This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Demonym

I've removed the mention of demonym (which said that the demonym for the EU is "European") from the infobox because I prefer no specified demonym at all to a misleading one. Now, I admit I've heard people refer to people from the EU as Europeans (one might hear that, say, in Belarus), but that's nowhere near the most common usage which is referring to a person from Europe. Few would disagree that Norwegians are Europeans, even though they aren't a part of the EU. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would call a person from French Guiana "European" based on the fact that they live inside the EU. It's worth discussing, however, if another demonym should be added. Eg. "EU citizen" or "Citizen of an EU member state" as proposed by User:Vinny Burgoo earlier. Jafeluv (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can live without demonym, I have never noted colloquial use of it anywhere, anyway; and "EU citizen" or similar is more of a description than a true demonym. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered but I hear European to mean people in the EU a lot, for example "European public opinion" when referring to EU political issues. It certainly doesn't exclude, say, Norwegians because of that- just think about the term American applying to US citizens even though it also applies to anyone in the Americas. Besides, is the EU not the European Union? Doesn't seem misleading to me, though as I say I'm not that bothered, it is a small issue. Just do one thing for me, treat Union of South American Nations the same will you.- J Logan ^t: 15:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As per JLogan. The Demonym of the European Union being "European" is hardly misleading. The fact that other Non-EU-countries exist while still being of European Demonym is not a contradiction nor does it reduce the validity of the term. I reinstalled the term to complete the infobox. Lear 21 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. European is used as the EU's denonym in real life. - SSJ ☎ 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. European easily means Croatians, Swiss, Norwegians, Serbians, Bosnians etc etc. And that does devalue the point or the use in having it on the EU page as opposed to the continent's page. It does NOT mean only people living within the EU. Therefore the Denonym should go, its difficult to prove that one exists other than pointing out that occasionally Americans might use the term. It was a silly addition in the first place. There is no denonym of European meaning only EU Citizens, at least yet. Maybe they'll give us a name someday, something like Eurofaces or something. But for now, whilst a European remains just somebody from Europe, the denonym should go. --Simonski (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And just a point on the "its not misleading" claim - having it say "European" yet having the link then clarify that the denonym is not infact European, but EU Citizen, says it all for me. If you truly believed it wasnt misleading then that link would not lead to the page on EU Citizenship, but to the page on "Europeans". I'd imagine this debate is going to come down similar lines to past debates such as the Sports one, so anticipating a long drawn out discussion with google searches cited as being super duper proof that European is the EU's demonym, can I just suggest in advance a compromise of putting "EU Citizen" rather than removing it entirely or keeping "European". --Simonski (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the term "European" is just as valid for an EU Citizen as "American" is for a citizen of the United States. "EU Citizen" is more precise, but if it is clear from context you might say "European" as well. I would prefer to have both included. --GluonBall (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's a denonymist or a denonymologist or whatever they are called when you need one! At the end of the day I suppose you could put European if you really felt it was necessary (why it is I have no idea), but it cant then link to the EU Citizen page because then you're acknowledging that European isnt the correct denonym after all. In that respect I think Gluonball's suggestion might be quite a good one.

I mean I guess you could break it down to the extent that it goes we are all Earthlings, then South Americans/Asians/Africans/Europeans, then Brazilian/Chinese/Moroccan/English, then the regional denonyms like Scots/Welsh etc come into play, and that'd be fair enough. I guess my only other issue is that the denonym bit on the EU page just seems a little pointless. Maybe I should go add that "Earthlings" denonym bit on the UN page! (I bet by the year 3000 its there!) --Simonski (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever we decide, we are talking opinions here, rather than verifiable statements. We should chose something that is not our own original research. Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really that sure about using European as a demonym, but my dictionary the New Oxford American Dictionary (it comes free with my mac) includes "a national of a state belonging to the European Union", and "of or relating to the European Union" within its definition on "European". Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is enough for me (although my personal feeling says no). Let's put it in as a reference to end this discussion once and for all. Arnoutf (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

EU institutions are often referred to as the European institutions. Just like the US Senate is an American institution. To say that any entity from Europe could be called European does not eliminate the possibility of a de facto denonym for the EU. - SSJ ☎ 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's little point then in arguing against a dictionary. Thats much better than just saying "well everybody says it!". Case closed eh. --Simonski (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Blue-Haired Lawyer might place his reference behind the European demonym. Than it should be satisfactory for anyone. I guess it's easy to do ;-)Tomeasy_{T C} 10:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference of User: Blue-Haired Lawyer is further supported by the use in official EUropean documents like this little ( and easily accessible) brochure on "Key facts and figures about Europe and the Europeans^[1]". Although this might not qualify as a referencable source according to Wikipedia standards(?).--Oleginger (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain about something

