Talk:European Union/Archive 30

Not totally sure about what has gone into affect yet but is London and the UK still in the EU? And if so I believe London should be taken off it's largest cities list. 2601:681:4D03:B800:78FD:BEEB:6BE3:BA31 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk 03:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Possessing the sole power of legislative initiative, the Commission is by definition the legislature of the Union, as expressed here: ^[1][2][3]This is consistent with Wikipedia's established definition of legislature, as expressed in Legislature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaurnheart (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC) While Parliaments in national governments are typically the legislature, it is made clear that the European Parliament is a unique institution, unlike national parliaments. Given the lack of sources, it seems that assumption is the reason behind the legislature being labelled as 'European Parliament'.

Alternatively, in conformity with the Politics section, it may be appropriate to either label the legislature threefold (Council, Commission, and Parliament) or simply to link to the Politics section, as the answer is not a simple one.

Vaurnheart (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The European Union is not state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure.

The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority ["competence" in Eurospeak] to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise, and that quasi-confederation has

It does not have a conventional legislature, period, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into that model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio. There is no true European Law as the EU Directives (which are not 'orders from Brussels) have to be transposed into national law in each member state before they have legal force in that state.

The role of the Parliament in this is to give (or deny) political approval, or to require amendments.

No competent reliable source would say that either of the Commission or the Parliament is a legislature in the conventional sense. The EU does not have a Government with a capital G but it certainly does have government: see Institutions of the European Union. Thus there are some activities that are aspects of a legislature but it is just wrong to suppose any direct equivalence with the US House of Representatives, Senate and Administration (Office of the President).

All of which is a long way of saying that I agree with your final proposal: simply to link to the Politics section, as the answer is not a simple one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There may be another, more straightforward way to explain this. In the UK (and countries with similar systems), the Government has de facto (though not de jure) exclusive authority to draft and propose legislation. [Exceedingly few Private Member's Bills become Acts]. But it is Parliament that is the legislature, not the government: it can approve, amend or reject the government's proposals. Similarly in the EU, the Commission is certainly not the legislature. But neither truly is the EP because of the checks and balances that exist to respect the rights of member states. That is why it is complicated and can't be expressed in two or three words in the infobox.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see the point you make about Private Member's Bills, but I would disagree that it is equivalent, since their difficulty is a circumstantial one (composition of the House) and not a legally impossible one, as in the EP (which can only send non-binding recommendations to the Commission as per the Lisbon Treaty). There is no equivalent to the PMBs in the EU: nothing can pass without the pre-approval of the Commission, so long as they "inform the European Parliament of the reasons" (Article 225 TFEU). I also wouldn't equate the Commission with the Government in the UK, since the UK's Government is elected. I definitely agree with your decision to simply link to the politics section. The co-decision process is too unique to compare to other legislatures, and we should leave it to readers to make their own judgement. I don't think anyone could express this arrangement in only a few words! Vaurnheart (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Another matter is that there is a tendency in parts of Wikipedia to describe the EU's legislative system as 'bicameral', between the Parliament and the Council of the EU, with the Commission apparently unimportant. I have been unable to find any evidence for this description either within the EU or without. I would suggest that we remove references to it, such as the Council of the EU as an "Upper House", and "the other half of the legislature is the Parliament", in favour of a more direct explanation. Allegory doesn't seem to fit here, nor have any evidencial basis. Vaurnheart (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence of paragraph 2 states the following:

While no member state has left the EU or its antecedent organisations, the United Kingdom signified the intention to leave after a membership referendum in June 2016 and is negotiating its withdrawal.

It is incorrect to state that no member state has left the EU or its antecedent organisations, because even later in the same Wikipedia article, it states the following under the heading 'Treaty of Rome':

In 1973, the Communities were enlarged to include Denmark (including Greenland, which later left the Communities in 1985, following a dispute over fishing rights)

To correct the error, I suggest editing the false statement to:

Only Greenland has left the EU or its antecedent organisations so far, however, the United Kingdom signified the intention to leave to leave after a membership referendum in June 2016 and is negotiating its withdrawal. Greenland left the European Economic Community in 1985, following a dispute over fishing rights. Toffee1975 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Greenland is not an independent state, I did not change it as you suggested. However, I did reword it to state that Greenland had left. @Toffee1975:: Does this wording look good? StudiesWorld (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that that this version gives wp:undue prominence to Greenland, which has a tiny population. I have changed it to As of May 2019^[update], no member state has left the EU or its antecedent organisations. (Greenland, an autonomous country within Denmark, left the Communities in 1985). As usual, WP:BRD. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

That version looks fine to me. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the as of. There's not really a need to date that one particular fact, and I suspect if that fact changes there will be no shortage of editors who will look to update this page. I changed "also" to "however" in the subsequent sentence regarding Brexit. CMD (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added Q11 (Legislature) and Q12 (President).

• Q11 may be arguable so if anyone disagrees, please discuss here.
• Q12 is uncontroversial, being a straight copy of President of the European Union.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the legislature of the EU has previously been discussed on this page. Before reopening this topic, please read that discussion at
Talk:European Union/Archive 30#Legislature. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Poland area in the table is incorrect. LALea97 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Next time the user requests an edit he/she should formulate it as "please change X to Y", specifying what and where exactly in the text. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This subject has surely been already addressed in the talk page, but I could not find it with the search engine. This edit is controversial and regularly appears in the edit history.

