opening sentence. 'confederation' is speculation and clearly POV, it implies that the EU is sovereign, which it currently is not. ALL EU member states are themelves, independent soveriegn states, there is NO confederation or federation.PyrrhusEP (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you for not explaining your edit with an edit summary (the text box below the article box). As for the issue, I have promoted this as an RFC to get input from other users. PaoloNapolitano 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To PyrrhusEP, no one is saying that the individual member states are not sovereign. That is not what being a confederation means. Also, just because the EU doesn't use the word confederation doesn't mean that it isn't one if it fits the definition. Which it does. --Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the primary difference between a confederation and a federation is that constituent parts of the former are legally sovereign, but are not in the latter. Obviously it's quite fuzzy, as is anything to do with many political terms, but there definitely doesn't need to be a law. CMD (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty close to what I understand as well. Sometimes the individual American states are said to be sovereign (a conception that dates back to the Articles of Confederation and before) but your description is pretty good for a general definition. --Khajidha (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To PyrrhusEP, first: it not "implies that the EU is sovereign", confederation is not synonym of country or sovereignty. Second: "ALL EU member states are themelves, independent soveriegn states"? - ok, but only theoretically and officially, de facto states of EU are of limited sovereignty because part of the policy and the economy of this states is subject of European Parliament. However, this detail :) Subtropical-man (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable source provided on the page saying that the EU is a confederation, futhermore when has the EU described itself as a confederation? I say again, calling it a 'confederation' is just speculation not factual. According to this article on whether the EU is a 'confederation' or 'federation' it says: " the European Union does not neatly fit either definition, but it could become either a federation or confederation in the future." http://www1.carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/eu-learning/introduction/what-is-the-eu/extension-is-the-eu-a-federation-or-a-confederation/