Should there be a section about the tabloid reports (which proved false) for example: Yoghurt is to be called *unpronouncable jibberish* or is that a little irrelevant? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia. (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in this article, as this is already overly long, and that bit of information seems of little relevance, and UK-centred as well. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately if we start putting everything the European Union isn't responsible for we might double the size of the encyclopedia. (We could start by "The EU did not create the universe".) Even more unfortunately there is an article on this: Euromyth. Terribly unencylopedic but I couldn't get rid of it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying anyway. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See Euromyth.- _JLogan ^t: 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'v always wondered about the "28+ memeber problem"

It says in its current form, the Eu can't have more then 27 members, my question is, exactly, WHY can't it have more then 27 under the current arrangement?--Jakezing (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Treaty of Nice says that there must be further reform before it can expand beyond 27 members (the idea is that the current set up won't be able to deal with more, too many countries using a veto, blocking things, too many chairs around the top table and so on). They could just amend it in an accession treaty but leaders tend to support this view (the did after all put it in the treaty) so it won't change any time soon.- _J.Logan ^(t): 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stupid politicians not thinking the future, foolish!--Jakezing (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Em... they were. That was the point behind it. They thought the EU wouldn't be able to cope with 27+ members under the system so put a cap until it was improved. But regardless, this isn't a forum for general discussion.- _J.Logan ^(t): 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons

BHL,

I first apologize, I oversaw this change you did or else I will be bringing this topic faster. It just happen that today another editor started to put these icons, this was the reason that the removal of the flag icons came to my attention. I do value your input and I respect you as an editor, no doubt your contributions are great, especially in this article ... but I do not see the reason for such graphic content removal. You mentioned that it serves no purpose, and I disagree: one image is always better than one thousand words, and these images do not hurt the article.

Would you please consider leaving it with the flag icons?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I had recognized this change a while ago. I did not like it very much, but did not consider it important enough to make a move. Now, that Miguel did, let me state that I prefer to have the icons in the article. As Miguel mentioned it helps grasping the content of this list and also makes the look and feel of the article more professional. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against the use of flag icons in the infobox, it is utterly pointless, unprofessional and messy. It clutters the thing up and serves no real purpose. There is certainly no point in sticking large flags next to cities and people who are serving an EU mandate (also, first use of a flag must be with the country name).- _J.Logan`^t: 15:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I too oppose the use of flag icons. In my experience, they have generally provided more heat than light. --Red King (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the flags doesn't really serve any useful purpose are really only decorative rather than informative. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). Whatever about the principle of having flag templates, they are overused in the article. Flags may be ok with the list of member states in the infobox but displaying flags beside EU public office holders is inappropriate as they are meant to represent the EU and not their countries of nationality. A similar point goes for the institutions, the locations are just where the EU institutions are; if they are to have flags why not the European one. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as having flags in the article content. this kind of thing looks a bit amateurish and the article looks better without it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Strong words suggest that strong emotions are accorded to this question, so I will try to be cautious ;-)

I understand your argument, JLogan, that national flags next to EU institutions and mandates "serve no real purpose". I almost make it my own opinion thinking that the president of the European parliament serves the EU and not Germany.

With the list of member states, and that's what I was thinking of, it is different and I hope you will agree. The EU is a union of sovereign states. So Germany is a member of the EU representing Germany. This is the difference to the position taken by the president of the parliament.

When the readers inflates this list they will find a list of 27 items. Showing the flag next to the respective state is (IMO) by no means pointless as it facilitates greatly to grasp this information. Note that this is inherently what flags are made for, to easily identify a country.

The flags are not large! Really, I do not know how you come to claim the opposite. They do not even change the line spacing and are in width smaller than any country name.

Professional look? Honestly, I find the article more attractive with the icons. However, I have just learned that this is apparently a matter of taste. Please, let's allow each other their taste and not argue on this point any more.

Suggestion: Keep the flag icons for the list of member states only. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted it may help to understand, but not by much. Since the plebs have been taught to read, they don't need flags to know who is who and nor recognise names more than a mish mash of tiny (yes, I acknowledge they are not large, but that doesn't mean it is any better) flags -most of which are very similar to each other. Indeed, rather than help people grasp the information, it is more likely to help them learn about the flags (do a street test, see who recognises the flag of Slovakia or Finland).