The EU being commonly called "Europe" is de facto true, as you could literally find hundreds of newspapers using the term. That said, we need a secondary and academical source to support that fact, which I could not find yet. Is there any WP editor who would object adding the sentence "[...], commonly called Europe" if I (or any other editor) can find a reliable and secondary source to support it? Azerty82 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worth a mention in the body of the article, along with other inaccurate appellations such as "Common Market". There should be no genuine confusion, as there is a hatnote linking to the relevant disambiguation page. However the primary use of "Europe" is the continent, not the EU, and I would object to any mention in the lead. Tammbeck (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly ok with mentioning it in the body and not in the lead. But any attempt to create a name or etymology section has been rejected so far. Azerty82 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Media Section states 'Media freedom is a fundamental right that applies to all member states of the European Union and its citizens, as defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.[302]:1 Within the EU enlargement process, guaranteeing media freedom is named a "key indicator of a country's readiness to become part of the EU"

Which factually, cannot be correct. the French protests, tear-gassing, water cannon use, deaths, amputations, loss of limbs, and eyes, carried out on French citizens, by President Macron's thugs, and vehicles with the EU flag painted over, have not been reported in Any British Press. (BBC , SKY, ITV) nothing) as GB is, and has been a member of the EU for the last year, since the protests have been happening, the only logical conclusion, is that the statement above in the wikipedia article.. is in, fact, incorrect. (The hong kong protests are covered daily) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.229 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Brexit will occur on 2019, due to the undergoing exit procedures, and not the opposite. Additionally, the undergoing exit procedures is due to a British decision compatible with the constitutional order of the United Kingdom.

I would have written Currently undergoing exit procedures known as Brexit rather than Currently undergoing exit procedures due to Brexit, or I would have written Currently undergoing exit procedures known as Brexit due to a British decision to clarify that EU was not the decider of such a decision when UK was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.193 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So the first suggested edit has been put in. The word "undergoing" could be replaced by "going through", which kind of fulfils the second suggestion of clarifying that the UK was not a victim. It’s not very important, as most people know it and anyway, the Brexit article is now just one click away. Oh, I’ll just put it in and see if people like it.

Oops, that didn’t work, as [c] is nowhere to be found in the article. So I’m out of my depth here, just wondering: how come the reference is still there if (I guess) the original text has been removed? --Geke (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected. I therefore ask the editors of this article to consider the following changes in the section on the European Commission. As it stands, the description is unfair and probably driven by British tabloid propaganda.

- "The Commission is also seen as the motor of European integration."

May I suggest to delete this sentence as this is an extremely controversial statement. Why is the commission the motor of European intergration? There is no reference for this claim.

- "The European Commission acts as the EU's executive arm and is responsible for initiating legislation and the day-to-day running of the EU".

This is not wrong, but the reality is that the parliament has extended authority to decline, change and modify and proposed piece of legislation. May I suggest the addition "Parliament is free thereafter to change and modify any proposed legislation at will".

- The other 26 Commissioners are subsequently appointed by the Council of the European Union in agreement with the nominated President.

This should be "The other 26 Commissioners are likewise elected by qualified majority vote in the Council in agreement with the nominated president".

- "The 28 Commissioners as a single body are subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament."

This should come with the addition: "The parliament can at any time impeach the commission." Rominator (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Rominator, You'd be better off moving this to Talk:European Union. This is an old GA reassessment page, very few people check for new edits here. Daß Wölf 23:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Daß Wölf, I'm a bit confused now, I thought I had posted this on the EU talk page and I can also access it there, but indeed it appears an the GA reassessment page as well. Rominator (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Rominator, apparently the reassessment page is transcluded onto the talk page. When you click on an [edit] link there for a subheading of this page, you end up editing this page instead. I've put the transclusion into an archive template so that it's more obvious that it's a separate subpage. Daß Wölf 01:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not exact that passport controls have been abolished within the Schengen area. Passport controls have been abolished in the whole Europeean union since it was European community: instead of the passport, European citizens can show their national identity card* (even in the UK, where identity cards don't exist). In the Schengen area there is not any control and for this reason nobody, even a foreign citizen**, neither needs passport nor ID card. --5.90.128.65 (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

* an identity card or equivalent document issued by a member state of which they hold the citizenship.** it's assumed that he has been identified once at his first arrive in the Union.

Change largest city London to administrative headquarters Brussels.

Since: largest city of European Union doesn't matter, especially since London isn't important purely from an administrative point of view. Brussels is cleary the home of the EU, although it's not the capital since the EU doesn't have a capital. Brussels should be mentioned, and at this moment you can read no where anything on the administrative HQ. 2A02:1811:C51D:B300:644F:A325:E747:4ACC (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, makes sense. (But added Brussels, kept London). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Update president of the council from Donald Tusk to Charles Michel. https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Charles_Michel, Since he became president of the council on 29/11-19 87.241.87.182 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Enullnull. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to talk about the "European Council" instead of "the council" 'cause this is generally short for "the Council of the European Union". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.97.180 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to say where in the article you saw that ambiguity. (Yes, you are right about the shorthand use), I changed the Budget section to clarify but I doubt that it was what you meant. --Red King (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that the coat of arms of Croatia included in this page in the section "Member states" is a wrong one. The one included here is of the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna država Hrvatska, NDH) which was a country formed during the WW2 under the nazi patronage. As far as I know, the use of this coat of arms is highly offensive and illegal. The coat of arms of the contemporary Republic of Croatia contains symbols of the country's regions on top of the red checker board (it should be more different form the NDH one in my opinion, but that's what the extreme right leaders of Croatia in the 90's chose; probably not a coincidence). Clicking on the coat of arms in the section "Member states", however, redirects to the correct one.

Please correct.

