Talk:European Union/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

EU GDP

Their is no way in hell the EU gdp is 15 trillion us dollars. That is a load of crap. Even the given website doesnt say it is 15 trillion, but 12 trillion. Stop with the Euro arrogance already by putting false information on multiple wiki pages.

Brussels

In the template Brussels is said as de facto capital of EU. Shouldn't the Capital be rather changed to "Headquarters" or something? I don't think anything is spoken about capital in law. But I don't really know about this, what do you say about changing it to "Headquarters"? --Pudeo (Talk) 12:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That does not sound like a good idea. It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU. Arnoutf 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU". Well, I don't really thing so. I have read some of them, especially on language policy, I have read Pascal Fontaine's semi-official Europe in 12 lessons, I have read a couple of books on EU, I have never come across such an information. EU does not have a capital, because there no such thing officially in the EU and because it is not a state. Headquarters, administrative center or centers, maybe, unofficially again. In fact, Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Frankfurt are all important, with Brussels having a lead among them. But it is not "de facto capital". This is too strong a term. --Michkalas 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If Europe were a country and the general definition of a capital city of a country is the main location of legislative and political bodies and main institutions then the word capital would be appropriate. In this case brussels is generally accepted as the capital for that reason.--Lucy-marie 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But EU is not a country. Maybe many of us want EU to become a country, maybe EU will become a country. But now, today, EU is not a country. --Michkalas 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why the words de facto are used afterwards. Brussels is accepted as the captial but it isn't official.--Lucy-marie 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is accepted by whom? Maybe such a term is OK for an informal discussion or even a politician's speech. It is not OK for an encyclopedia though.--Michkalas 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In most popular press Brussels is referred to as the capital. Arnoutf 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought "It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU."--Michkalas 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable to call it a de facto capital but not the official capital. So under that guise it is acceptable.--Lucy-marie 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So maybe we should also say -and write in a encyclopedia- that Frankfurt is the de facto economic capital of the EU (a term used in the press, BTW) and Luxembourg is its de facto judicial capital (something like the South African system, though not officially, but "de facto" in the case of the EU). I am not actually proposing it, but this highlights the other possible options if we decide to proclaim capitals. Capital in the encyclopedic/reference discource is too strong a word to use and is an exaggeration in the case of the EU. Let's try something more close to what is going on in the EU: "Seat of the executive branch", "administrative headquarters/center" or maybe another term. --Michkalas 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well infact the first part of your comment is justifiable but the second part removes the importance that Brussels has within the EU itself.--Lucy-marie 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you think so, lets make then other proposals.--Michkalas 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

'Capital' is not accurate enough, thats true, and the 'de facto' doesn´t improve anything. How about Seat of EU Commission - Brussels? It would emphazise the Brussels location by naming the most important administrative branch. Lear 21 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. Commission is the European body par excellence, the most European of the European institution. Even better: "Seat of the Commission and the Council" (Council=Council of the EU, not the Summit). --Michkalas 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How about main political centre or words to that effect. I still prefer capial as peopole know what hat means seat of council is too narrow.--Lucy-marie 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not bad the Seat of Commissian idea. Can that be placed in the template on the top of the page?Arnoutf 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michkalas entirely, capital is very misleading, it may be referred to in informal discourse or tabloid newspaper articles in this way but it is certainly not correct or acceptable to refer to it as the capital of the EU in an encyclopedia article. More people may know what this means but that doesn't stop it being incorrect and confusing to the many people who view the EU as a state or something approaching a state. We should shy away from using any phrase which suggests that the EU is a state as it confuses the issue for those not familiar with the subject. I think if a phrase must be used then "Seat of the Commission and Council" is best. --blankfrackis 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By definition the capital city is the principal city where the government is located, and not necessarily the government of a country. For example, Barcelona is defined as the capital of the autonomous region of Catalonia, but not of Spain. Another example, Zürich is the capital of the canton of Zürich but not of Switzerland, etc. So calling Brussels de facto capital of the European Union is completely correct, because although it is not defined anywhere as the capital of the EU, it is where the government of the EU is located and because although the EU is not a country it is indeed a political entity. Sdnegel 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did somebody delete if ranked?

It always said if ranked on the information bar since the E.U. is not a country but somebody keeps deleting if ranked. Who come? User:Daniel_Chiswick 19 February 2007.

Because it messes up the infobox layout. The editor who deleted it set up a footnote instead, but I agree that is hardly readable. Arnoutf 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the if ranked needs to be there because the E.U. is not a country and was never given a rank, only an if ranked. User:Daniel_Chiswick 20 February 2007.

'if ranked' is covered in footnotes. Other extension blows up the infobox unnecessarily. EU has country like characteristics; read the article. Lear 21 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While it does have a few chararcteristiscs of country it is not a country. The "If ranked" needs to be there because on all lists the E.U. is given a special place but never a rank.

User:Daniel_Chiswick 20 February 2007

Please stop deleting "If ranked", it was always there to set the E.U. aside from actual countries and it does not matter if it "Messes it up" because what actually messes it up is giving false information in an encyclopedia. Also when the "If ranked" is not there the information boxes gets messed up. This is an encyclopedia and not an outlet to provide europeans with an ego boost, if you want that go make a "Europedia".

User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 February 2007

If you had read my edit summaries, you'd know that there is already a footnote (the #4 you keep deleting) that explains the whole "if ranked" thing. You have not addressed this in any of your edits and you seem to just be ignoring it in order to blatantly mess up the formatting when it can just be shown through a small footnote. Gdo01 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would there need to be a footnote if the problem is corrected? User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 February 2007

Can somebody give me a VALID reason why "If ranked" was deleted? The E.U. is NOT ranked but it is given a special place with a slash to set it aside from real countries. Just because it WOULD be ranked if it were a country that doesn't mean that it holds that rank. The only reason people keep deleting it is because Europeans (Of which there are too many on here) cannot stand the truth so they just delete things that they do not agree with. This is not some Chinese website or some politically correct european website, it is an American website and in America we do not censor stupid things like this. If you do not like the truth go make a "Europedia", I mean doesn't adding the word "Euro" at the beginning make you europeans feel better? Enjoy living in your fake country the E.U.S.S.R. where they censor things that do not agree with the European Union. The E.U. is as much a country as the holy Roman Empire which Voltaire described as an "agglomeration" which was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.".

User: A concerned wikipedia user who thinks false information has no place in an encyclopedia. 7:24 PM, 23 February 2007

Yes comparisons of Europe to the USSR and the HRE will make people want to listen to you. I'm also enlightened as how I, someone from Florida in Southern United States am obviously a European despite the fact that I'm an American citizen. Use of a sockpuppet discredited you already as an editor and these baseless assumptions and accusations you make further prove that you are not the kind of editor that is trying to help Wikipedia. Then there's your edit that changed the suggestion to speak British English to a suggestion to speak American English[1] despite the fact that Europe obviously includes Britain. I was willing to assume good faith until you made this edit that shows that you are trying to further an USA-centric POV on this article. There is no other logical reason to suggest American spelling for a European(which includes Britain) article. Gdo01 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

All I want is to have "If ranked" put back in, why can't it be there even though it always used to be? Daniel 23 February 2007

Funny idea to claim engl. Wikipedia being American. How about Ameripedia? .... haha. 'If ranked' is covered in footnotes. Infobox is out of proportion after your unnecessary extension. Watch CIA world Factbook for EU entry. Stop continuing your unaccepted edits. You have already violated WP:3RR many times. You are going to be blocked when you go on with it. Lear 21 12:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnote is a good way out; however, I agree that the footnote is very hard to spot; perhaps due to font size or something like that. Maybe if we make the footnote more easily visible the 'if ranked' is no longer necessary? Arnoutf 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why have a footnote when you can have the real thing? It is contradictory to give the E.U. those ranks because they are held by real countries. Most people do not even know what the footnote is so why not just change it back to "If ranked"? I want one valid reason why it cannot be up there other than it "Messe it up". It does not even mess it up and the fact that it is not there messes it up because this is an encyclopedia. User:Daniel Chiswick February 24 2007.

The real thing is not in here, it is out there in the real world. Readability is a great good in any text; you simply cannot explain the world in any article, you will always have to sacrifice a bit of 'realness' for readability. I think the footnote is a good way of doing it. Arnoutf 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Globalisation reason for integration?

This statement added to the intro is dubious, removed:

Supporters believe the integration is a necessary answer to globalization and a model for other world regions

Globalisation was not a factor in the emergence of the EEC in post-war Europe, the term was unknown. Some people, like Tony Blair, do believe it is the raison d'etre of the EU, but they are usually the opponents of further political integration. (He sees the EU as a free trade zone). Very few people suggest the EU is a model for the rest of the world.Paul111 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful here to consider the question why is there a European Union? from a sociological and historical viewpoint. Compare the issues of why there is a state and why there are nation-states.Paul111 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you taking it out as it adds little. However please keep in mind that motives may change; and that nowadays globalisation plays a role (note that the sentence did not use passed tense; so is not referring to the past). While EEC was not founded in the light of globalisation. Mind you we are no longer only restricted to the free trade of Coal and Steel (which I think was the first EEC agreement), so it is undeniable that the motives of the Union have changed (and will continue to change). The model thing is indeed weird.

I would say, that if someone is willing to write a well-referenced section on historical, sociological (and perhaps politicological) reasons underlying the founding as well as the refocussing of the EU I would higly support that. I would place that in the history section, rather then in the introduction though Arnoutf 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence again and replaced it with this version, which covers both the economic and 'cultural-political' motives for the EU's existence:

The process of integration is open-ended: although the formation of a single state is not an explicit goal of the EU, eurosceptic fears that it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty have made the EU (and its future) a major political issue in itself. Two different motives for European integration are reflected in the political conflicts about the future direction of the EU. One is political union and common identity, founded on an assumed common European culture and values. The other is economic: the EU as a customs union and single market, implying a future primarily as an economic bloc in a global economy.

User Lear 21 deleted this on the grounds it was a 'controverse'. It may be, but it is the main one about the nature of the EU, and it belongs in the intro to provide context. The idea that the EU exists simply as a counter to globalisation is historically inaccurate, and unbalanced.Paul111 12:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial edits need very strong references (even in an introduction). Although I have no strong preference for any version, I can udnerstand some of Lear21s frustration. There is something good in his introduction, and by just piecemeal replacing the whole thing that is denied. A gradual change and improvement on existing text is in my opinion often a more constructive approach; which does not antagonise other editors, and is a very good check against editor POV (as there are more editors involved in every bit of the text rather than editors making up whole pragraphs in one go). I would invite you to discuss your problems with Lear21's version (in modest suggestive tones please) here: Talk:European_Union#Repeated_reversion_without_discussion as I think Lear21 co-operated constructively there; and we started a constrcutive rewrite of the introduction. Arnoutf 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro should say that the EU is composed of nation-states. That its existence contradicts their sovereignty, is the great unresolved issue of European politics, and belongs in the intro. The addition about supporters of European integration seeing it a response to globalisation is factually incorrect, and unbalanced. I corrected that by including the 'two motives' for European integration. They could be moved to the Politics section. Finally, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit: it is not a forum. The talk page is an adjunct to the article, and not the other way around. The article content, and its accuracy, are the prime concerns.Paul111 12:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The EU has a history of half a century. The achieved status quo, the factual reality has to be mentioned first! It must be priority in the leading paragraphs and nothing else. All current attitudes and debates about future politics are highly volatile and speculative. They are of less priority in size and rank compared to other paragraphs in the introduction. In one of the last edited versions of User:Lear21 the tensions of supporters and critics are covered and sourced with a credible outside EU stance. Thats sufficient, all other underlying debates can be covered in the sections. Lear 21 12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does the intro have to say that it is composed of nation states. If you want that in provide a reference otherwise live with states alone (in my opinion federal states - Belgium - are also allowed).