Still, the list of states is hidden and there isn't the conflict as with the people and cities lists, so I'm not going to fight that much but I don't like it. So long as they stay away from the cities and leaders, they are misleading there.- _J.Logan`^t: 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am no fan of overflagging, for much the reasons of JLogan; plus longer loading time for the few people still operating telephone modems. But at least for the countries the relation flag-country is correct and non-ambivalent

This is unclear with the cities and leaders. For example the combination

Brussels implies the flag is that of Brussels (incorrect) while

Brussels would be correct, but not very informative. Similarly I am almost certain

is not the family banner of Barroso (while that is what the combination implies). So no, no flagicons with cities and leaders. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this one more and quite entertaining argument why flags should not be used for persons and cities. I would wait for Miguel's reaction, but I think we have a common agreement that they can be removed for these instances. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The common practice on wikipedia (at least in similar articles), is to have no other flags in the infobox than the flag of the entity the article is about. In this case, the European Flag. I think no national flags should be displayed. - SSJ ☎ 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO that is hardly an argument, we could easily be protagonists. Anyway, I tested it and from 5 organizations I tested, 3 use the flags (NATO, ASEAN, NAFTA), 1 does not list the member states at all (African Union), and 1 does not list the flags in the infobox, but does so right next to it in the section about member adherence (Arab League). So, if you want this argument to be one than it's rather going the other way around. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that no flag icons should be displayed, per what JLogan said. No indoctrination is going to change my opinion, as I consider the flags to be meaningless and distracting (at least infront of the cities and leaders. My opinion is part of the process of building a consensus. See WP:FLAG. - SSJ ☎ 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"No indoctrination is going to change my opinion" as a reaction to my above comment sounds quite indoctrinate to me. Please, we are discussing whether to put flags in front of county names or not. That's it. It should be easy to remain respectful towards each other on this one? Tomeasy_{T C} 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that you have been indoctrinating. I made it clear in the first halv of my first comment that I don't like flag icons in infoboxes per what JLogan said. When I saw that you denounced my comment ("that is hardly an argument"), I wanted to say that my opinion was valid and backed up by arguments. I now see that I misinterpreted your comment; you probably referred to the second part of my first comment only. I'm not accusing you of indoctrination, sorry. BTW, I'd never compare the quasi-federal EU to international organisations like NATO or NAFTA. - SSJ ☎ 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Which quasi-federal organizations did you mean when claiming that "common practice on wikipedia (at least in similar articles), is to have no other flags in the infobox than the flag of the entity the article is about". If my examples do not match your similar articles criterion, which kinds did you have in mind? Tomeasy_{T C} 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The AU and nation states. All of them use Infobox Geopolitical organisation, and IMO there is no reason why the EU should differ from the other users of the infobox by having extra flags. - SSJ ☎ 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually really liked the flags being put in. I thought it was a nice touch. At the very least, I would argue strongly that the French flag for the Council stays. I could predict why certain people here would want to avoid having flags here (ie. it reminds them that the EU is at the end of the day a club made up of separate countries) but I think it looked quite nice. I'd be happy for them to go back in. --Simonski (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And you would like to tell readers that the EU is purely an intergovernmental organisation. "Nice touch"? WP:FLAG states that flags should not be used as decoration. - SSJ ☎ 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I think it would be more representative of the mix that the EU is, emphasising that the EU and the Member States are at the end of the day the same thing. As for WP:FLAG, at the end of the day aren't such things just guidelines? I think we'd all agree that this page is covering a pretty unique topic so that would be grounds in my eyes for departing from any norm. Like I said, I would argue for at the very least for the French flag to remain beside its Council entry. --Simonski (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is not to "remind" people of the alleged essence of the EU by inserting national flags sporadically. - SSJ ☎ 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Its hardly random putting the French flag beside the fact that it holds the current presidency of the Council. Rather it draws attention to quite an important fact that might otherwise be missed by the reader, with the presidency insignia potentially not meaning much to them. I still don't see what the hell the big deal is to have this one flag there. It was there for a while without any dispute before this whole nonsense began, lets put it back in and be done with this pointless debate. --Simonski (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The positions are EU, there is already the word France for the Council so the national element is there. As for showing the EU is made of member states, I believe that is conveyed by the long list of member states... This is an infobox about the EU - not all the member states or origin of certain people. The flags clutter it too much (the names actually fit on one line without flags) so from a design point of view I'm against it, as well as it being misleading. Both those points aren't too bad on the member states list, hence why I won't push it but I still think it looks...well... naff. On your point about WP:FLAG being guidelines; yes this is a unique entity, but I don't think that applies to the usage of images on wikipedia. Sui genius is not a licence to ignore all conventions.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's review what the highly cited guideline says about the appropriate use of flags before it appears to be consensus that using the flags in our case would break this guideline. I quote:

They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags.