2A01:260:D004:FAD1:282C:AE7E:7A3A:16D8 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing. The wrong image was transcluded from Template:Coat of arms, and I have rectified the issue there. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The article’s introductory sentence seems awkward and misleading. It’s fine to address the issue that some of the territory is outside of Europe but that can be done elsewhere

Currently it reads :

“The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. Its members have a combined area of 4,475,757 km2(1,728,099 sq mi) and an estimated total population of about 513 million.”

A better opening would be:

“The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 European member states with a combined territory of 4,475,757 km2 (1,728,099 sq mi) located primarily in Europe and an estimated population of 513 million.”

In addition to the clarity offered, it also more closely matches the cited reference.

I’m proposing that edit but I will hold off to see if there might be any objections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmaestro (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

'The United Kingdom and its independent territories are scheduled to leave the European Union by 31 January 2020.' It should say dependent territories. If they were 'independent' they wouldn't be leaving along with us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:2b88:5700:c53e:434f:8afb:dbcf (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Under section 3 "Member states" there is a table. Why does this not have an extra column showing their currency and if they use the euro or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbf69 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The real answer to your question is "because you haven't done it!" --Red King (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the currency has anything to do with that table, which is mostly geographical details about the member states. By the same argument one could ask, why there is no column for the GDP per capita? Or why no column for the internet domain, or the calling code of each state? And so on. I think it's not appropriate to have that column in that section. Furthermore there is already a map with the states adopting the Euro in the Economy section of this article, one could expand the currency details of each state there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, that did cross my mind when doing it and I nearly abandoned. I will revert. --Red King (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

History of the European Union since 2004

There is no mention of Brexit or the migration crisis apart from a single link in that article, please can it be updated significantly to include all the major and minor events within the European Union during the 2010s. Also I would like to propose that the article is ended with Brexit and that a brand new article is started that shows major events from within the European Union from the year 2020 or 2021 onwards. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC))

I assume we'll be changing the membership from 28 to 27, after January 31, 2020. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If one of the members leaves at that time, I would imagine so. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the map needs to change also? (92.4.147.245 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

And many more. That is why we have Template:Brexit note. --Red King (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Whilst the blue map has omitted The UK from its colour, the green map still has The UK coloured in as before January 31, 2020. Only when you click on the image does The UK appear grey.

The article United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union has been dormant for quite some time and has not been been updated to include the extension of article 50 in any detail to 31 January 2020. Please can the relevant updates be added to the article. (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:D0F1:23A4:8CAB:B928 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC))

The EU is de facto a Confederation I think we should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't look like as it's shown in the table. Why?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.87.212 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As a remain voter in the Brexit referendum I have to say that the only thing I'm looking to about Brexit is that you stubborn editors will finally have to update the map after refusing to give the UK a lighter shade of green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2018‎

You will get your wish later tonight (2A02:C7F:5622:2000:D0F1:23A4:8CAB:B928 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC))

Please add Euro English as "De Facto" Language and connect it to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources describing it at such, that can be considered. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello so today is brexit
please update info, I would do it but article is secured
have a nice day bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by KtośNapewnoToJest (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The departure doesn't occur until 22:00 UTC. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop spreading misinformation? The UK leaves at 23:00 UTC! It's not daylight saving time right now. OP has a legit concern that Wikipedia won't be able to update the information and maps fast enough, there should be some preparations. It will take a huge effort to eliminate everything in articles that points to the UK still being in the EU. --2001:16B8:3160:BE00:B48B:79FF:4926:281B (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's at 23:00 UTC. I was looking at EST conversion, rather then AST conversion :) GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Heading text

Don't change anything before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktaur (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me who thinks there should be a criticism section in the article - for example the EU's anti-democraticness and federalism by the Von der Leyen Commission?(Airline7375 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC))

Read "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" on the top of this page. In any case, if it brings you comfort, articles about polities most often don't feature those wish-washy "criticism" sections (neither "support" sections for that matter).--Asqueladd (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that the UK has left, these statistics need to be recalculated and replaced in the article. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 23:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In general, good work fellow editors. There was a bit of premature editing, but most, if not all, of it was done in good faith. The world is watching this page and from one editor to another, thank you for your commitment to accuracy and quality. Cheers! PubliusJ (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Midnight, gentlemen. I trust all seasoned Wiki cartographers are poised to spring at 12:01am GMT. Hanoi Road (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean for the event scheduled to occur at 11 pm on 31 January (GMT)? (That is due has started. (refresh)). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Shit, I thought it was tonight. Sorry. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Now THAT......is impressive. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would we leave the EU at 11.PM rather than Midnight!!? We got 1 hour less of EU. Can anyone explain to me why we left one hour earlier? Wojciech G (talk) 00:25, 01 February 2020 (UCT)

Because they wanted us out an hour early? Hanoi Road (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kidding. Much of EU is an hour ahead of GMT. Their rules now. Their midnight. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The withdrawal agreement specifically states that extending the transition period is not permitted. So how can brexit take "up to two years"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Withdrawal Agreement states that a single decision by mutual consent can once be made to extend the transition period, for either 1 or 2 years at most. (Special:Contributions/Foorack (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2020 (CET))

Among other maps that need to be updated to show the UK's EU withdrawal, most of the maps at Future enlargement of the European Union, as well as File:Potential Superpowers.svg need to be updated. --14:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It is requested that the a parameter in the European Union info box be changed from:

"alt_map = Globe projection with the European Union in green"

to:

"alt_map = Globe projection with the European Union in blue"

On account of the fact that the EU is coloured blue and not green. 81.156.12.102 (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The map has been changed back to green Danski454 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The green EU map still has The UK coloured in when it is displayed on the Wikipedia page instead of the blue EU map which doesn't. Go with blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.42.83 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In the Lisbon Treaty (2007–present) section: change "increasing migration from the Middle East" to "increasing migration from Asia and Africa", because migrants also came from Africa and nations to the east of the Middle East. 92.40.177.182 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done The linked article European migrant crisis makes it clear that migration also came from areas outside the Middle East Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

One EU Member Cyprus, has two official languages Greek and Turkish. So why Turkish is not among the official languages of the EU? --JeanisDL (talk), 31 January 2020, 2:10 (UTC)

@JeanisDL: You might need to ask the Government of Cyprus? But Wikipedia can only report the position as it is, not what any of us think it should be. See https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en for the official list. --Red King (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

De facto English is the main language of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎185.54.182.6 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Is English formally an offical language of the UE? Xpicto (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland makes it still official and not just a working language, because in it English is both an official and indeed a much more widespread language than Irish.