I agree the globalisation issue should not be in the introduction

The speculative issue about threat to national sovereignity are POV issues and should be treated - but not in the introduction.

The talk page is meant to reach consensus and help in avoiding POV of single editors; and thus edit-wars. Using the evolving consensus / agreements on the talk page to construct the version of the article is essential. Nobody says the talk page should be copied into the article; only that serious arguments are used (and not disregarder by wanting reversions). Arnoutf 13:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The tensions were not covered by the older version, since it wrongly attributes a view of the EU as a response to globalisation, to the supporters of European integration. As indicated above, this view is primarily held by opponents of further political integration. If the intro is only about the 'achieved status quo', i.e. merely stating that a thing called the EU exists, then it should not include the (claimed) views of its supporters. Either an intro with dry facts only, or a balanced intro.Paul111 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Paul111 The EU IS a response to globalized economy! Read the source. a)The EU is NOT a 'latest phase', but is a result of factual political decisions. b) The 'political conflicts about the future direction of the EU' are daily shifting attitudes and cant have priority over achieved standards. Face it ! c) 'common identity, founded on an assumed common European culture and values' is unsourced and very speculative. STOP your POV agenda! Lear 21 08:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The European Union has policies which are intended as a response to globalisation, but they are not its raison d'etre. Nor did it simply come into existence in 1992, it derives from its predecessors, and the historical context should be mentionned. A common identity is indeed an opinion and an idea, that is why the text says it is a motive for integration, and not an established fact. It says an assumed European culture and values.Paul111 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Schengen in introduction

I think the line about Schengen in the introduction should be removed for two reasons. First of all according to WP:LEAD the introduction should be a summary, however, the Schengen agreement is not mentioned as an important issue in the main article. Added benefit, removing Schengen issue from intro brings the intro back to the maximum adviced four paragraph length. Secondly; Schengen includes Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (non-eu). Although the overlap is sufficient to treat it in the article itself; I would not place it in the introduction, which should be a summary of the essential information on the EU. Therefore I have been bold and took it out.Arnoutf 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Schengen is one of the major achievements of EU politics (all 27 ratified it -493 mil people). The involvement of 3 EFTA states ( 12 mil. people) is of minor relevance here. It´s not sufficiently covered in the article, correct, so please extend the content rather than deleting crucial information. Lear 21 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I partially agree; if it is important (and I agree it is), it should be in the article (including the argument that it is EU, in spite of the EFTA states and not antother European thing). However, as long as it is not treated in the article in detail it should not be in the introduction. The introduction should give an overview of the article, not a list of topics that should be treated in the future. Arnoutf 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt seem logical. Schengen is of very high relevance, you agree. But at the same time it should be deleted because its not covered in the sections ? Its vice versa! Schengen has to be mentioned at least in intro, before it isnt mentioned at all. Lear 21 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not illogical. If Schengen is important it should be treated in the main text. The introduction should not give an overview of issues that are not in the main text. Hence the Schengen bit needs to be written in the main text first (or at the same time). Arnoutf 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Assuming the EURO-currency is not covered in any section. Would you delete the intro mentioning about the existence? See ! The article lacks so many, but you are not deleting major facts because they are poorly written or covered. I could list 10 points of lacking content, but do I propose the abolition of the EU article at the whole? You are right with WP:LEAD standards, so expand the content which is missing instead of deleting. Lear 21 10:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is of hypothetical interest only; the Euro is mentioned. What I am less sure about is whether the Schengen agreement will ever be as prominent in the article. I will try to have a go when I have some time. The intro must be short, and therefore some important issues may need to be dropped even if they are treated in the article proper. I would prefer dropping stuff that is not mentioned over issues that feature in the article. The problem with your reasoning is that it opens the door for brief statements that are not explained in sufficient detail (due to intro brevity) anywhere in the article. This goes e.g. for the mentioning of nation state. So in spite of your noted objections, I remain with the opinion that no issue that is not treated in the main section should be named in the intro; its either all or none, I go for none. Arnoutf 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don´t read WP:LEAD as a bureaucratic bible. Schengen is next the EURO one of the historical achievements. Deletion is not acceptable. The Schengen Agreement is also hyperlinked, so there is no lack in explanation at all. Lear 21 12:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nation states

I cannot find where the given source says the EU consists of Nation states exclusively; please provide a page no. It seems the author says that the EU is the salvation of nation states in a time where many say they are an outdated model; this implies there are some nation states in the EU, however (as I said before), I cannot find a hard quotation stating that the EU consists only, and can only consist out of nation states. Hence as far as I read into the source, the author says that the book present his own POV, and lists contrary sources. Arnoutf 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The given source contains no support of nation-state thesis. Its therefore not relevant. Lear 21 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Users should not try to make a point with edits. It is indeed unlikely that an academic work would explicitly state that the EU is composed exclusively of nation-states, because it is not a disputed issue. It is taken for granted: which member states are not nation-states, and what type of state are they? Second source added anyway.Paul111 11:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Second source much more conclusive, thanks. However, if it is taken for granted, why does it have to be in the intro. Arnoutf 12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the tension between 'sovereignty' and 'union' is the central political issue in the EU, that's why.Paul111 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That maybe a reaons to place it in the article, but the intro should not be an overview of arguments not mentioned in the articel (that's why not). Arnoutf 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading into your quote - ".the EU is best understood as a regional union of nation-states..." That means that although it is officially NOT a regional union of nation states it is best understood that way. Thus the reference cannot be used to state it as a definite "The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of nation-states" as the whole scientific care in using the word Understood has disappeared. Hence based on this reference nation cannot be added to the states. Arnoutf 12:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources added.Paul111 14:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro reverts by Lear 21

I propose that the introduction should be revised with the following points:

• it should identify the EU member states as nation-states
• it should identify the EU as the successor to other entities, such as the EEC
• it should place the EU in historical context as part of a longer process of European integration
• it should not state that the EU exists as a response to globalisation
• it should mention and link to Euroscepticism and sovereignty

Because of reverts, a poll seems inevitable.Paul111 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1) misleading, not necessary, see UN intro 2) can be included 3)can be included in para 4) AND 5) are mentioned together or non of them, and will be ranked after factual achievements. Lear 21 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your views (by points)

My response comes down to a single guiding principle:

• The intro needs to be a concise overview (ie summary) of the article (see:WP:LEAD). In that light:

1. It need not identify EU-member as nation states, as this did not receive attention elsewhere in the article, and is only a non-imbedded statement as it is now
2. It should identify the EU as successor to other entities; as this has a prominent place in the history section.
3. It should place the EU in relation to European integration as this is the main issue in the Politics and Three Pillars section (it should not mention Schengen in much detail, as this is only scarcely mentioned in the three pillars section).
4. It should not state that the EU exists as a response to globalisation, as this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I agree that there might be a section conceivable EU in relation to Globalisation but that does not (yet) exist, so no place in the intro.
5. It should not link to Euroscepticism, as this issue is not treated elsewhere in the article. I agree that there might be a section conceivable Euroscepticism but that does not (yet) exist, so no place in the intro.
6. As it is now, the issue of sovereignty should be treated with the utmost care. It is mentioned twice (foreign policy and law); howver not in the context that states will lose it when entering the EU. Again, as long the article proper does not pay much more attention to the issue, it should not be in the introduction.

I hope these argument give a reasonable idea of what the introduction shoud look like given the current underlying article. Please do not consider a poll on this, that will not help anyone. Arnoutf 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote intro

I shortened the intro, added yesterday's Eurostat GDP figures (they are for 2004, but definitive), and moved Schengen to a footnote. In case it is deleted again, it now reads:Paul111 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of nation-states in Europe. It was established in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty, and it is the successor to the six-member European Economic Community founded in 1957. New accessions have raised its membership to 27 member states, and its competences and goals have expanded. The EU is the result of a continuing process of European integration: the end-state of this process is not specified. Eurosceptics fear it will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty.

The EU is now the largest political and economic entity on the European continent, with around 493 million people and an estimated GDP of € 10 529 351 million. The Union is a customs union and a developing single market, with a common trade policy,. It has its own currency, the euro - already adopted by 13 member states. The Union has a Common Agricultural Policy, a Common Fisheries Policy, and a regional Policy to assist poorer regions. It has initiated a Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited joint policy on crime.

Important EU institutions and bodies include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament. Citizenship of the European Union generally allows citizens to live, travel, work and invest in other member states. EU citizens directly elect the European Parliament, once every five years.

To unspecific in many respects. Lear 21 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the other version:

The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of 27 democratic member states in Europe. It was established under that name by the Treaty on European Union (The Maastricht Treaty) in 1992. It forms the three pillar framework and includes the European Economic Community, a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.

Many aspects of the Union existed through a series of predecessor relationships, dating back to 1951.[1] Membership, competences, tasks, and goals have expanded since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The progress and the degree of further European integration is discussed controversially, but is considered to be open-ended.

The EU is the largest political and economic entity on the European continent, with around 493 million people and an estimated nominal GDP of US$14.2 trillion in 2006.[2] The union has a single market consisting of a customs union, a common trade policy, and a currency called the euro - adopted by 13 member states. It has a Common Agricultural/ Fisheries Policy, and a regional Policy to invest in poorer regions.[3][4]

Important EU institutions and bodies include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament which is directly elected every five years. Citizenship of the European Union and the Schengen Agreement allow citizens to live, travel, work and invest in other member states.[5]

I try to get the structure of the two versions:

(1)

• What is the EU
• When was it founded
• What was its predecesor
• In the light of grow how many members are there
• In the light of integration what happens to goals
• What is the direction of the integration process
• Eurosceptic fears

• How large is it in inhabitants and economy
  • The Euro
  • Internal policies (agriculture, development, foreing and security, police justice)

• Important EU institutions
• Citizenship rights in the EU
• Democracy

(2)

• What is the EU
• When was it founded
• What are its founding principal (internal policies)

• What was its predecesor
• What is the direction of the integration process
  • In the light of integration what happens to goals

• How large is it in inhabitants and economy
  • The Euro
  • Internal policies (agriculture, development, foreing and security, police justice)

• Important EU institutions
• Democracy
• Citizenship rights in the EU

When I review these structures I immediately notices that the last two sections are almost identical. The problem is apparently in the start.
Trying to be neutral I think that the structure of version 2 is a bit more straightforward and simple; although mentioning the predecessors immediately may also be interesting. Perhaps a first section structure as follows may help out:

• What is the EU
• When was it founded
• What was its predecessor
• What are its (current) principles

• In the light of current growth/integration/development what will happen to
  • Number of members
  • Goals and influence
  • What is the final direction of the integration process
  • There are sceptics who fear the growing power of EU

That means the two versions are mixed to a certain degree; but I think this will give a better structure, hence better readability. Arnoutf 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your introduction

First, I do not think you should call the EU a union of "nation-states". The definition of a nation-state is the following: "A nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and which derives its legitimacy from that function.", however at least the United Kingdom is a state which does not represent a particular nation.