Either provide an official source describing the EU as a confederation or it needs to be removed PyrrhusEP (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The European Union is sui generis in law. Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union makes this clear, "By this Treaty, the high contracting parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'The Union'". However, the article you provide is out of date, since the Treaty of Lisbon a lot has changed in both the legal identity of the EU as a separate legal entity (i.e. it is now recognised as a thing in of itself, rather than just a collection of states), its powers and the individual sovereignty of each Member State. In fact, since the changes under the Lisbon Treaty IMHO the EU has come closer to meeting the definition of Confederation provided in your linked article ("A confederation is “a system of government or administration in which two or more distinct political units keep their separate identity but transfer specified powers to a higher authority for reasons of convenience, mutual security, or efficiency.”[1] In this case the subnational units control the central government, which is given only specific powers. It is similar to an intergovernmental organization, in that the member states retain their autonomy and can control the central government. The United States began as a confederation.") Indeed, "mutual security" is one of the new areas of power for the EU since the Lisbon Treaty and efficiency has always been a defining goal of EU legislation (i.e. efficiency in the Single Market through harmonization of national laws by EU law). I don't know if there are sources out there that describe the EU as a confederation, I suspect it is debatable in political science and you would find articles supporting both sides of the argument - but I think it is critical that any sources used take into account the post-Treaty of Lisbon EU, sorry. Connolly15 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I would also add that there is a strong argument that the EU is now "sovereign" with the Treaty of Lisbon changes as it now has its own legal personality in international law. For example, it has its own seat at NATO, the UN, WTO, etc. The EU as an entity can and does create and enforce embargoes (for example recently against Iran). The EU's Parliament and Council can pass laws that national states must (and do) implement, even if they disagree with them. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I think some views expressed her regarding "sovereignty" of the EU are based on a pre-2009 concept of the EU, which has changed drastically since then. Connolly15 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The EU is certainly nowhere to being a confederation, as this video shows http://www.euronews.net/2012/02/03/should-the-eu-become-a-confederation/ Furthermore you haven't provided a reliable source to say that it is a confederation. The EU is better descibed as an International organization. There is NO common political system, some members are much less involved then others, for example some members are not part of the common currency some members are not party to certain treaties. The EU has no set constitutional law to say that it is a confederation. The EU website describes itself as: "The European Union is a unique economic and political partnership between 27 European countries". http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/index_en.htm a partnership is not a confederation PyrrhusEP (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it is sui generis in law. It definitely has a common political system though. Some members are not party to certain treaties? - this is not true, certain Member States have opt-outs of certain provisions of the Treaties of the European Union - 2 of the 27 Member States have an opt-out of the Euro - but all member states are aparty to the treaties that created and form the legal basis of the EU. Legally, I would never say the EU is a confederation or federation - the question here is whether it is an appropriate adjective for the average reader to get a better understanding.Connolly15 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"It definitely has a common political system though." - only for certain matters, there is no strong centralised authority which would be common in a confederation or federation like in Canada or Switzerland, as this shows in the video i linked to dated 03/02/12. "all member states are aparty to the treaties that created and form the legal basis of the EU" - no that is not true. Certain members have not even signed certain treaties. For example neither Britain or Czechoslovakia signed the latest treaty. "the question here is whether it is an appropriate adjective for the average reader to get a better understanding" It is not an appropreate adjective because it is falsely describing the EU as a confederation without evidence to back up that claim. On that basis why not call the UN a confederation? or NATO? PyrrhusEP (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not know what's this the EU. "It definitely has a common political system though." - only for certain matters, there is no strong centralised authority? Strong? Why strong? This is not country. PS. Comparison of the UN or NATO is absurd. UE is a confederation, with common parliament, politics, law and economics. In most exist the common currency and open borders. EU this is not country, but this is (sure) confederation. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By definition, if all the Member States do not sign and ratify a Treaty, it is not a "European Union" Treaty. Of course, many members are part of international agreements and some are not (Schengen area for example) but these are not "EU" Treaties. When the UK and Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia hasn't been around since 1993) refused to sign the new Fiscal Compact it converted the process into an inter-governmental treaty rather than a new EU Treaty (such as Lisbon Treaty or Maastricht Treaty. The comparison of the EU to NATO / UN is very misguided - it's obvious what are the fundamental differences between the EU and NATO / UN. It's clear from your comments that you have not even read the article on the European Union. All Member States have signed and ratified the Treaties of the European Union which form the constitutional framework and legal basis of the EU. The European Commission is a strong and centralised authority and the European Parliament and Council of the European Union form the legislative institutions that represent a common political system. Connolly15 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read: Supranational union which deals with this issue: " A supranational union is a supranational polity which lies somewhere between a confederation that is an association of States and a federation that is a state." Source: Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Centre for European Policy Studies. pp. 21–26. ISBN 9789290794936. The Wiki article cites the European Union as the main example. - I hope this settles it. Connolly15 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you have still not provided a valid reference stating that the European Union is a confederation. A reference giving an opinion that it is a cross between a confederation and federation, is still not a confederation. Secondly the commission and parliament are not strong centralised authorities, that is not true at all. The only area the EU is permitted exercise exclusive control is over the common market, and competition rules, with shared competency over very few other policy areas. In reality, it is configured to be an economic protection racket for the nations of Europe. It does not exercise control over members' domestic policy, foreign policy, defence, economic or financial policies, which would be required for the European union to be anything like a confederacy. Thirdly Lisbon IS an international agreement and it did not establish the EU as a confederation, nor did