I'm not sure about Akrotiri and that other UK colony (offiically "sovereign base") in Cyprus (what was its name, again?), as they are extraterritorial in terms of Cyprus, and of the status of officialdom of English in Malta. 109.245.38.9 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of Ireland, English is a De Jure EU language and will remain so. It is the De Facto language of communication for reasons I would have thought were blatantly obvious. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robincard: Do you have a source for English no longer being an official language? Previous sources have said that it would continue to be one after Brexit unless there is a unanimous vote by all member states to remove it, which I highly doubt has happened given the inconvenience that would cause. 0x9fff00 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@0x9fff00: The EU's official page explicitly lists English as an official language with a note that, after Brexit, it will remain the official language of Ireland and Malta (and therefore of the EU). Xwu (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. This dispute should be rather brief since it's black and white. There's a huge body of evidence that says English will remain an official language. If someone has new evidence to the contrary, please share it with us. PubliusJ (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It even says in Languages of the European Union that English is spoken by 51% of all adults in the EU. It might be out of date as far as the UK is concerned, but it still reinforces the fact that English is popular in the EU. Lokii192 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

English will remain an official language not because of that, but because it's an official language of Ireland and Malta. Frenzie23 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The official languages of the European Union are regulated by Regulation No 1 from 1958. It has been changed several times, see the latest consolidated version here. Formally speaking it has nothing to do with which official languages there are at national level. --Glentamara (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

One particular criticism regarding the EU is the (now) undisclosed expense system, as documented here by a former MEP, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqdNbjhvlxA

Also, the cost associated with relocating the parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the talk page. A 'criticism' section (and, indeed, a 'support' section) could never be neutral (WP:NPOV). Frenzie23 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Brexit#/media/File:UK_location_in_the_EU_2016.svg

... the map displays the markers for each country that is a member of the EU.

Here, it does not: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/European_Union#/media/File:Global_European_Union.svg

As such, this implies that the EU is a single country, when of course it is not.

In terms of accuracy of represented visual information, this is the correct method of display:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/European_Union#/media/File:EC-EU-enlargement_animation.gif

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an identical version showing internal borders: File:European Union (orthographic projection).svg. We could even have a radio button which shows and hides internal borders (similar to at Europe). However this is a locator map so it doesn't serve the same purpose as a map within the article, it's not an issue of consistency, just editorial or stylistic preference. Should the focus be to locate the EU within it's surroundings, or to show the member states of the EU? If the latter, we could have a radio button to show a map of the EU in Europe and the EU on a globe (as is the case for France, United Kingdom, Norway, etc.).

Idea 1:		Idea 2:
Show globe Show map of Europe		Hide internal borders Show internal borders

Rob984 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is a useful interactive element to allow for user choice. Though, I also think your point regarding "internal borders" - which in the strict definition of borders of members states, is important, since in actual fact - the EU is a collection of nations, or members. The EU is not, yet perhaps, a single sovereign entity - as such your design may be useful to compare land-mass vs. border, for example, but the full-block-line-less display does not accurately reflect the fact that the EU is still made-up of individual European sovereign nations. As such, I would simply provide a HD map displaying the internal borders' lines. Interestingly, the USA map and corresponding states map could be displayed using your method - since at small scale showing borders might degrade the image making it difficult to 'read/scan' at small-scale. So, on an accessibility level, the US map works well like that, but the US & EU are not comparable in political terms. Italy is a sovereign nation, and not a state, of course. Though, by your example, it seems like the EU map is still legible at small-scale with internal border-lines visible. The same point could be make about the map of the UK - since the UK is made up of 4 countries. As such, I think your method of display could work in all cases: to show the fact of geo-political-borders, and also to illustrate the extent of the collective land-mass for purely geographic purposes and interests.? I think IDEA 1, with the "Show map of Europe" option is most accessible and most accurate. But I think your idea to allow users to select from multiple views is useful. I SEE NOW! Yes, France map works well like that. Though, as a user, I find the "Show all" option causes the interface to shift. As such, perhaps move the options to the top, so they are static relative to the whole layout.?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.147 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support leave like last time, the same map as last week, month, year but without UK, simply. It was good then, you do not need to change anything. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have decided and I hope you will support me To cross out the United Kingdom like this in the ratification pages of the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties as we need to show although the UK signed and ratified the treaties they are no longer a member state and no longer bound by those treaties but still shows they were a part of the ratification process.(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC))

No, I think that this not a case for wp:BEBOLD, it is significant enough to need raising at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as it is an important precedent. I understand the issue and you are absolutely right to raise it, but I believe that this is the wrong way to go about it, too reminiscent Nineteen Eighty Four. --Red King (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have raised the issue with the wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and in the mean time until we have a way forward I will make no further edits. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC))

The last Polity Withdrawn essentially suggests that multiple countries have withdrawn from the EU - so far and presently only the UK as withdrawn from the EU.