Second, in my opinion this statement is wrong: Critics are concerned that process will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty.. This might be controversial, because member states could in theory quit the Union, but they are forced to implement some European laws, they have to accept the European court of justice resolutions, for some members the monetary policy is decided by the ECB etc... so if we accept that there might be different levels of sovereignty, then members states would have already been deprived of at least part of it.

And third, "The Union is a customs union and a developing single market" The Union is already a single market. Read the definition of wikipedia, or just read the reference you give, which says "The Single European Market stands for ‘free movement’ of people, goods, services and capital. On a practical level, it means the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU as well as to enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services. Since its inception in 1993, the Single Market has opened up economic and working opportunities that have transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans. Removing the barriers that still prevent citizens and business from fully enjoying the benefits of the Single Market is a key aim of the European Commission.". It is not a perfect single market, but those markets only exist in theory. In practice no perfect single markets exist, so if we assume that, for example, the US has a single market then we should do the same for the EU. Sdnegel 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries discussion page, a more recent type of location maps, available for the European continent and designed by David Liuzzo, have been discussed and a poll and a survey were held. The survey is closing within 3 hours but could so far not show a consensus on whether the European Union should be shown as a whole in a separate shade on the map of a EU member state, or not (8 votes say yes, 9 votes say no, and the clock is counting). Without change, this would logically mean that the EU should not be indicated even on the maps of its member states. Nevertheless, a lot of EU member states articles already applied the David Liuzzo maps with the EU highlighted. Does anyone have a suggestion? — SomeHuman 20 Feb2007 21:10 (UTC)

Flag design controversy

I added the below under Religion in the article, but it was taken out with argument of having no source. But it's source was the obvious link to the article Crown of Immortality, which has references to the existance of the symbolic crown. I thereby give my vote to put it back. - Roberth Edberg 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• The European Flag itself however may play a role in religious symbolism wereas the ring of stars may be compared with the Crown of Immortality. The ultimate salvation of Christianity, membership of the Kingdom of Heaven, becoming Immortal, could symbolicly be related to beeing a citizen within the European Union.

I think it is merly coincidence. I do not think anybody outside of a religious context would see any problem with a ring of gold stars on a blue background.--Lucy-marie 11:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet, no excuse to take out the controversy. The similarities is a fact. Roberth Edberg 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I reckon there is a bigger connection to the movie 'Oceans Twelve' starring George Clooney and 11 other stars....haha! Lear 21 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Lear 21, I do not get your point. EU's Christian spirit is heavily debated especially since Turkey came to the agenda. The argument is NOT a fact, but the Crown symbol is - which would be enough to present it. Of course one could wonder how stupied it was of EU to choose the star ring in the beginning. - Roberth Edberg 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What total bollocks. There is absolutely no connection and it is silly to suggest there is. The similarity is NOT 'a fact'. Lear21's suggestion is just as valid, and he/she knows that that is nonsense. Read the rationale behind the original adoption of the design: "Against the blue sky of the Western world, the stars represent the peoples of Europe in a circle, the symbol of unity. Their number shall be invariably set at twelve, the symbol of completeness and perfection ... just like the twelve signs of the zodiac represent the whole universe, the twelve gold stars stand for all peoples of Europe – including those who cannot as yet take part in building up Europe in unity and peace." Unless you think astrology is a religion, where's the religious connection? The EU is a secular organisation; the "EU's Christian spirit" is not "heavily debated" by the EU. Get rid of this nonsense. Emeraude 13:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is probably just a coincidence; that is why I took it out. There has to be an accepted scholarly source (i.e. not just a hobby site) openly doubting (at least) whether the similarity between the crown and the EU flag is a coincidence to put it back in. I think it will be very difficult to find; especially as the number of stars originally reflected the number of member states (there has been a 10 star version); but no longer as the EU decided to keep the 12 star flag to not to go to many star and changing everythin whenever a new state was accepted in. By the way, the Crown of immortality article is not referenced at all; and wiki articles should not be used for claims in other articles in any case. (PS of course, as everybody knows, the stars represent the 12 spoons that are part of my cutlery set.) Arnoutf 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So 17/18th century paintings named "Crown of Immortality" are not referense enough for the existance of the crown itself? That's strange! I can accept that there is no source added for the EU Spirit debate. But I will get hold on that one soon. So what's left? To deny the simularities and the European history? Nobody has said that there is any proof, but there are trillions of articles with same kind of arguments. Number of stars? How many perls needs to be in a crown to call it a crown? - Simulair argument. I guess my trust in Wikipedia dropped in a sec... - Roberth Edberg 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:REF - about citing sources and WP:OR - no original research. Interpretation of a painting is not a source but original research; an article about that same painting maybe a source. The same way goes for any speculation about similarity between the crown and the EU flag; again original research. If you think you can make the arguments you have stick, write a scientific paper about it, get it published and then refer to it as source in wiki. Arnoutf 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So you mean that a fresco or a painting named "The Crown of Immortality" by the author him/herself is NOT proof enough that it's actually the "Crown of Immortality" on it?. Utterly strange! I wonder how it's possibly to have an article about God in Wikipedia... Roberth Edberg 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you can write from such a painting is that the painting is named "Crown of immortality", you can describe what the object at the painting looks like; and that the artist named this the crown (but only if the actual title of the work contains the words crown of immortality). Any other inference is (i.e. properties of the crown in general, symbolism of the crown) requires published reference. Arnoutf 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And even if you do that, you can't say there's any connection between the Crown of Immortality and the EU flag, any more than Lear 21 can justify his joke about a better link with Ocean's 12!! This article is about the European Union; not its flag; and certainly not about a painting (whose existence and title nobody has questioned, by the way). Emeraude 16:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This must be a joke. If you take most painting from the Middle-Ages, Renaissance or Modern Time, a Saint, which all have this crown, has a kind of circle or concentric circles over his head, or even a golden disc. This fresco you're linking to, is perhaps one exception. And it is in a church in Bavaria. I do not think that the EEC founder who started designing the flag before there were 12 stars, all went to this church... And I do not think that the civil government of some of those country would have accepted such a symbolism. --Huygens 25 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1) So please help build the Crown of Immortality article instead of nagging! 2) It's definitly NOT a joke. This type of things is not stuff you joke about. 3) The Crown of Immortality is a fact, as the painters did deliberatly put it in the paintings as "The Crown of Immortality". 4) How can wikipedia possibly possess an article about God, using your arguments? 5) I agree about the point that there is likely no relation between to EU circle of stars and the Crown of stars, but yet it's definitly simulairities there which normally would be enough to get it into an article! 6) The Swedish House of Knights fresco is nothing you would have doudts about. - Roberth Edberg 08:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Good suggestion, if I had any knowledge on the topic I might (but I don't) (2) Why can't you joke about it, only fundamentalists don't like jokes. (3) This statement has to be explained and sources on the crown of immortality page, not here. (4) There is written a lot about God in the scientific literature. However I think you will have to agree arguments like: 'God is an elderly male person with a long white beard sitting on a cloud, see Michelangelos chapel' should not be in the God article. (5) I don't think superficial similarities are a reason for anything to be put in any article, so I disagree there. Perhaps in some articles of minor importance this may happen, but in large articles aiming at GoodArticle (or bettter) status, such comparisons should not be present. (6) I agree with Emeraude here, nobody doubted the existence of the paintings, or even that a crown was depicted on them, that should however not be treated here but in the Crown of immortality article. Arnoutf 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I buy all of your arguments, with one exception. IF there is a well known and accepted discussion about the spirit or soul of EU, especially if there are claims that speak of EU beeing of a Christian Nation - then I would say this argment is worthy it's place in the bigger picture, until the simulairities is officially commented. -Roberth Edberg 08:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Controvercy regarding Christianity's link to EU is mentioned in the present article about both culture and politics, which would be enough argument to also concider the flags design. I'll give it a try to add it again. 129.178.88.68 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is still original research, and without a scholarly reference no better than Lear21s Ocean Twelve idea. Without an acceptable reference this will never ever be accepted to stay in; please don't try again Arnoutf 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• 
  European Union Flag

How about the relation between these two flags? Still carvin Lear21s Ocean Twelve idea in stone? Arnoutf, even if you do not see any similarity between the two flags, I hope others do. Still, I agree on the yet non existing fact about the symbolic meaning of the star circle in the EU Flag. AND HERE IS A PUBLISHED ARTICLE about the relation to the Crown of Immortality. Do you wan't to add it into the main article, or should I ? - Roberth Edberg 12:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes these flags our similar. However an alternative explanation might be that the Paneuropean society adopted the EU flag as a template of their own (seems much more likely the CoI reasons).

No this is not published article, it is an opinion article, or a sermon, by an orthodox christian community; publlished on their own website. Arnoutf 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Crown of Immortality is now nominated for deletion. There are more important issues at this page.Paul111 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; any mysticist / symbolist claims with regard to the EU-flag have been refuted. No mention should be in the EU article - period. Let's get back to more important issues for the improvement of the article Arnoutf 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest cities table

As I have said before, the largest cities is issue is complex, as there are differences in politics to treat large urban areas. However, there seems to be clear support to list the largest cities.
In that light, I can see that all 3 indicators are of interest (in the EU situation). However I think the presented table is becoming unwieldy. I have been tryin to find a solution that may use the sortable table format and may look like this:

Number of inhabitants (in millions) of the most important EU cities, urban areas, and metropolitan areas. Differences between these descriptors over countries may be due to political, developmental or other factors.