it expand any new areas of exclusive competency for the European commission, it only expanded areas of shared competency between nations. Fourthly you provide a reference from 1953, whish was on the EEC not the EU, but have ignored my references, one which describes the EU as a ‘partnership’, the other asked whether the EU should even become a confederation, so its clearly not even considered to be one PyrrhusEP (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The EU has exclusive competency in the areas you mention + common fisheries and trade policy. Member States also cannot legislate in areas where the EU has already legislated regarding: internal market, social policy, environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, freedom, security and justice, public health matters, foreign and security policy. The EU does exercise control over members' foreign policy, economic and financial policies. Sorry, only the EEC - which is the predecessor of the EU? I also provided another source you failed to mention, or the entire wikipedia article on the topic that has other sources. Your sources: (1) Carleton University (outdated as I explained, it even still discusses the three pillar system that is abolished); (2) "EuroNews" - did you read this source? It says it "makes sense" to compare the EU to confederation but that it is not on its way to a federalist state and is sui generis (wow see my comments above!); (3) The EU's own website - The EU does not describe itself as a confederation or federation for very political reasons (see failed Constitutional treaty), this is quite apart from what the reality is. As for your comments on Lisbon, I don't know what you mean - of course it is an international agreement like all other EU Treaties - my point was that by definition EU Treaties are signed and ratified by all members otherwise they are not EU Treaties. Your statements that some EU Members have not signed the Treaties of the European Union is therefore incorrect. Connolly15 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all “The EU does exercise control over members' foreign policy, economic and financial policies”, no it doesn’t, it has very limited levels of competency and they certainly do Not include foreign policy. Secondly you contradicted yourself once again with your bogus reference, in exactly the same way. First you say that my reference was not relevant because it was outdated , but then you provide a quote from the 1950s! one which is commenting on a completely different political structure, the EEC, unbelievable. You said that references are only relevant after 2009, so according to you own words we can discount your source. If the EU does not describe itself as a confederation, and you cannot provide any reliable or relevant sources to state that it is, then surely by calling it one on here, you are lying. No doubt this will be brought up again and again by other users, so imo the word should be simply removed as it adds nothing factual and is controversial PyrrhusEP (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign policy = Embargo against Zimbabwe and Iran. Explain. High Representative Catherine Ashton. Explain. Economic and financial policies - Economic is self-evident given competition law; Financial - I assume here you mean fiscal in the strict view of domestic budgets? Then no... financial certainly. Your reference is outdated because it is pointing to a system that no longer exists. The 1953 reference is just a quote to the founder of the EU's predecessor (which had less competencies than the EU!) and what about the other source? It is referring to the failed Constitutional Treaty that was largely recreated in the Lisbon Treaty... No comment there? Just because something doesn't describe itself as something, doesn't make it true - this is straightforward - I doubt the Chinese government would describe themselves in the same manner as their wikipedia article! --> Do you have some sort of proposal for consensus here? The word "confederation" is not new to this article and is connected to a number of Wiki articles ... which will also require editing if "confederation" is removed from here. Connolly15 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your still contradicting yourself because as I said; the quote from 1953 does not actually say the EU is a confederation And as I also said, it is from 1953, which by your own words is OUTDATED - so its not a valid source. I can find plenty of descriptions that do not describe the EU as a confederation, cant find any at all that do: "partnership of 27 democratic countries"http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/TheUKandtheworld/DG_073417, "economic association of over two dozen European countries"http://www.investorwords.com/1757/EU.html "economic and political community of European countries"http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-european-union.htm "union of 27 independent states"http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/adressen/eu.html Fiscal budgets are in control of the European Union?, another contradiction from you. You said that the Fiscal Compact was an international treaty, (which not all EU members are party to), not an EU treaty. So which is it? are you going to contradict yourself again? The EU has no control over foriegn policy, each member has its own representation in international orginisations, carries out their own defence, have their own alliances. 10 memebers have their own currency for gods sake. I forsee in the future that the centralised competancy will decrease, especially at this time when many EU nations are increasingly seeking to regain powers, IMO I dont think the word confederation is at all appropriate, nor is there still any reliable evidence to describe the EU that wayPyrrhusEP (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be mainly a discussion about when you can use the word "confederation" to describe a collaboration between countries. While supporters of calling the EU a confederation have provided sources that the EU does indeed have the characteristics of a confederation, a source stating " the EU is a confederation" seems to be hard to find. Is this necessary? PyrrhusEP seems to think so. However I would argue it is often hard to find a source that is that explicit. For example if I would claim that an editor is no human being since that editor cannot provide a reliable secondary source that (s)he is indeed a human being, most editors would be hard pressed to provide exactly such a document. They could probably provide evidence they have all characteristics of being a human being but an actual document that makes that claim explicit is going to be hard to find. Does this make the editor less of a human being? (note if it would they would no longer be protected by most laws). Arnoutf (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to find a source stating that European Union is a confederation, because European Union is not a confederation. It has no sovereignty of its own and its members enjoy full sovereignty. FWIW confederation is not a vague term one may apply voluntary, to call something a confederation one must prove that it has all the characteristics of confederation at least, though such pusition would still be encyclopedic until primary reference supports the claim. And EU is not the case even of the first one. Did anyone ever see the embassy of EU? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You wrong. Confederation does not have sovereignty, confederation is not synonym of country or sovereignty. De facto states of EU are of limited sovereignty because part of the policy, law and the economy of this states is subject of European Parliament. Members of EU not has full sovereignty. You need to have although little knowledge about the EU. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You will notice the logical fallacy in the arguments that dominate large part of this discussion if you replace EU with Wikipedia editor and confederation with human being in Czarkoff's opening statement.