As I read it this part of the guideline, I think it matches our case and legitimates the use.

On the other hand, it does not mean that we have to use it. This has to be decided on proper arguments as, for my part, it appeared very convincing not to use them for certain posts. I am open for more arguments, but please also reflect on my arguments: First, it helps grasping the content of the list, because the content is also visualized in the simplest way a country can be visualized. Second, we are listing member states at this point and they contribute to the EU just by being this. Hence, the individual flags are appropriately visualizing the content of the union. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The EU's infobox is neither a long lists nor a long table. It's not more intricate than the infoboxes that are used for countries. I'm against flag icons for the leaders and cities. But I'm not die-hard against flags in the list of member states which is hidden by default. - SSJ ☎ 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SSJ that it is not a long list (list of all countries would be) but just to respond to the point of it helping to visualise. This is just a link in the infobox for reference purposes. For information about memberstates, the reader is drawn to the section on that subject where we provide a map. That map gives the real visulaistion as geographical location means a lot more than a flag most people won't recognise (granted they'd recognise the French or Italian flags, but they don't need help with the word France or Italy. Lithuania is something people would ask about, and providing the flag does not aid that, the map does however and that is what the member states section, with its map, is for. The infobox is reference, just a quick list at the top - not a streamlined guide to each state.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lesson for me: never open a topic thinking it would be very simple to solve, and then go to sleep. Apologies guys but I am in the Far East and I missed all this discussion; I did not mean to leave it there so you can solve it.

I see that consensus was reached to leave the flag for the countries, I am happy enough with that result. The only thing that is not clear to me (from the taste point of view) is the country of the inviduals mentioned in the infobox is not shown. I really see no solution for this, since you guys do not like the flags, and putting the name of the country next to it (even between brackets) looks augly. Clicking on the name of the individual and get out of the article just to know that information is the only solution I see.

Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how a French flag (which fits on the same line) "clutters" the page beside the Council entry. I think its a very important point that there's a member state at all times driving the crucial Council agenda (think of all the things France are trying to cover at the moment) and putting a flag next to what is generally some bland and easily missable text brings attention to what is some significant information if you ask me. I'm still happy to have the other flags out but would still push for the French flag beside the Council entry. I don't think it will hurt anybody. --Simonski (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this statement, we are talking about teh current country running the presidency of the union, and it is a flag right next to the country name. It will definitely bring attention to that area which can be easily oversaw. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did the change so people note what we are talking about, I am not edit waring. Let's discuss over this change and remove it if consensus is still that it should not be displayed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We could have equally discussed it while the French flag is not currently in place ;-)

Personally, I am for the flag in this specific case. However, I would cede in view of a stable and fair solution. I think the flags make most sense for the (long,) growing list of member states and if we can all agree to leave them there, then I would give my token to any decision on the head of the council issue in order to render the whole package our common agreement. Tomeasy_{T C} 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not here to catch a fight, but I am against "let's remove it because I do not like it". The flag does not clutter that small section and it does catch my attention to the council information as soon as the article is open. I will not ask for anything beyond this: the flag in the presidency section (whoever the country is, it happens to be France now) and in the list of countries. No where else makes no sense. In this two sections does not disturb and it does improve the appearance of the article, IMHO. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your argument about "let's remove it because I do not like it". The problem in my view is that the argument is a bit symmetrical, as the other argument "Let's add it because I like it" is equally invalid. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know your non-symmetric position on this council flag? Tomeasy_{T C} 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo, you should know nothing is concluded quickly here, we are discussing the EU after all - I think it has rubbed off. Anyway, on "let's remove it because I do not like it" - I was about to say the same thing as Arnoutf. Point is, whether it improves the understanding of the article. As I have said before, is misleads on cities and people, and does not help on the member states list because no one recognises these countries by their flag. It seems to me it is being added just because it is easy on the eyes. As for putting it next to the Council itself, i.e. France, not Sarko. Of course my argument against people does not apply but I still do not see the argument for it. To say that the states are involved more, well we have the massive presidency logo at the top for starters, and then add in that everyone seems to think the EU is just intergovernmental. Are we to attach small symbols to everything certain editors want to emphasise? I further fear that if there is one flag there, we will have endless numbers of IPs trying to be helpful and adding the others in, hence I am not disposed to sit on the fence in this occasion for as long as there appears to be no major reason for this.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jlogan, I follow closely around 90% of all changes posted by all members that have already spoken in this discussion; meaning that I think we are all adult enough, and we do respect each other opinions, not to engage in a fights for a "stupid" flag ;) Tomeasy and myself already compromised that the article can go without the French flag; at least myself am trying to understand your reasons for going against it, and possibly convince you that it does not harm the article, on the countrary it helps.