City proper	Country	Population City limits	Population Urban area	Population Metro area
London	UK	7.5 (1st)	08.5 (2nd)	12.6 (1st)
Berlin	Germany	3.4 (2nd)	03.7 (7th)	04.91(7th)
Madrid	Spain	3.1 (3rd)	05.6 (3rd)	06.1 (5th)
Rome	Italy	2.5 (4th)	02.6 (12th)	03.8 (12th)
Paris	France	2.2 (5th)	10.1 (1st)	11.6 (3rd)
Bucharest	Romania	1.9 (6th)	02.3 (16th)	02.3 (25th)
Barcelona	Spain	1.6 (11th)	05.1 (5th)	04.85(9th)
Milan	Italy	1.3 (13th)	04.3 (6th)	04.3 (10th)
Rhine-Ruhr	Germany	-- (17th)	05.3 (4th)	11.8 (2nd)
Randstad	Netherlands	-- (26th)	03.3 (9th)	06.6 (4th)

The idea behind this is that reader can now sort on all these indicators and see how the table changes. Also the table is much smaller.
One issue becomes interesting though. Which cities do we take in? Some MetroAreas (e.g. Randstad) score high on only one indicator; other (e.g. London) on all. I think we should not make the list longer than say 10 items. My proposal would be to start by listing the five largest cities, the five largest urban areas and the five largest metro areas. This will not add up to 15 as there is bound to be (a lot) of overlap (e.g. London will be in all top 5's thus limiting the total number to 13 - Paris will also feature more than once). Probably this will result in less than 10 entries. My suggestion is then to add the largest non-listed city; followed by addition of the largest non-listed urban area; the largest unlisted metro-area; and again the largest unlisted city. That way we are sure we have the 5 largest of everything and fill the rest more or less fairly. If that seems a way out; I'll find some time to do it for real (above table is not sufficiently balanced) Arnoutf 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is better than the original list with city propers, but still it's not perfect either. For instance you wrote Amsterdam-Rotterdam-The Hague for the Randstad, whereas the urban area figure is only for Rotterdam-The Hague, not for Amsterdam. Also, these numbers in parenthesis are quite confusing. I added "th" to deconfuse people a bit. I also made some changes with Randstad and Ruhr to disambiguate a bit. I also merged country column with the city column to make the table smaller. Finally, I made the default ranking in alphabetical order, instead of having the default ranking by population within city limits, since we now have three rankings altogether in the same table. Of course we wouldn't have all these problems if we would simply drop the city proper figures from the table. Personally I am in favor of droping the city proper figures, because they mean absolutely nothing (Bucharest in the top 10 ???). Godefroy 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have added Frankfurt Rhine-Main and Athens which are the 9th and 10th most populated EU metro areas, so at least we have the top 10 EU metro areas in the table. If you want to drop a city, drop Bucharest which is really out of place in there. Godefroy 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Respect standard section title - CITIES! Compare USA,China,others (San francisco, Washington, Boston are not included in list). Cities are made of a city proper and limits. Within these limits political power is exercised. This is not true for urban areas or metro areas. Figures within city limits are first priority and undisputable. This is not true for urban areas or metro areas which are always controversial depending on perspective. All relevant cities within EU concerning size are covered in the version before 19.02.2007 The new technical improvement to sort the rank is supported. Lear 21 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To Godefroy; thanks very helpful comments. The Amsterdam thing is indeed a bit problematic. Amsterdam is the largest city proper in the Randstad (as Cologne is in Rhine-Ruhr - but Dortmund in Ruhr alone). So I agree that is a difficult issue. Using the sortable option it becomes clear that Bucharest is the odd one out. I am not sure about adding the metro areas though, if alone as that may interpret as showing favour of one criterion over another. As it was decided by me, I entered the 5 largest of everything and ended up with 8 entries. Then I added the next largest (Bucharest) and the next largest Urban Area (Milan) to make up for a total of 10 entries.

To Lear21; as I have repeatedly stated above, city power differs over the EU; if asked for the two largest cities people are likely to report London and Paris. However if you consider city proper alone Paris ranks 5th. The problems is that not in all countries the power of a city over a surrounding is the same. Thus you cannot say anything about the political power of cities; thus city proper as sole criterion is not sensical. Going with your arguments I have to conclude beyond any doubt that the Bucharest area is politically more important and powerful than either of the Rhine-Ruhr or Randstad areas. Or in brief - Whoever supports the city proper only criteria makes Bucharest the 6 most politically important city in Europe.

However there is something to your comment; but that is exactly the reason why I started out with entering the 5 largest cities (and added no 6) and put them in the order of the city propber size to start with. The extra information only concerns the 7th through 10th ranked; showing that city proper alone is not all that counts.

Have a look at my adaptations of the table here (please don't modify) and say what you think about it Arnoutf 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should not be some sort of a race of how to put in the list things that I like and how to drop out from the list things that I don't like. Just to cite some of the above comments: "Bucharest in the top 10 ???", "drop Bucharest which is really out of place in there", "it becomes clear that Bucharest is the odd one out". Could someone explain to me why is Bucharest out of place in there? The section is called Largest cities, but now we don't want to put the largest cities in there but put metro areas (like Rhine-Ruhr and Randstad) which are composed of several cities. It is probably not clear enough for everyone what a city really is and probably the definition differs from country to country. But however different this definition might be, to say that Bucharest is the odd one in a largest cities list, while Rhine-Ruhr and Randstad are not, is not a logic statement. If we talk about cities, then we should talk about cities. Alexrap 11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument only to include city size was defended by the statement that this is an indicator of political power. I hope you agree that Bucharest is a bit of an odd one out if you consider its political power. I think in that list it ranks 25th or something in Europe. Also the Bucharest city-urban area-metro area is almost equally large. Thus apparently Romania decided to allow Bucharest to annex all its suburbs, where Paris is 4 times smaller than its urban area (apparently the French think their capital region should consist out of many towns). This is my main argument: Without a single political approach to city size, power, and so on city sie proper alone is just NOT a good indicator for anything in the EU context. Mind you I don't suggest dropping Bucharest, because according to my own addition criterion (5 largest cities, 5 largest U-area, 5 largest metro areas - add next city - add next urban area - add next metro area) it deserves it place.

So yes I think Bucharest is odd if you only look at city size alone. The section is called largest cities, but that does not mean we can only put large cities in the table; the table is not meant as a comprehensive list (there are other articles that are given there for that) but to give some perspective on this issue in the EU context. I think that is the whole idea of such a table providing context; readers can look at it and interpret by themselves how to look at those statistics. That is why I suggest to put in all 3; and add some of those (like Randstad; arguably also odd) with small cities but a large metro area. Arnoutf 12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget: what's the criterium? Population, ok than Bucharest it's on the 6th place of being the largest 6th capital in EU. We talk about this here. Capitals.--Iulian Andreea 08:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The foremost category to justify and uphold the table is the city size in terms of city limits. Prioritizing any other indicator (urban/metro area) higher or on equal level would result in never ending talks and should finally implement around 30 EU agglomerations in the list. That is not going to happen. Bucharest is new in EU but NOT odd. It is defacto 6th largest city. Metro areas are not cities and cant be included in the list, but are mentioned in the section text. Adding an extra column on urban area in the table seems superflues, because metro area figures already present the necessary insight. Lear 21 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, your attitude is beyond words. You have once again deleted the table including urban areas, with total disrespect for the work of others or the discussion going on here. I am replacing the table. If you continue with your bullying and uncompromising attitude, I will report you to administrators. Godefroy 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

@lear21: No Bucharest is not de facto the 6th; only to one interpretation. Athens is de facto much larger (3.5 million); but the city was subdivided into many municipalities so it lists somewhere around the 30th place in city propers.

As I stated above; I want to limit the number of entries to 10 not 30

Why then is the Paris Urban Area the same as the Paris Metro Area but not the city proper, while the London city proper and urban area are the same but much smaller compared to the meto area. Why is the Ruhr-Area so much smaller than the Rhine-Ruhr metro area. You say it does not matter; the figures shows it does.

Respect the FACT that the EU is not a standard country and that guidelines should be adapted to accomodate the differences Arnoutf 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Godefroy I´m not sure I understand what your are talking about. I reason on a factual base, and argue for standard procedures and logic priorities. I cant identify your edits being the same ( "drop Bucharest which is really out of place in there"). I´m hardly inclined to comment these statements. Your hyperactive threats are ignored. Lear 21 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf, what kind of table is that one ranking Bucharest as 25th in terms of political power of European cities? I haven't seen it. To be honest, I don't even know how you define the political power of a city. For my understanding, we cannot talk about political power of some regions that are not homogeneous electoral units. Bucharest is an electoral unit, but I doubt that Randstad or Rhine-Ruhr are. Each city composing them might be, but not the whole metro areas. Therefore, as I said before, if we have a section about largest cities, then we should talk about cities, not about metro areas. Alexrap 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Godefroy, from what I've seen, before this whole discussion, the table in the article was not the one you just put now. So, I'm wonderring: while we have this debate in here, why should we put in the article your version of the table and not the previous one? Alexrap 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest that figure I made up; but please accept that within the EU Bucharest is not the 6th important city (only preceded by London, PAris, Rome, Madrid and Berlin). I have problems with using the political power as a definition but Lear21 insists that is the reason to list only city propers. My questions is: to what amount can you talk about political power of a single city whatsoever. And if cities have political power, that should be on European level (not national as the article is not about the countries). And if you want to use city size as sole idicator of the EU level political power; do you think that is a good idea? Arnoutf 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple really. User Lear 21 (from Berlin) and user Alexrap (from Romania) insist that we should have a list of cities proper only, which has the effect of putting Berlin and Bucharest way up the list (whereas by urban area ranking they would be further down the list). What a coincidence! Anyone from Barcelona or Milan wishing to keep the list by urban area ranking? Lol. Keizuko 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No Keizuko, you didn't get the point. I only got into this discussion when some people said the Bucharest (I'm not even from there and it's definitely not my favorite city) is "really out of place" in a section about largest cities, but Rhine-Ruhr and Randstad (which are not even cities) are very suitable for the section. But in some respects you are right, the ones that want to put metro conglomerations in a list of cities are Dutch. Alexrap 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Bucharest in; but I think it is a good example that the way states deal with cities varies over the EU. That there is an apparent difference how countries deal with large cities within the EU has been my main objection to this section, and my reasons to come up with the new table. I would (probably) have done the same, even if Randstad (yes I am Dutch) had not featured. Let's try to talk arguments not nationality (this is not the Eurovision song contest after all) Arnoutf 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, I fully agree. Nationality has nothing to do with this discussion. I only responded to Keizuko's insinuation. I honestly cannot care less if you list in the article either Bucharest or Randstad. I probably would have cared, if the discussion had involved Cluj-Napoca :-). And this is why I did not get into this discussion before. I only said something when people were advocating the removal of cities and the inclusion of conurbanisations in a section about cities. And my argument is: since we have a section called "Largest cities", then we should list the largest cities. Whether it's better to have a section about the largest cities or the largest metro areas, that is another discussion and I was not part of it. Alexrap 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Arnoutf It seems there is need for clarification. My statements did not emphasize importance of unmeasarable power/importance of cities within EU. I argue for the homogeneous electoral unit - the city represented by mayor or goveneur. This political power is attached to the city proper and not to other agglomerations. And again! : All important Cities in terms of size (even urban/metro areas) are respected in the section. Face it! Deletion can´t be an option for this comprehensive standard section. Lear 21 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

I disagree with the second part. Far from all important urban and metro areas are listed. I e.g. think Greeks will disagree; Athensas a city is (IMHO) more important compared to Bucharest, both its Urban Area and Metro Area are much larger; still due to Greek legislation its city proper size is smaller: exit Athens. So where do you make the point that the Bucharest metro area is more important.....

Anyway: that is the core of my proposal. Make a list where for each category the most important ones are present. This means that the 6 largest city proper are named. Readers who are interested in number 7 through 100 can go to the city size in the EU article.

If the EU were a standard country I would be pretty sure that the 3 lists would be almost identical (ie London is largest city, urban area and metro area in the UK). Perhaps only offset by conurbations as the Randstad. As the EU is not a standard country we have to find a non standard way to deal with it. Face it; there are only two ways to deal with the non-standardness of Europe (1)Omit the section or (2)Deal with it flexibly. Arnoutf 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope the supporters of the new table, have strong argueing abilities in the coming months. They need it to defend this shaky reasoned table to new contributers. I´m looking forward to see how the exclusion of other cities will be justified... Lear 21 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I think Keizuko's orginal table was the best, because it showed the 10 most populated cities proper, the 10 most populated urban areas, and the 10 most populated metro ares. True, his/her table was a bit large, but it was far better and thorough for such a complex subject as city sizes. Now we have a compromise table, and of course it will generate controversies. It is only a matter of time before a Polish editor comes in and says: "Hey, how can Warsaw is not in the table? Bucharest is in the table, so I'm adding Warsaw too". It's only a matter of time... Godefroy 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have been thinking about that. A solution could be to list the top 10 in every list.