"It is hard to find a source stating that Wikipedia Editors are human being, because Wikipedia editors are not human beings."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in both cases.

It all comes down to the question whether "confederation" is an specifically defined legal term for a specific type of collaboration (as some people claim); or a term to be used more colloquially.

If we want to adopt the first defenition, the evidence the EU is a confederation is somewhat lacking. However, in that case the editors defending that point of view have to provide a clear and explicit source that provide a globally binding definition of confederation (I have seen no such source in the discussion so far).

If there is no evidence that confederation is indeed a legally binding term, we should adopt colloquial use, which can be based on a dictionary definition.

So in my view, the task for editors objecting to the EU being labelled confederation should provide a reliable source that explicitly limits confederation to a specific state-form. This source should provide a global view (i.e. for example non US centric). Arnoutf (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are, no doubt, good reasons for arguing that the EU is an intergovernmental organization, a confederation, a de facto federation, or a number of other things but – regardless of my own views on what it really is I don't think that justifies classifying the EU as any one of those as a matter of fact (rather than as a matter of opinion). Traditionally, EU organization has been regarded as sui generis since it has characteristics typical of different forms of organization, meaning it cannot simply be classified as any single one.

The EU itself does say

"The European Union is more than just a confederation of countries, but it is not a federal state. It is, in fact, a new type of structure that does not fall into any traditional legal category. Its political system is historically unique and has been constantly evolving over more than 50 years." [2]

I am loth to choose a classification that the EU rejects.

Like the Europa website, the references provided to support the use of the word confederation

• Reuter, Paul; Schuman, Robert (1953). La Communaute du Charbon et de l'Acier. Paris. p. 7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Centre for European Policy Studies. pp. 21–26. ISBN 9789290794936.

do not in fact support that view, but rather support the view that the EU is neither a confederation nor a federation, but something unique. One of the sources refers to it as a 'supranational union'. A similar view is expressed by Anneli Albi (currently reference 16): "In practical terms, the EU is perhaps still best characterised as a 'supranational organisation sui generis': this term has proved relatively uncontroversial in respect of national constitutional sensitivities, being at the same time capable of embracing new facets of integration". This follows implicit rejection of federation and confederation.So I would stick to "union", the concept with which the EU self identifies. We could add a reference to the existing footnote citing Anneli Albi. --Boson (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would propose: "The European Union is an economic and political union of 27 Member States which are located primarily in Europe. It is a unique supranational institution[1] or union,[2] that has been described by academics as a new form existing somewhere between a confederation[3] and federation.[4][5]" [1] = Anneli Albi (16), [2] = Treaty of Paris declaration, [3] = Burgess, Michael (2000). Federalism and European union: The building of Europe, 1950 - 2000. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 0415226473. Our theoretical analysis suggests that the EC/EU is neither a federation nor a confederation in the classical sense. But it does claim that the European political and economic elites have shaped and moulded the EC/EU into a new form of international organization, namely, a species of "new" confederation. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help), [4]Josselin, Jean Michel; Marciano, Alain (2006). The political economy of European federalism. Series : Public Economics and Social Choice. Centre for Research in Economics and Management, University of Rennes 1, University of Caen. p. 12. WP 2006-07; UMR CNRS 6211. http://crem.univ-rennes1.fr/wp/2006/ie-200607.pdf. "A complete shift from a confederation to a federation would have required to straightforwardly replace the principalship of the member states vis-à-vis the Union by that of the European citizens. [. . .] As a consequence, both confederate and federate features coexist in the judicial landscape." [5] = "Those uncomfortable using the “F” word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast)." (R. Daniel Kelemen, Rutgers University) (I can get the link later, or google the quote and you will find it) Connolly15 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's helpful that both "confederation" and "federation" link to relevant subsections on the European Union in both articles so the reader can get more detail.Connolly15 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this compromise solution, but a link to supranational union should be fit somehow inside - this is the article that describes the "new sui generis" arrangement.

The EU is obviously more than a confederation, in many areas it's unlike intergovernmental organizations (see EU competencies - many cases where the EU institutions are leading, not the member state governments; EU commissioners are not accountable to member state governments; MEPs are directly elected by citizens, not by parliaments or governments of member states). Of course, also obviously, the EU is not a federal state (the line may be fuzzy, but this is offtopic). Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)