This should be changed.Theprussian (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Greenland withdrew from the EEC in 1985. Frenzie23 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with "UK withdrawal", if anything at all. It's the notability of the event that matters in my opinion. If Malta left the EU tomorrow, would it be more notable? Probably not.

I also don't know why it says "Last polity admitted", "Last expansion" is much more natural. Mayotte was in affect "admitted" to the EU in 2014.

Rob984 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I would go with "Last enlargement" for the 2013 enlargement, and just plain "Brexit" instead of "Last polity withdrawn". For now the UK withdrawn is an isolated event by itself that can be treated singularly. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend replacing both last enlargement and last withdrawal with "Last membership change". If another bunch of states enter the EU, will the UK withdrawal still have a place? Better to use a single point. --Yair rand (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Foghe suggested "Last polity mutation" but this was reverted by PubliusJ. I think we should include the last time the members changed, we don't need to have both the last enlargement and withdrawal. 0x9fff00 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to overdo it with Brexit edits, and by that I mean let's be as judicious as possible with removing references to the UK. The UK has left the EU, but the UK's 47-year membership in the EU should not be understated in this article. It is okay to leave mentions of the UK that are in the context of historical data, e.g. economic and population statistics, and of course its role in the EU's political development and general history. Thoughts? PubliusJ (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Historical data that has no need to be updated or deleted should not be corrected. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, think that nonsense such as this: "Besides the 24 official languages, there are about 150 regional and minority languages, spoken by up to 50 million people. Catalan, Galician, Basque, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh are not recognised official languages of the European Union but have semi-official status: official translations of the treaties are made into them and citizens have the right to correspond with the institutions in these languages." should not have been left in but edited right away.

But I do not feel like logging in and potentially editing it. Let the younger editors deal with it, I've been editing since the early stages of Wikipedia just short of 2 decades ago.109.245.38.9 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is that specifically nonsense? (2.101.3.255 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC))

Previously the largest city has referred to the city proper. This means that Paris should be in the parameter. IWI (chat) 00:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I meant it did NOT refer to the city proper but the urban area, as it always should in this parameter. IWI (chat) 00:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the largest city is always the city proper. Some articles add (city proper) to make that distinction too. Lokii192 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Well London was never the largest then. Technically the City of London has only a few thousand. You see the issue here? Previously the field said "London and Paris" due to their similar sizes. IWI (chat) 00:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

London proper is NOT the City of London, this is an entirely separate city, with it’s own system of government dating back to the dinosaurs. London, the council, covers Greater London, not the city of London, including Westminster. So London, the council, the government, the devolved government itself covers all of Greater London, with a population of about 8 million

Jamesmstewart (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Lokii192, so you want Berlin as the largest city? I just gave up with the London vs Paris debate. Justification for Paris was based on it's agglomeration population, while London was based on its "administrative limits" (the London Region). Eventually Paris was removed because certain editors didn't respect consensus.

To summarise, there's those like yourself who claim "it's convention to use city-limits" ignoring the fact the EU is 27 countries that define cities differently, while the alternative view is that agglomerations are used to measure cities on an international level. I've always supported changing the heading from "Largest city" to "Largest agglomerations" or "Largest urban areas" and listing the two largest agglomerations: London and Paris. Now Paris is by far the largest, I'd go with "Largest agglomeration" or "Largest urban area".

If Berlin is going to be listed as the "largest city in the EU" I've lost all hope in humanity.

Rob984 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "Largest city" needs to be changed to something like "Largest urban area". The limits of city propers don't do justice. It doesn't tell the full picture. By this logic, London was always wrong as well as the "City of London" only has a population of 1000, whereas "City of Westminster" has 255,000 and the rest of the region isn't even classified as being a city.

Stating Berlin as the largest would be ridiculous. The urban areas of Barcelona, Milan, Madrid, and the Ruhr region of Germany have a larger population by a long shot, alongside Paris. We definitely need to change "Largest city" to "Largest urban area". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.177.182 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it is obvious by now that some people prefer to list the largest city by population within city limits (Berlin), while others prefer the largest urban area (Paris), I made an edit earlier tonight which included *both* cities in the Infobox just as it is the case on other Wikipedia pages like the one about China (where Shanghai is listed as the largest metropolitan area and Chongqing as the largest city proper under "largest city"). It took not long before someone changed it it back to solely listing Berlin as largest city and I'd be willing to bet real money that an hour from now it will list only Paris again. In all likelihood, this won't end until someone's willing to compromise and the truth is that as of this moment we haven't managed to reach that point yet. Der_Hans (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Made a suggestion with this edit. Feel free to revert. I prefer to refer to urban area/agglomeration over metropolitan area, due to the former being a more standard measure. It's possible under some definition of "metropolitan" there is groupings of cities that surpass Paris's population for example, it's not really a strictly defined concept. Rob984 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I kind of like the way that China handles the Largest city a bit more than what we currently have. Seems cleaner. What do you guys think? Lokii192 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Rob984, I like your edit, particularly the idea of an urban agglomeration. By some definitions, an urban area would mean only a continuously built-up area. For example, the London urban area is much smaller than the London metropolitan area. The Paris metropolitan area is comparable with the latter but is much larger in size (meaning area, not population) and clearly not a city as per the previous single field title. Dubmill (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Berlin is bigger than Paris within city limits. The population of Berlin is 3,748,148 the population of Paris is 2,140,526. Luis9595 (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