That leaves some issues. How to treat a conurbation that ranks 3rd, as city 14th. Should we give the city proper numbers?? This is the option according to my proposed table where I decided to make a top 5 list (rather then 10) in this way and then added 2 entries to make up for a table total of 10. Why not Warsaw - Simple it is not a top 5 city, urban area or metro area. And it is not a lucky loser to make up the total number up to 10.

If we think this is not this fair the solution would be to enter the 3x10 anyway, but only give numbers for those who score in the top-10 of their list and put a '--' where they score lower. Less info, and much like that for the Randstad in the above table.

Actually my idea was informed by Keizuko's table. My problem with that table was that Paris had to be looked for all over the list. My table allows you to order on the different lists; but I agree this introduces low ranking cities (e.g. Amsterdam) in the city proper list.

Again simplest would be just to get rid of the table.... Arnoutf 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of largest cities table

I again propose removal of this table. It has resulted in too much attention being devoted to the definitions of urban area population, an issue which does not belong in this article. Note that other important aspects of EU geography, such as regional economic diesparities, are not covered here at all.Paul111 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. No attention has been devoted to the definition of urban areas. In fact nobody here has questioned the figures for urban areas. It's just that some users do not want these figures to appear at all, because they are not in favor of their hometown, such as is the case for Lear 21 whose hometown of Berlin drops to 7th rank in the urban area ranking. Note that Lear 21 does not question the position of Berlin in the urban area ranking, he simply doesn't want this ranking to appear because it is not favorable to Berlin. Godefroy 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Paul111, if you want to remove the table entirely, I agree with it, because these rankings obviously lead only to controversies with people with an agenda like Lear 21. On the other hand, if a table of largest cities is kept in the article, it HAS to include urban areas, because ranking cities only by population within administrative city limits is misleading the reader. Godefroy 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has been denied several times through completed discussions and votings. User:Paul111 is aware of it but still keeps trying to delete standard content. This must have an end. Lear 21 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul111 on this, due to the differences in legislation on municipalities in the EU, this table is more or less useless. My first preference would be uotright deletion of the monster. BTW - The opponents togehter gave much more arguments against compared to the (NO should be in) votes of the supporters; as Wiki is no democracy; the arguments should have been considered; stubborn We have the majority so stuff your stupid arguments as Lear21 is exhibting here is not at all helpful.

My suggested table was meant to at least compensate for some of the most obvious problems and by making it sortable allow readers to form their own oppinion. So my table was meant as a compromise. Something that may be considered. Arnoutf 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also in favor of either deleting the table completely, or if we keep a table then keep Arnoutf's table. Keizuko 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the table of ten CITIES like it was in the start (and similar to the USA-article table - Are the city-definitions so different in the US?). If arnoutf's table was cleaned up and long names initialised and shortened, it would be acceptable for me. (At least better than deleting the section) For exaple: Can you say Neth.lands istead of Netherlands? (keep it to as few as possible lines)This discussion should solely be about how the section should be, and not vandalism(accusations).

S. Solberg J.

17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On top of this larger section I put the most updated version. Which is indeed much shorter compared to the 1st version.

The problems is that the US is a single nation, the EU is not. I think the comparison Athens (app .8 mill: but Urb and Metro app. 3 mill) Bucharest (app 2 mill in all measures) London (app 8 city, app 8 urban, app 12 metro) and Paris (app 3 city app 11 urban app 11 metro) shows that there is a huge difference in how cities are dealt with in the different countries. I mean that while the definition may be the same, it is well conceivable that for example Bucharest would have been divided into 20 municipalites if it happened to be in Greece. Arnoutf 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Current table

Currently a table is given that lists the top 10 on all criteria (this is in total only 17 different entries as there is much overlap). I agree the table looks nice, and accomodates most of the problems listed above. However, from usability and extraction of information point of view, this table is highly complex. For example, if you want to compare the ranking of Paris over the lists, you have to look in all 3 columns. If you want to find the number of people living in Athens city proper, it is just not there. Can't we come up with a way to extract this information without going into POV forks. My original table (listed above) was meant to facilitate such a solution; as it gives the information. But apparently there is too much objection (I still think it is better than the current one). I would not object at all if its length were to be increased to the 17 cities now listed in the 3 column table. (The argument for inclusion -> being top 10 of either city proper / urban area / metro area = is objective and maintainable). To acknowledge the importance of city proper, I would suggest ordering on city proper size; but the sortable option allows readers to resort to liking. Before I spend time; do you think it is wise to go on this way or should I drop this idea alltogehter. Arnoutf 10:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The new table has expanded in multiple ways and is still in shape. It should be adjusted, because various figures are not yet accurate. I think the table is accessible to many readers who approach the article in the first place. This might be not true with 'wikitable sortable', because the reader does not know about the button to show different listings. Lear 21 12:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21 has replaced metro area figures with LUZ figures. Although LUZs are interesting, they have their own flaws, and now metro areas like Randstad or Frankfurt Rhine-Main are gone! I don't think that it's helpful. Someone wishing to know the basics about European cities and not seeing Randstad is not being well informed. And I'm not Dutch. Godefroy 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

@Lear21, the clickable arrow should be obvious enough, even to new users. I noticed you entered the LUZ numbers. I think that is a very good idea, as it is an effort to standardise definition of Urban Areas. What I wonder about, however, is why you replaced Metropolitan area with the LUZ figures, rather than the Urban Areas numbers. In my opinion it would be more obvious to list City-proper/LUZ/Metro Area. Could you accept that?

@Godefroy, keeping in pet-regions as Randstad or Fr Rhine-Main in should not be an argument, I agree however, that City-Urban Area and LUZ are probably too similar to list all 3, where metro area truly adds something about conurbations which is not in the other measures.

Another alternative may be add a 4th column (would not support that though because of messy table). Arnoutf 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The change is still not completed. I have no preference in keeping old urban or metro area list.Both list draw from different data sources. To keep Metro Area and include Randstad, Frankfurt, Upper Silesia seems to complete the table. LUZ data must be kept. Lear 21 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Two comments. LUZs are not the same thing at all as urban areas, so we shouldn't replace the urban areas with the LUZs. LUZs are larger than urban areas, but smaller than metro areas. They are somewhere in between. In some cases, the LUZs are even larger than the metro areas (!!), with for example Berlin where the LUZ figure is much larger than the metro area figure (I hope that's not the reason why Lear 21 added the LUZs). My second commment is that Randstad or Frankfurt Rhine-Main are not "pet-regions", they are simply the 4th and 9th most populated metro areas in the EU, and that's why they are worth mentioning. As for Upper Silesia, it does not enter the top 10 of metro areas. Godefroy 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant; I just tried to say that if we decide on a certain figure we should adopt it, regardless whether some cities that seem subjectively important drop out of the list. I.e. we should try to find figures that are the best. PS I think the LUZ numbers are interesting because official, both Urban and Metro seem to be much less well defined. Arnoutf 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Due to size limitation, we can only put 6 pictures. There are, however, more than 6 cities in the table. To decide which city to picture, this is what I've done: I took the top 5 in each category (city proper, urban area, LUZ), and I checked which city appeared at least twice. The cities that appear at least twice across the three top 5 are: Paris, London, Madrid, and Berlin. That's only 4 cities. So I took the top 6 and now we have one more city that appears twice: Barcelona. That's only 5 cities. So I took the top 7 and now we have one more city that appears twice: Milan. Now we have six cities: Barcelona, Berlin, London, Madrid, Milan, and Paris. I think this list of six makes much more sense than a list of six based on city proper population, which, as has already been explained, is highly controversial due to different definitions of cities across member states. So I have put pictures of these six cities, ranking them in alphabetical order to avoid bias. Godefroy 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I´m fine with it. Hope the Romans think that as well. Lear 21 16:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem though, I agree with the 6 max option, I also agree with the first 4. But according to your own mathematics the Ruhr area also appears twice. If you argue that is not a proper city and only appears in the Urban Area en LUZ column I agree. However, following that argument the addition of Barcelona is also a bit dubious.

I would suggest another picking method. Use cities from the city proper that are mentioned at least twice. That would give you the same 4 large cities i.e. PAris, London, Madrid, Berlin but would add Rome (4 and LUZ 9) and Hamburg (6 and LUZ 10). Arnoutf 13:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I´m inclined to see all 3 categories as equal with a slight emphasize on city proper. This is already expressed in the hierarchy of columns. The Ruhr should be rather deleted from LUZ after I found out that it has been added much later to the list without credible sourced material. Barcelona and Milan remain by these measures 5 and 6 biggest. Lear 21 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

euhm that was not completely my argument, if you use the emphasis on city proper my suggestion would be better as that demands listing in the top 10 city propoer list. The exclusion of Ruhr still favour conurbations in the other categories. Arnoutf 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest will stay as it's the 6th largest EU capital. --Iulian Andreea 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not an argument. First of all, whehter a city is a capital or not is of no relevance to the the photos (or to the size of the city for that matter). Second; Godefroy has put up a neutral argument why the photo of Bucharest should not be in (with which I do not agree, but that is to be decided here before edits to the article are made). From your personal page I assume you are from Romania; Romanians favouring Bucharest is getting close to WP:COI (as much as Germans favouring Berlin would be).

In brief; I do not agree with your statement, until consensus is achieved here the photos proposed by Godefroy have to stay up. Arnoutf 09:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In brief: as long as Buchrest has the 6th largest population of EU will stay. When it's changed it's another matter. However, in 10 years the population will increase as the latest estimations are predicting. That's another matter. For the moment this is a fact: 6th. If you have counterarguments I'm waiting for them, though it's so hard to prove something else. --Iulian Andreea 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

After due discussion it was decided city proper alone is not interpretable due to differences in European politics within member states. We decided that the photos should also show cities taking into accout some of the larger metro areas besides the city propers. Godefroy came up with a way to determine which should be included; which requires a city needs to be in at least two out of three top ten lists to have a photo. As long as the Bucharest urban/metro area is not in a top 10 list it will not be shown. Arnoutf 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Nobody has monopol on nothing here. I can edit the page as I want since the fact is that Bucharest it's the 6th largest EU capital. I will open an RfC against anyone who dares to remove Bucharest from the list. It's 6th place and that's it.--Iulian Andreea 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are wrong. You cannot edit a you want as little as I can edit in the phrase saying that all Romanians are deranged monkeys on Wiki. We have to arrive at Consensus. Without consensus status quo (ie no Bucharest photo in the gallery) has to be maintained. By the way, nobody argues Bucharest is not 6th largest EU city proper. Only it should not be in the gallery. Arnoutf 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, as long as it's the 6th will stay also in the gallery. 6th place means something. And one more thing :-) since me and others don't agree with you, you haven't reached any consensus, so Bucharest will stay as long as others like me and others want that a 6th place Capital of European Union to be represented in the gallery here. --Iulian Andreea 09:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So does 25th place, that city is not in either. It is not an issue of staying in; this morning it was out; that is status quo. I erverted your inclusion, hence your edit was contested, hence there was no consensus to put it in; hence it should stya out untill you convinced (lamost) everyone it should be in. Arnoutf 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you should have convinced me why a 6th place capital cannot stay, but you failed. Sorry, it will stay. Iulian Andreea 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should I have convinced you and you not me?