And that's exactly what the infobox says at this very moment. It adds also Paris as the largest agglomeration, which is also a true statement. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Luis9595, the case has already been clarified several times in the case of London. At that time, Berlin was larger than City of London by administrative boundaries. A consensus was reached against Berlin in favor of two megacities: London and Paris. For a long time London was in the infobox, London is gone (Brexit), now - Paris is largest metropolis of European Union. Berlin is 2-3 times smaller metropolis, and the artificial city limits do not matter much today. So, generally nothing changes, there was a consensus for both: London and Paris, London is gone, so Paris remains. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The map is still showing the UK as a member state, anyone know how to fix this? JJARichardson (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The UK is only displayed as being a member of the EU still when I use the mobile version of the page on my phone. Sitting here at my desktop it is displaying the UK in grey (and shouldn't the UK just be another colour showing it as a former member?)--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You probably have to clear your web browser's cache. --Glentamara (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Still didn't work for me, but then again my phone is "playing up" so I wouldn't trust it...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove the United Kingdom from the map titled "Classification of regions from 2014 to 2020" Dkm49 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Changed the caption to "2014 to January 2020" to clarify that the map shows the situation prior to Brexit. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a couple of new maps, one with borders and one without. The one with borders (that are for the most part unrelated to the EU) shows the wrong border for Western Sahara. This is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish the border-less map had a higher resolution...--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:ACB1:1A1B:1127:FF65 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too, but the alternative is worse. While displaying a wall as a border is plain wrong, it appears that we have a new one, a lot worse, since it completely removes the border between Western Sahara and Morocco. M.Bitton (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't start changing up the map file over disagreements. Come to a consensus here and then the changes will be made to the original file. Let's not clutter Commons with near-duplicate maps.

The border between Western Sahara and Morocco was removed on the map on the 1st April 2018. It was that way until today. There appears no justification for this so, at your request, I restored the border. However I will note that "wall" is the de facto international border between Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and SADR-administered area. I don't know what the convention is on WIkipedia for such a border. Rob984 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The thing is there shouldn't be a boarderless map. The EU isn't a federal state. (Airline7375 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

The new map that you uploaded after I started this discussion was reverted because it was clearly worse than the disputed one. Unfortunately, adding the missing border and arguing to keep what's not supposed to be there on the ground that the work is based on an earlier version does not make the updated one any less wrong.

The wall (the berm) is not considered as a border by the the United Nations. We don't treat it as such when showing maps of the concerned regions, namely the Maghreb, North Africa and Africa. So there is no reason whatsoever to display the wrong map of North Africa in this article.

I don't mind correcting it. Please let me know what you want to do. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, adding the missing border and arguing to keep what's not supposed to be there on the ground that the work is based on an earlier version does not make the updated one any less wrong.

So for clear understanding it's yourself that wants to remove a border which has been present on the map for years, which is fair enough.

Please let me know what you want to do.

Let's discuss the map borders more broadly, this isn't isolated to Western Sahara.

The wall (the berm) is not considered as a border by the the United Nations.

Notably the UN also considers the Golan Heights to be Syrian, and Kosovo to be Serbian. Kosovo is a EU candidate. EU–Morocco fisheries agreements include Western Sahara (despite ECJ rulings). So UN-only perspective perhaps isn't ideal for a map of the EU.

Personally I would treat all disputed borders as dotted. Kosovo–Serbia, both sides of the Golan Heights, and Western Sahara−Morocco. The Moroccan-occupied region–SADR border could then be removed since we are indicating Morocco's disputed southern border in the same fashion as for Israel and Serbia. Currently all borders on the map are solid, which means we are not conforming the the UN view or taking a neutral position.

What's your thoughts on this?

Rob984 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss any other map than the North Africa map displayed in this article. The UN map is quite clear, and so is the one by the The World Factbook (a source that is widely used as a reference in Wikipedia). M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with treating Morocco/WS, Serbia/Kosovo, and Israel/Syria differently, cherry picking one case from the UN map while ignoring the others. You need consensus to make changes to the map. Rob984 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Funny enough, you had no problem with it last month when you uploaded this map. What has changed since I wonder? Like I said, I don't mind correcting it, but if you'd rather do it yourself, please let me know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've upload hundreds of maps, many are used across Wikipedia. Most of the time I don't modify the base at all; the base of that map happened followed the UN (no Kosovo, Syria's borders, etc). This is a map of the EU, a organisation which has a agreements with Morocco and Kosovo based on their claimed borders.

you had no problem with it last month when you uploaded...

Funny enough, I get this a lot. No I'm not endorsing a view because I uploaded a map. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, not push political agendas.

Change the map without consensus and you will be reverted per Commons policy (COM:OVERWRITE). Upload a new file and you will need consensus to add it to this article.

Rob984 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to improve Wikipedia by publishing a map of North Africa that, for obvious reasons, is different from the one displayed in the North Africa article?

Change the map without consensus and you will be reverted per Commons policy (COM:OVERWRITE). Upload a new map and you will need consensus to add it to this article. You changed the map. Did you seek consensus for it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You keep ignoring my point that this map is in respect of the EU, not the UN, and now you're implying that I'm acting in bad faith? Really?

You changed the map. Did you seek consensus for it?

There was consensus to recolour the UK and add the border between Western Sahara and Morocco, I don't see anybody opposing this. The map in it's current form prior to those edits was present on the article for years, see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.

Rob984 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

this map is in respect of the EU, not the UN For the EU (not that it matters in this case) the map of Western Sahara looks no different than that of the UN. See page 9 and 6 of these EU documents.[1][2] The berm (which also runs inside the Moroccan territory) is usually only shown and described as such in articles that deal specifically with the conflict. M.Bitton (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

the map of Western Sahara looks no different than that of the UN.

The maps in those documents include dotted borders between Morocco and Western Sahara, which is what I'm proposing.