Several editors agreed above that size of city alone does not say all; as treatment of large metropolitan areas differs between member state, hence it became consensus. It is now up to people (you) proposing to change the photos to change the consensus. You have not convinced me that size of city proper alone does matter.

As a solution Godefroy proposed a list of photo images on february 24th, which was accepted. Hence this has become consensus. It is now up to people (you) proposing to change the photos to change the consensus.

The relevance of capital is just put into the discussion without any argument. The section is about largest cities, capital is not mentioned anywhere; hence this has no relevance, and cannot be used as argument. If captial is used as argument I demand photos of Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg figures in as these are de facto the only true EU capitals.

Although this is bordering on violation of assuming good faith, I am a bit suspiciois of an apparently Romanian editor fighting for the inclusion of the Romanian capital, as this may constitute a conflict of interest between pro-Romanian outlook and the best possible Wiki article. Try to find support for your ideas from other editors and try again. Arnoutf 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all I must say that I don't care what photos we put in this section. And I am sure that whatever the final choice is going to be, there will still be lots of people unhappy with it. But just to put some perspective into this discussion, we should be reminded that initially this section was about Largest cities and there were photos showing the 6 largest cities in the EU. Then, some people were offended by the fact that Bucharest was in that list (unlike other places, not surprisingly from their own countries), so they came up with the great idea of listing conurbations in a section about cities. Anyway, my opinion is that we should either keep the same title for the subsection and then talk about cities, or we should rename the subsection to something else (Large urban areas, for examples) and then we could finally (and legitimately) eliminate the infamous Bucharest from the list. In this way we will probably be spared from having to read smart jokes about monkeys. Alexrap 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The current set of photos (including Milan/Barcelona) present the truely largest cities considering the relevant figures. Population data within city limits only is not sufficient. The table must be kept. Lear 21 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As a lot of you guys are not native English speakers, I would like to point out that the word "city" in English has several meanings. In a narrow sense it can mean a municipality, a city within administrative city limits. More often, however, the word is used in a larger sense, referring to an urban area no matter where the administrative limits are placed. Take for example Tokyo. In Tokyo there is no city proper, there is no municipality of Tokyo, no commune, no Gemeinde, no gemeente, no municipiu. It was abolished by Japanese authorities in 1943. Yet everybody refers to Tokyo as a "city". It would be stupid not to call Tokyo a city just because administratively speaking the city was abolished in 1943. Same about Mexico City by the way. The city (municipio) was abolished by Mexican authorities in 1928. These two examples show that the word "city" in English is used for large urban areas/connurbations which don't even have a municipal administration. So it is perfectly legitimate to have urban area figures in a list of "cities". Godefroy 13:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And closer to home; Athens. There is a city/municipality Athens but that is very small; nevertheless the whole Urban area is called Athens. Exactly the point I try to make, comparison of city proper sizes does not make sense in the EU context. PS I thought you needed a church of England Cathedral to be a city in English... and in Dutch, you merely need city rights. So we probably have the smallest cities in Europe (e.g. Buren pop 25,000 ;-). Arnoutf 14:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "city" you mention in the end is in British English, not international or American English. In British English, "city" may be a title given to some cities by the queen, or a title held since time immemorial. Some cities don't have the "city" title. For example Reading, 140,000 inh., does not have "city" status. Yet Reading is incorporated as a municipality, called "Borough of Reading". The "Borough of Reading" is in all respects a municipality, with its own administration. It's just it doesn't have the honorific title of "city". It's a bit like some German cities are called "Freie Stadt". It's just a title. It has no administrative or legal implication. Anyway, this is just one of the many idiosyncracies of England. Let's leave England out of this. Godefroy 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "city" can easily be checked by anyone with a dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary says: "a town created a city by charter and containing a cathedral", "a town of significant size and importance", "built-up area with a name, defined boundaries, and local government". It's quite simple. And the article is about EU, not Japan or Mexico. Nobody in the EU abolished any city. Alexrap 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary says:

"City: 1. A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance. 2a. An incorporated municipality in the United States with definite boundaries and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the state. b. A Canadian municipality of high rank, usually determined by population but varying by province. c. A large incorporated town in Great Britain, usually the seat of a bishop, with its title conferred by the Crown. 3. The inhabitants of a city considered as a group. 4. An ancient Greek city-state. 5. Slang Used in combination as an intensive: The playing field was mud city after the big rain. 6. City The financial and commercial center of London."

As you can see, meaning #1 is a general meaning which refers to an urban area/connurbation without mention of administrative boundaries. It is only in the narrower meaning #2 that we get the notion of a municipality with administrative limits. Godefroy 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Godefroy, it is the first time I hear that the International English is the American one, while the English English (British English if you like) is not. Especially when talking about EU issues, I can't see why American views are prefered. But even so, the American definition also says "A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance". A city is therefore nothing else but a large town. A conurbation is not a centre, but two or more centres united into a heterogeneous entity. But anyway, I don't want to spend any more time on this discussion. My only suggestion is to change the title of the subsection in "Large urban areas". Or, if we insist in keeping the current title, then we should refer more to cities. Alexrap 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest will stay as long as it's the 6th largest EU Capital. --Iulian Andreea 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked two world Atlases, Collins and that of The Times. In both, stating the largest cities, they use "urban areas" and Paris is first. So, it seems that, generally, what counts is not the administrative borders, but urban conglomerations. I think it is a good idea to show images based on the column "urban area" of the article's table.--Michkalas 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition by American heritage does not include conurbation, but does include urban area, LUZ, or Metro Area. In other words that definition would be in favour of a large Milan or Barcelona city (now as photo's) but not of a large Rhein-Ruh or Randstad city (which are currently not photos). So in this context we can, and (IMHO) should use the American Heritage definition. Arnoutf 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, American English is the world standard today. If English is the main world language, it is primarily due to the political, economic, military, cultural weight of the US, the largest English speaking country in the world. It is not because of tiny England. But anyway, the reason why I chose the American Heritage Dictionary is only because it is easily accessible online, and its definitions are always very good and researched. But you can use whatever other dictionary you wish to use. Take www.wordreference.com for example, here is their definition of city:

"1. people living in a large densely populated municipality; 2. a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts; 3. an incorporated administrative district established by state charter"

As you can see, definition #2 clearly shows that "city" can be used in the larger sense of urban area. Godefroy 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Iulian Andreea was found to be a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. I think I have fallen victim to trolling here. Arnoutf 08:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support for Introduction

This version [2]for an introduction is comprehensive, logic, and contains factual content. It hasn´t been argued and represents a stable base for the future. Please support or comment on it. There are repeatedly introduced versions by User:Paul111, which contain either unsufficient, unsourced or unlogic content. These versions have been repeatedly argued by several editors, but are reinserted by the named user undiscussed or unilateral. This must have an end. Lear 21 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The new version is comprehensive, logical, provides factual description of the EU structures, and indicates historical and political context. It is also shorter, and copy-edited. Blanket reverts to older versions remove copy-edits, and should be avoided.Paul111 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanket reverts should be avoided by all parties as that is an easy way of escalating into edit war. Arnoutf 12:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that a revert is the only way to undo a revert to an older version. But is the suggestion that if edits are made, and another user does a blanket revert, then others should refrain from undoing that revert? That would give one user a de facto veto over article content.Paul111 13:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussed version gives an emphasize to the state of being. Historic entities are of minor priority in the introduction. The Eurosceptic attitude towards EU is one of many and cant be expressed exclusively. The GDP figure is most recent and referenced. Lear 21 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My remark above is that two editors who don't agree go out both using the revert option there will never be reached a middle ground, as both dig themselves into their fortified revert trench - an edit war follows or better named a revert war. This can only be defused if at least one (but preferably all) of the involved editors try to see the value in the others issues, and tries to incorporate his/her own issue while respecting the others visions. So no, you should not allow another to veto anything, but neither should you use the revert or deletion options as a veto yourself. Arnoutf 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is the content. Of course it is possible to re-arrange the order, and copy-edit certain sentences. However, there are specific points at issue, and since there is no consensus, the appropriate procedures should be followed. Arnoutf opposed a poll on the intro, but that is probably the best way out.Paul111 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

EU is not a political union

The older version of the intro links 'union' to the political union article. However, the EU is not a political union, and there is no immediate prospect of it becoming one.Paul111 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The EEC was initially a customs union, but in the Treaty of Rome it was clearly laid out that the aim was a common market and that economic cooperation would eventually and necessarily lead to political integration.

EU GDP figure

The older intro gave a GDP estimate in dollars. I can not find the figure in dollars, at the web page cited. Additionally, the figures there are IMF staff estimates, at current prices in dollars. I propose that it is more appropriate to use Eurostat figures, which include purchasing-power-parity comparisons with the US, and are priced in Euros.Paul111 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I proposed at the talk pages of the articles List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita to update them to the 2007 IMF estimates, since the articles of the countries list the 2007 estimate anyway, but they compare it to the 2005 list; nobody answered. By the way, it can be found at the September 2006 edition of the World Economic Outlook Database Frigo 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wo~uld say, be bold and do it.Arnoutf 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the older version

The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union

• EU is not a political union, link is misleading

of 27 democratic member states in Europe.

• EU is a union of nation-states, an essential and defining characteristic. It is not a state, and not a country, because it consists of separate sovereign states.

It forms the three pillar framework

• no it doesn't, it is the other way around. The three pillars are a temporary solution.

and includes the European Economic Community,

• Historical context is missing, in fact the EU is its de facto successor.

Many aspects of the Union existed through a series of predecessor relationships,

• unclear and bad English

The progress and the degree of further European integration is discussed controversially,

• bad English, things are not 'discussed controversially'.

but is considered to be open-ended.

• it is open-ended. No end state is set out anywhere in official documents.

estimated nominal GDP of US$14.2 trillion in 2006.

• why use an IMF staff estimate when official Eurostat figures are available?

The union has a single market consisting of a customs union

• incorrect, the union does not have a single market yet, it is developing one. The customs union precedes the market.

Citizenship of the European Union and the Schengen Agreement allow citizens to live, travel, work and invest in other member states.

• incorrect, the freedom of movement preceded the creation of EU citizenship and is not derived from it. Schengen does not apply to all member states, and has nothing to say about work or investment.Paul111 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Movement of People

A key objective of the EU is the free movement of people. The article currently says:

Citizens of member states can live and work anywhere within the EU with their spouses and children, provided they can support themselves

Surely this is not correct - are there not restrictions in most states on employment of the citizens of the newer member states? Peter Clarke 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it is true in the Netherlands (e.g. for Polish people). However, I am not experienced enough in legislation to know what the exact conditions are. As far as I learned from the media, there were people referring to the line above, stating that it was not legal. So apparently someone found a loophole. Where I don't know. Interesting issue though. Arnoutf 09:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the EU treaties, all EU citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, without the need for a residence or work permit. However, a number of countries have temporary opt-outs to this rule with reference to the new member states. These opt-outs cannot be kept beyond 2011. At the moment, a number of old member states place work restrictions on the new member states (except Malta and Cyprus). There is one loophole in the opt-out: that of self-employment: self-employed people are allowed to work anywhere in the EU freely. Ronline ✉ 10:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the intro text to note some restrictions exist, that should be explained in more detail, under European Economic Community.Paul111 11:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not the migration but only the working permit that is restricted. The Dutch really doesn't care if a Polish millionaire buys a house here to spend his money in the Netherlands. I think the section just added by Paul111; should be framed a bit more carefully to make this important distinction. Arnoutf 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention Corruption...

So where is the mention of the EU corruption? The fact their accounts have not been signed off for the last 11 years. The fact that any political offical who does not agree with the EU is removed. The fact that the EU is eroding democracy and civil liberties through its un-democratic laws. The fact that is has a secret agenda, like passing the constitution without a democratic vote in most countries. Barrosso's bribes to keep him as EU president. The fact that anti-EU parties across Europe are being destroyed. Parties like UKIP who are unfairly treated. The fact that the EU is forming secret police units. The fact the EU is creating an army to rule over an empire. The fact that an EU ploice force is immune to prosercution if they shoot you illegally. The fact that the EU is introducing ID cards and interviews for passports to track where people are, and see what they do; therefore resulting in a loss of freedom of movement and freedom of thought/ speech ect. The list is endless, and all of it has failed to be mentioned here. I bet there is an avid europhile who wrote this article who says to himself at night "the EU loves everyone, they can do no wrong". Thats what people thought of Lenin and Hitler. Dont repeat the mistakes of history, for what we do now, echoes through eternity. Freedom is'nt free 10:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these issues link in with the previous ideas about euroscepticism; which has been discussed but not yet written. If you think these are all facts linked with corruption; and you can support that these are indeed facts and not speculations, write the section but be sure that for any such statement such as The fact that any political offical who does not agree with the EU is removed., you provide a reliable source; otherwise this is asking for POV forks all over; and your edits will be removed. Also please be advised that opinion articles (e.g. by a politician of an anti-EU party) are NOT considered reliable sources. Arnoutf 11:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

@User:Freedom4korea Is that your edit ? [3] Probably! Lear 21 12:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats ones not me, thats a fellow eurosceptic, the one below is. A vot for UKIP is a vote against the EU! Freedom is'nt free 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was one before, the user added under his/her own account (so not anon): THE EU IS CORRUPT, HELP UKIP DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE. I did not see that and thought the idea was completely in good faith. However, adding stuff like the line above is blatant vandalism. So to User:Freedom4korea; don't do that again, or you may be blocked from editing. Arnoutf 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where military data about European Union?

Where military data about European Union: European Union Force, European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps and Eurocopter Tiger, Eurocopter Group, Eurofighter Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH, military mission from EU, European Security and Defence Policy, European Security and Defence Identity etc, etc. PS. See: Military of the European Union. LUCPOL 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of these articles read like military fan-club material. They need editing for a more realistic perspective, and until then they should be treated with caution.Paul111 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul111; IMHO this seems often a problem with many of the articles on contemporary military units and structures; much adoration and little place for critisism. So yes, there maybe some info, but treat with caution. Arnoutf 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Why does the EU stub template use the line "This article about the European Union operations is a stub." when most others like this say "This (whatever)-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I know it's a small thing but I find the phrase "about the European Union operations" a weird phrasing. JLogan 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Is turkey really in Europe? --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please begin new header when discussing new topic.

Part of Turkey is in Europe. But that is a remote discussion and should be listed in the Europe article or so. This article is about the European Union - not the Geography of Europe; and if the members decide to allow e.g. Singapore to become a member (they won't but just as example), it should be treated here, regardless of its geographic location. Arnoutf 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation Bulgaria and Romania

Congratulations to Bulgaria and Romania for joining EU in 2007. Hopefully next joining are the West Balkan countries: Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Albania..Good Luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

yes,and russia,and china,and the little marsians..... :-)--87.65.202.214 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro will join, Slovenia may join, but Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzigova will not join the EU. 83.135.148.33 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, you are the one to judge that? Furthermore, Slovenia has already joined the Union on May 1, 2004!! Maartenvdbent 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics - Scepticism

The current introduction first paragraph now ends with: Critics are concerned that process will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty..
I have a bit of a problem with this line because it has problems regarding one of the following two justifications: (1) There is no concise reference that supports this claim; (2) This is not the summary of a (sufficiently referenced) section somewhere else in the artile.
I think the line can stay but that there is an urgent need to start a Critisism - Skepticism section. I would say between the foreng relations section and the enlargement section. My rationale being - All insitutions and powers have by then been introduced to the reader. The skeptics are afraid of abuse of these powers. Enlargement is more of a future issue, but also one the skeptics are worried about. So the critics and skeptics section could be a good intro/bridge between currently existing EU and future members. Arnoutf 10:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with having a specific "Criticism/scepticism" section. This would mean that the bulk of the article would be indistinguishable from a press release that the EU might write about itself, with the other side of the case cordoned off and only seen by those who specifically look for it. What is needed is for the whole article, and Wikipedia content on the EU generally, to be much more balanced. mortypsmith

Some nuance in the sections maybe in place. However, the description articles (e.g. the Law section) should be opinion free and neutral. That leaves little place for sceptisism and critisism in such sections. Of course the outlook will be pro-european as most institutions were founded by Euro-enthusiasts. So I think it will not be easy working in the critisism in the section (wihtout reverting to wild and speculative conspiracy theories). Arnoutf 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If counted as single entities numbers

These numbers were all outdated. But even more serious. They considered the ranking of EU on a list containing also EU states. That would be a bit like comparing US figures with those of California. If we want to imagine the EU is a single entity, its position on lists should be on 'cleansed' lists, where the separate member states are not mentioned. I adapted the numbers accordingly. I think this issue may lead to some controversion, but that is IMHO the direct consequence of treating EU as a single entity; and the desire to link a rank number to that. (Note that on the List of countries by population density the EU is not numbered and only given a position, hence that problem does not appear there.)Arnoutf 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

New PPP.

• • • Sweden's PPP/capita is over 30 000 now. That should be changed on the map over PPP /capita.

GDP economy

Differences between member states are also significant. GDP per capita is typically 10% to 25% above EU average in the older western member states, but only one-third to one-half in most eastern member states, and in possible accession candidates such as Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. For comparison, United States GDP per capita is 50% above EU average: Japanese GDP per capita is comparable to western European levels at 10% above EU average.. [29]

I suppose that this is the begest nonsense ever.............older western member states do not have typically GDP from 10 to 25 above EU......Portugal, Italy, France, Spain, and Greece have got lower GDP......Portugal about 80 percent something....... only one-third to one-half in most eastern member states???????????? shouldn't there be defined what is a eastern european state???? Slovenia is definitely not the older western member state and does not seem to have GDP ranging from one-third to one-half of EU average....It is actually quite rich

I have read the resource 29 and the data says more things just than that.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.136.52.81 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps North-Western is the better term. Italy and Greece are definitely not western states. Typically means that on average this is the case, not that this is always the case. I agree Eastern European state is ill defined; we should do something about that. For this article the division maybe 'new' member states vs 'old member states' but then again; in that case you are right with mentioning Greece. Perhaps use 'former Warsaw pact EU members'? That would exclude Cyprus and Malta and as far as I know also Slovenia. Arnoutf 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest Political Entity

Out of curiosity, how does one measure the size of a political entity? The article only cites GDP and population to support this claim, and China and India would both be larger entities by population. Triphook 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, probably the conditional "one of the largest....." would be better. Arnoutf 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

20 Years

Was it just 20 years of EU on13th March? wasn't their a big football game at old trafford?

Well, yes, but the game at Old Trafford was to celebrate 50 years of the European Communities (incl. the EU).

82.35.213.226 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to The Soviet Union

This article http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 speaks of many similarities of The EU to The USSR and I tend to agree. I think a section should be added comparing such similarities. Personally I'm apposed to the idea of a single organization governing several countries, idividual countries have their own idividual governments for a reason. Black death 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all the article is a Blog, of the interviewer. This hardly counts as an authorative source; in any case not enough for a separate section. Nevertheless there maybe some things that are noteworthy. I would say, if the critisisms and skeptics section ever gets written, a very brief metion of this (about one line or so) in that section, maybe in place. So no to a separate section; perhaps to mentioning in another critisism section. Arnoutf 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a criticism and is simply a comaprison between The EU and the one other organization in the world that's so similar to it. And why is there no ciriticism section to begin with? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased and present everyone's views?Black death 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in there worth putting on the page. Just a lot of nonsense. Comparing the EU to the Soviet Union is idiotic to say the least. His main argument is that many ethnic groups are combined into a single 'nation.' What about the US? South Americna countries? What does he think about the UN I wonder. When one thinks about the Soviet Union one usuelly thinks about gulags, the millions of people killed, communism, Stalin, etc. Not a multi-ethnic state. Voodoo 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not very similar (except for the multi-ethnicity which is far more pronounced compared to the US). Why there is not critisism/sceptisism section. Well simple. Because no-one has written one. Arnoutf 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But states and provinces are quite different from actual countries. And I'm not saying The EU kills its own citizens or is a communist organization or anything like that I just want to compare the structure of the governing bodies of The EU to the structure of the governing bodies of The USSR.Black death 04:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest the Sovjet Republics within the USSR (don't confuse with the Warsaw Pact), where probably closer to provinces than independent countries, especially in comparison with the US states. The USSR was the follow up of the Tsaristic country; which was mainly Russia and its imperial conquests. That these conquests became 'independent' sovjet republics within the USSR did nothing about the dominance of Russia, and they were actually not much more than satelite states; and were basically still part of the Russian empire. While some of the official rules may resemble that of the USSR, the EU is completely different. First of all, there is no single super-dominant state/country (just as in the US there is no single super-dominant state). Second, the decision to become part of the EU is vouluntarily (this is again closer to US compared to USSR). There may be some resemblance in the structure of bodies, but than again there are probably only so much ways you can structure a federal union..... Arnoutf 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah the beauty of capitalism, everything is voluntary and you are free yet everyone knows some things you have to do to survive like get a job, you don't have to get a job it's completely up to you but eventually you'll die of starvation if you don't. And in the same way if most of Europe is joining The EU the few smaller countries left have no choice but to join as well if they wan't to have any sort of economy. So while they may not have been forced in the same way to join as The USSR they certainly are being forced now but in a less obvious way.Black death 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words not similar. Arnoutf 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous. The fact that he still lives and is talking about it, is proof that there is no "conspiracy". This guy is paranoid, and sees a Soviet Union in every uniting attempt. The EU does not kill people. The EU is not authoritative. The only ones who are "forcing" EU membership are the country's own _elected_ politicians (unlike common people, they know what's best). "certain ideologies" - I don't see communism anywhere; "the plans, the direction" - Uncertain, but likely a new superpower, and a country (whatever that means); "the inevitable expansion" - Gee, a superpower needs land, population and lots of resources, Mr. Clever; "the obliteration of nations" - Nice way to exploit the indoctrinated nationalism of people. Frigo 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