Rob984 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Which one includes the wall? What's the position of the European Court of Justice? M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So you wish to use these sources as justification remove the border between Moroccan-occupied WS and the SADR-administered area, but not to dot the currently solid border between Morocco and WS? I wish to follow the EU sources in both cases. Rob984 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't want to use the EU maps, its position (as I said before) is irrelevant, and the examples given were meant for you. Let me repeat. What's the position of the European Court of Justice? M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The ECJ hasn't ruled that Western Sahara is not disputed. Rob984 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It has acknowledged what everyone knows: "the territory of Western Sahara does not form part of the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco."[3] So, there is no reason to pretend that the EU somehow treats it any different that the UN. M.Bitton (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The ruling resolves whether "the territory of Morocco" in past agreements covers Western Sahara. It's nothing new that the EU doesn't recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. This is irrespective of being a disputed territory and Morocco being the occupying power of most of the territory, of which neither the EU nor the UN have explicitly ruled as "illegal". For example the recent EU-Morocco fisheries partnership includes Western Sahara's waters, as it was explicitly included in the agreement.

Rob984 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

MEPs making a mockery of the European Court of Justice confirms what I had been saying all along, the EU's position (whatever that means) is irrelevant. The argument that a UN-only perspective isn't ideal for a map of the EU is obviously baseless, because it's the map of another continent that is disputed here and not the EU's. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

M.Bitton, sorry for the slow response. I'll make the edit to remove the border in question as part of an edit to harmonise borders outside Europe with UN-perspective (in relation to both Western Sahara and the Golan Heights). I'll concede you have a point in terms of the relevance of the Western Sahara dispute to the European Union, compared to say Kosovo, a candidate state. Rob984 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I say the UK is still part of the "political and economic" union, so this consists of 27 member states, and 1 non-member ttate, the latter of course being the UK. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a very creative way of putting it, but it is simply wrong. This political and economical union including the UK, that you talk about, is not called EU, at least not anymore. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Erm, see European Economic Area. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the UK is still bounded by almost all EU law (much more than just EEA related). They are nonetheless not a member of the EU any longer, e.g., they have no voting rights and they are not bounded by the EU treaties any longer. --Glentamara (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, yes they ARE bounded by the EU treaties and will be for the foreseeable future. It is set to officially end at the end of this year 2020, but the way things are going as more and more Brexiteers rub the horse muck out of their eyes they will soon realize that a deal with the EU is not an option but an imperitive. Listen to Verhofstadt and other economic experts. And yes indeed, see EEA. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

True that they are in a provisional state, but still the UK is not a member of the EU, the EU is not a "union celebrating diversity", these funny definitions do not belong to an encyclopedia. I am going to revert your bold edit again according to WP:BRD, because your edit is unsourced, and most probably disruptive. The second sentence in your edit: "The political, cultural and economic union also has one non-member state (the UK) that are located primarily in Europe" makes no grammatical sense and is false (what is a cultural union?). Also how can a "non-member" be part of a union? If it were part of it, it would have been a member indeed by definition of the word "member", so this is obviously nonsense. Please read about WP:Edit warring before you keep insisting with your behaviour. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. If what I say is ungrammatical, then I am simply reading from you a petition to correct it, so instead of boldy disrupting the article as you admit to pledge to keep doing, why don't you have a go at repairing the ungrammatical issues of the part. United in Diversity is the union's motto, so that's your next argument annihilated. And "cultural" has many meanings, not just tradition and cuisine. As members plus UK, we have have stacks in common namely our European values, our love and respect for freedom and democracy, our hate of war, and our diplomacy around areas of conflict between rival parties. Indeed you only have to look a the results. The EU has kept peace in Europe for 70 whole years now and that is why my edits are not only imperitive, but need to be right at the start. Also you are misrepresenting me by claiming I am trying to say UK is in EU. I saw how my first edit problematically gave that impression, but I believe that I corrected it after my first revert/restoring. So I agree with you on one thing totally which is the edit warring code and this can be helped greatly if you desist until you can offer sources that the UK is no longer bound by EU rules/conditions. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please someone else stop this nonsense, I don't want to risk violating the 3RR. The editor clearly has no vision of what goes into the definition aka first sentence of this article, adding unsourced ridiculous definitions like "a union celebrating diversity"... very encyclopedic. This article is of main importance and is being read by hundreds of people every hour, it can't be in this state. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Well now I also risk 3RR so I am very disappointed that proxies are being used to remove a valid point. I have already admitted that the wording was badly formed, but why couldn't someone just edit it. The EU has 27 member states as of February 2020 and we are going to have to accept it, but somehow we need to find a way to show that the UK is still a funcioning party if not full-member, and even after 2021, with a stroke of luck, it will have a deal like Norway, or actually return to the EU. We don't have to say the last bit, just the bit about functioning as a sort of 28th member. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If the discussion is ongoing, you should please stop being bold concerning the topic of the UK membership. In your latest edit (unsourced) you write that the UK "function[s] as a fully fledged EU member". This is, again, unsourced, and by the way false. A EU member has seats in the Parliament, in the Council, and the rest of the EU institutions. The UK does not anymore, ergo is not — and does not "function as" — a member of the EU. What you are doing is WP:OR, reinterpreting the reality based on your views and opinions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no way the UK can be described as a "fully fledged EU member" - it would be false and misleading to do so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The UK ought not to be mentioned in the intro