European Economic Community was first proposed by the Nazis

Why has this information been suppressed? Isn't it important that people know where it came from? I can understand the modern pro-Europeans being embarrassed about this fact, but it still remains a fact. TharkunColl 08:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it was "proposed by the Nazis" in quite that way. Nazi Minister of Economic Affairs Walther Funk wrote a book in 1941 entitled "The European Community" and this advocated no national boundaries in Europe and econonomic and monetary union under (surprise, surprise!) the mighty Deutschmark. But this should be seen in the context of Nazi totalitarian domination - it wasn't to be a "union" but a "psuedo-community" run along police state lines from Berlin under the control of Funk's Ministry. So the analogy with the modern EU which came together gradually as the result of democratic acts by states signing treaties is to say the least somewhat distant. If we regard the Nazi plan for European hegemony as a case of "early union" then why not Napoleonic Europe or the Roman Empire or Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire? They all "unified Europe". I think however this is just being raised, as so often by TharkunColl, not as a serious point but as part of EU-bashing. By all means do so, but stop pretending this is a serious historical point which we should add to the article. The official EU history page has it about right, starting with 1945 and Robert Schuman. MarkThomas 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually more thinking of the Roman empire starting with Julius Caesar as the first to go for a unified Europe, and go beyond that and unify it with northern Africa and the near Middle East as well. In other words, I agree with MarkThomas; this seems to be anti-EU propaganda, more than serious history. Believe in it if you want, but it should not be in Wiki. Arnoutf 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And why should Wikipedia only include pro-Brussels puff pieces? The EU produces enough propaganda of its own without supposedly impartial sources of information like Wikipedia becoming just another lapdog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.187.39.26 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't need to include only pro stories (I have been asking for a critics version repeatedly). However, the nazi story is just as likely as to say that the EU was forecast and founded by Jesus Christ Himself (which can be said to be pro-Brussels buff). Wiki should be open to critical thought but not to weird and unfounded conspiracy theories. Arnoutf 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote from History of the European Union:

"In 1940, following Germany's military successes in World War II and planning for the creation of a thousand year Empire, a European confederation was proposed by German economists and industrialists. They argued for a "European economic community", with a customs union and fixed internal exchange rates. In 1943, the German ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Cecil von Renthe-Fink eventually proposed the creation of a European confederacy, which would have had a single currency, a central bank in Berlin, a regional principle, a labour policy and economic and trading agreements. The proposed countries to be included were Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Greece and Spain."

Every single one of those conditions has been met (except that the single currency is not yet universal, and Frankfurt rather than Berlin is its base). And not all those countries are yet members (though most are, and all could be one day). TharkunColl 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok some Nazi said that, but basically they just wanted to conquer the lot and were thinking of a way to govern the German Third Reich. There would be no way that France would have equal say in anything. So although the words bear remarkable similarity; the meaning is not at all that of the current EU. Arnoutf 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your opinion? TharkunColl 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I do not need evidence, you do as you want to add this information. Comparing and relating only superficiously related circumstances/literature is original historical research; which has no place on Wiki. You need to provide a reliable reference that supports your claim explicitly. In other words you need a published scientific book or scientific article where a modern historian states that the EU was modelled after this Nazi plan. (Conspiracy theory websites, self-published novels and thrillers etc. do not count as a reliable source)

By the way I have another explanation for the Nazi plan. It looks very much how the USSR was governed under Stalin. The states where in name independent republics but in practice resorted directly under Moscow. Perhaps the Germans thought of their Europe along similar lines as the Russians structured the USSR. Arnoutf 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think also Funk was motivated by empire building, as were all Nazi leaders; if he could get his "European Economic Plan" through he would in effect be Gauleiter of Europe. That's why Hitler rejected the plan. Hitler had no intention of letting anyone other than him be Master of Europe. But really, this is a tedious game; TharkunColl makes a propagandistic suggestion based on well-known conspiracy theories and then we are all expected to play along. One wonders what else exists in your mental landscape Tharkie-baby. Treaty of Rome? Proof that the Popish plots to rule Europa have at last succeeded. Single Currency? A subtle Holy Roman Empire plan to weaken British manly sinews. The European Criminal Court? Napolean's great-great-grandchildren are at last subverting the Old Bailey. The plan worked! And so it goes on. My suggestion is we don't bother debating these absurdities unless they affect the article, in which case just revert. Some of us have had the same experience with Tharkun ad nauseum on United Kingdom, British Isles, Birmingham, etc, etc, etc. Yawn. MarkThomas 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you are suggesting that all debate and opposition should be stifled? Has it ever crossed your mind that my edits might actually be intended to improve Wikipedia, by presenting facts? TharkunColl 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith. However, historical 'facts' need interpretation. That interpretation is original reseach, and wiki should not be about original research. If you can find a respectable historian (or other scientist) that published your view I would be very happy to welcome your idea. Without... not. Arnoutf 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

EU is not a single market

It is EU policy to create a single market. The EU and its predecessors have been working on that for 50 years, but the EU is still not comparable to a nation-state in that respect.Paul111 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[4] Lear 21 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see the definition of single market. Voodoo 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited source, the Commission website, says quite clearly that the single market is not complete, added reference:Paul111 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite its achievements so far, the single market is not yet complete. Indeed, creating a genuinely integrated market is not a finite task, but rather an ongoing process, requiring constant effort, vigilance and updating. Indeed, technological and political developments mean that the environment in which the Single Market functions is changing all the time. Although many obstacles have been removed, other barriers have come to light and will go on doing so.

User Lear 21 re-inserted the claim that the EU is currently a single market. Since this is misleading, and since the cited source says explicitly that the single market is not complete, I restored the reference quoted above. The best compromise text is to say that the single market is developing and/or incomplete, and not to imply it exists already.Paul111 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nation states

My main objection is to the link to a ridiculous wikipedia article. However, if you're trying to emphesize that most countries in Europe have a single culture/language that that is both obvious and unnecessary in a sentence defining the EU. Voodoo 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The EU is a union of sovereign nation-states and that is its essential nature - and its essential problem, since full union would require loss of sovereignty.Paul111 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that de facto the EU is a union of nation states; however why put that in the introduction? Why do you think this is important enough to emphasise. I think it is far more important to stress that member are democratic (now this is not in). Of course we should not end up with many many trivial adjectives, or we would end up with something like: A union of small to medium land surface, European, democratic, nation, from high to medium economic development, predominantly Christian, Indo-European language speaking states. I guess everyone agrees that this is not what we want. Arnoutf 12:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That the European states are nation-states is their most essential characteristic since the 19th century. Sovereignty is incompatible with union, and that is the conflict at the heart of the EU, at least until recently, although it may soon be eclipsed by the question of whether Islam is compatible with the EU and Europeasn values.Paul111 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And you want it to say 'nation-states' to point out all that. Which is why it doesn't belong in the definition - it's your political opinion. Voodoo 13:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nation states: For some European states this is actively doubted (UK and Belgium). Futhermore both the German Empire (2nd Reich) and the Austrian-Hungarian double monarchy where definitely NOT nations states. They lasted untill 1918 (well into the 20th century).

You say it is the most essential characteristic. For that claim you need a reference stating exactly that (most essential, rahter than one of the).

Even if this is the case; it is still not clear why this addition is essential in the context of the EU. As far as I know being a democratic state is an official condition for members of the EU (ie is part of treaties), being a nation state is not. Arnoutf 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ask editors to provide sources for their contributions to the talk page, since that obstructs the function of the talk page as a place for open discussion of the article's content. Attribution to reliable sources is required for that content only. An entirely reliable source, Commissioner Rehn, was provided for the statement that the EU is a union of nation states.Paul111 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Olli Rehn, Member of the European Commission, responsible for Enlargement, 2006. Turkey's accession process to the EU. Lecture at Helsinki University, 27 November 2006. The European Union is not just any loose international alliance. It is a community of nation-states which have decided to pool their sovereignty. [5]. Vivien Schmidt, 2004. "...the EU is best understood as a regional union of nation-states in which the creative tension between the Union and its member-states ensures both ever- increasing regional integration and ever-continuing national differentiation."

EUSA Review Forum: Is the EU Democratic,and Does it Matter? EUSA Review, Winter 2004, p. 3. ISSN 1535-7031 . UK Presidency of the EU, 2005. The Constitutional Treaty also makes it clear that the EU is a union of nation states and has only those powers that Member states have chosen to give to it. [6] See also Alan S. Milward, 2005. The European Rescue of the Nation State. 2nd edition. London, Routledge.

Yes, that is the ref that states it is de facto understood as a union of nation states; so what? It can also be understood as a union of states that have clay in their soil. My question to you was where you got the idea that this the MOST ESSENTIAL characteristic; as you put it the nation is more important than democratic... Is that the message you want to put up; EU not open for federal states but open to nation state totalitarian regimes?

PS: I know that wiki etiquette does not require to back up statements on talk pages with refs, however, since you are apparently advocating a minority opionion you may do this anyway to convince other editors. Without such reference this is just your political opinion (as user:Voodoo) says above; which you are free to give here, but which we are also free to disgard without any further arguments. Arnoutf 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP figures

No source for GDP figure of $15 trillion. What was the dollar conversion rate, and what is the source for that conversion rate? The cited nominal GDP figure of €11.5 trillion is a projection for 2006 (note the statistics are dated November 2006 and therefore can not include a definitive figure for that year). First official estimates of 2006 GDP should be online soon at Eurostat.Paul111 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

11.5 * 1.33 (which is the current exchange rate given by google) = 15.3. The cited gdp is not a projection, or at least isn't marked as one. Some of the figures for individual countries are marked as a forecast. Don't know what the explanation for that is. The November date is for the last revision of the document you clicked on, not for the data in the table. You can find this table by going to Eurostat than clicking on Data tab, then Main economic indicators, economy overview, long term indicators, national accounts, gdp and main aggregates, and finally gross domestic product at market prices (what a horrible website.)

Next to that link there is a little 'i' icon (i for information, I'm guessing) that gives you the date range of data and date of last update. It says the data was last updated 16.03.2007, just 2 days ago (though I don't know what they updated, they should have additional collumns showing date of last update for each row, just like the cia factbook website does.) Voodoo 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong data

It says under the joining history table:

Note that Gibraltar is part of the EU, while the The Isle of Man, The Channel Islands, The Faroe Islands, Aland Islands and Mount Athos are not.

Alandia is part of the EU, but not of the common VAT area. AFAIK, Mount Athos is also part of the EU, but not of the common VAT area (and maybe not of the common customs area either). IM, GG and JE are not part of the EU, but they are not the only dependencies of EU countries that aren't part of the EU. Greenland, French non-DOM non-European parts and numerous British and Dutch dependencies aren't part of the EU either. Maybe the quoted section could be rewritten into something better. (212.247.11.153 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

EU DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OFFICIAL SYMBOL THAN EU FLAG,THIS COAT OF ARMS IS INVALID,TAKE IT OFF !!!