This article is about the EU. Not former members of the EU. Whilst Brexit deserves a prominent position in the body of the article, it does not warrant a mention in the lead. I didnt want to delete the paragraph without input from others, but it should be deleted/moved from the intro. At least, a vote should be held on that? 2.70.15.131 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that key points from the article should be summarised in the lead and I don't think you could argue that it is insignificant. The mention is over-detailed for the lead, however, so I will WP:BEBOLD and fix that, but I don't think it can be removed anytime soon. --Red King (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the EU be a Confederal Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiBrown1204 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Nothing in the treaties define it as such, nor do any (informed) reliable sources (though some say that it has 'many of the characteristics of a federation'). --Red King (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Basically the title of this section. Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be removed from the map due to their status as UK Sovereign Base Areas and are no longer a part of the EU. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll address this when I update the map to the new convention:

• 
  Old style
• 
  New style

The current style requires too thick borders for Akrotiri and Dhekelia to be distinctly shown. Also they're the same colour as the ocean so it would just distort the shape of Cyprus. Might do it today, in which case I'll just overwrite the current file.

Rob984 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

These sovereign base areas were never part of the EU, so their status did not change wef 1/2/20. They had a arrangement of convenience with Cyprus. See 'Brexit implications' in a pre-Brexit version of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia article. --Red King (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but Chess is right that they are incorrectly coloured with the rest of Cyprus on most of the maps in the article. They are not under Cypriot sovereignty, nor part of the EU, regardless of any bilateral agreements between the UK and EU/Cyprus. I've personally just ignored them when making maps, however they actually aren't that small. Bigger then the Channel Islands which are visible, for example. And much bigger then Spain's territories in North Africa, which are often depicted. Rob984 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the European Union, which was founded in 1993. In the history section, there's a very brief mention of empires that once covered most of Europe, and a link to the article Ideas of European unity before 1945. However, I don't see how that warrants having three maps of Europe more than 1,000 years ago in this small section. How are maps of Europe in the 1st century and 9th century AD relevant to an article about a union in the 21st century? It wrongly implies that the EU is somehow a descendant of the Roman and Frankish empires. Also, the map of Indo-European migrations from 4,000 BC is utterly unwarranted. ~Asarlaí 22:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Those three should be removed from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the Indo-European migrations map. The Roman Empire map is there because it is cited in the text. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, but is it agreed that the post-Charlemagne map should be removed? It's an unclear map in any case - why are some areas in different shades of green, and others in brown, etc.? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion at talk:Member state of the European Union#Splitting proposal on the case for a new article, Member states of the European Union [plural] to be created. Contributions welcome. --Red King (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The "impact" section contains nothing but positive platitudes that could be integrated into the rest of the article, and clearly amounts to a "support section". I propose that it be removed or balanced out by criticism, of which plenty has been offered by reputable sources. Speed74 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Open to integration into the article but they are not platitudes they are referenced and should stand. If there are equivalent criticisms then fine -----Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think the section should be removed entirely because I foresee it becoming a major point of contention down the line. The impact should be self-explanatory from the previous section, too. I don't see a need for it to have its own separate section. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Could or should it not be in another colour to contrast it against the current member states, with the colour (for the UK) coming under "former members"? --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a global map, for an article about the EU. Full stop. Special cases could be made for the EFTA countries (in the single market), Turkey (customs union). The former status of the UK is widely known: it would just clog the map with extraneous detail to make the change you suggest and I would oppose it. --Red King (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for a straightforward reply.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Under Defense policy, the image with NATO members needs to be updated from 3 to 4 Candidate States in NATO I.E., Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Turkey 100.36.123.121 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Are you sure you understand the NATO-North Macedonia situation? They are now a NATO member. Please correct me or update you request. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 04:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any link to the EU website's front page (https://europa.eu/). Shouldn't that be in the information box at the top of the article, as it is for other international organizations (NATO, e.g.)? I'd add it there but don't know how to. 74.71.66.176 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Added. KREOH (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing the pie chart under the budget section to this cleaner and corrected one.

FROM THIS ONE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EUMFF.png

TO THIS ONE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EU_Programme_funding.png

Moonwalktiger (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, CMD (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

People often call the European Union "Europe" as a short-form term, especially as the EU government begins to become more united and federal. I think that in the beginning section, it should say "The European Union, also referred to as Europe, . . .". --RaiBrown1204 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose adding this content to the lead. I'm not opposed to it being discussed in a suitable section in the main text of the article (with citations). Tammbeck^talk 05:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose to adding this content to the lede. It is geographically, geopolitically and economically incorrect. Numerous states within Europe are not in the EU. If there is clear mention of this in reliable sources then it may be mentioned in the main text but it needs to be carefully written not to imply equivalence. Robynthehode (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose adding this content to any part of the article. They are not at all synonymous and I disagree that they're often referred to as if they are. Europe is a continent. The European Union is a political organization. Even if the EU covered all of geographical Europe – which it doesn't – that would not make the two subjects the same. This article is about the European Union itself (its formation, its policies, etc.); the vast history, culture, economic activity, geology, flora, fauna, etc. of the continent have existed for far, far longer than the EU and are almost entirely beyond the scope of this article.

The statement the European Union, also referred to as Europe unambiguously communicates that they are the same in which case we'd have to change Europe to a redirect page and merge all its content into this page. This seems like a common sense issue to me. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the statement needs to go into the lead. It's an interesting example of synecdoche with plenty of discussion over the semantics ([4][5][6][7]) and is commonly used interchangeably ([8][9][10]), but I think the shorthand is simple and obvious enough that there is no need to disrupt the flow of the text to point it out. A short mention might fit into the Impacts section, but this article is already too long and a proper analysis of the terminology would fit better in Europe#Definition. CMD (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a mention in the lead, but support a mention in adequate section since it's often used by WP:RS. Alcaios (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)