However, your last point is very important, at least for me that I am constantly fighting vandalism while you guys are sleeping (since I might be one of the few that live in Asia and also watch closely those European articles) so I am kinda agreeing with you that putting the flag may bring a lot of trouble and instability to the article.

Regardless I still think that the flags for the list of members should stay.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where? in the article or in the infobox, or both? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to make a difference between what my opinion is and what I'd act on. I am sticking to my opinion as I have not been convinced to change it, however where others agree to the contrary -especially on such a minor issue- I would not act against such an agreement as I do not own this article. Ergo, although my voice is against it I will not make any edits against its inclusion if a majority of other editors so wish it to be included.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the same for me – though having the opposite opinion. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone just give me an argument why the massive presidency logo, equal to the size of the flag, does not sufficiently draw peoples' attention to the existence of the presidency and who is holding it?- _J.Logan`^t: 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Poll

I think we all have been very civil, maybe because of the nature of the discussion. Since you guys have a long day ahead (and me a few hours sleep) I am proposing a poll (please ignore the informality I have never done this), the topic is the falg in the council section in the info box, the topic is not the flags in the country list in the info box. Please sign in your preferred category with a small explanation, and please consider compromising:

Remove the flag icon in the Council section (currently France) in the info box:

Agree Unnecessary decoration, untidy and over emphasises one feature. Would also cause problem with people further adding random flags based on its presence.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree Unnecessary decoration; the infobox isn't an intricate list. The logo of the French presidency is enough. Perhaps you have noticed that the logo depicts the French flag also. - SSJ ☎ 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Very weak agree I am not a fan of overstocking articles with flags, all things considered I think this one is not really necessary, but I can live with it if it stays. Arnoutf (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree Not a fan of flags. It adds nothing of importance to the article. I don't see it reinforces the position as people can simply read the word "France". Lwxrm (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree Distracting by attracting focus; country does not represent itself as council, just takes its turn. −Woodstone (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree The flag adds nothing but fussiness juux ☠ 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep the flag icon in the Council section (currently France) in the info box:

Strong Agree For the reasons I laid out above, I think its important and I think it does no harm. For anybody who'd be concerned that the page would then get flooded with other flags in the infobox, the fact that we'd all (hopefully) agreed that no other ones apart from the Council Presidency flag is needed would surely make it easy enough to revert any such additions. --Simonski (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree as I think it nicely supports the information that France (currently) has the presidency in the EU. Tomeasy_{T C} 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Agree, almost indifferent. I believe that the article in total does not reflect the fact of a 'Rotating Presidency' sufficiently. Therefore, I would support rather an Image of the current council president in the Government section. If this finds no support, I find it useful to indicate a certain status in the infobox (flag). Lear 21 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Agree, this is a bit of a reversal I admit but enough people like the flags so I can't see the harm in keeping one for the sake of consensus. There is a certain amount of sense keeping the French flag as it is France as a whole and not just Sarkozy which holds and presidency. And it doesn't mess things up that much. As far as "helpful" IPs are concerned we can always revert on the basis of consensus. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Indifferent to the flag icon in the Council section (currently France) in the info box:

Indifferent. It does catch the eye to a section which I consider important. I do like the compromise proposal to enlarge the Government section and move the flags there. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the poll was officially closed by now ?-)

Who has proposed to move the flags to the Government section?

The article does not have a Government section.

I oppose this move anyway. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I clearly said "not that it matters anymore but ... " Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why then did you write it at all? Are you seriously proposing to move the flags to a section within the article? BTW, I do not see the all so important statement "not that it matters anymore but ... ", was it an edit summary? Well, who cares... Tomeasy_{T C} 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The poll will close in the morning of 29 August 2008.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How many weak agrees make an agree and how many agrees is a strong agree worth? :p- _J.Logan`^t: 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO they are only used when there is a tie in the results; as of now the flag in the council country should be removed. You made another good point with the logo of the presidency in the infobox. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion Miguel. I'd have thought normal consensus building, here being between all flags and none, would lead to the interim result of the middle ground position of one flag being kept until a solution is found. --Simonski (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue has moved onto what we are voting for, so your interim solution is one side of the current issue. IF we were to take it from the base, then it is all flags vs no flags, which led to the keep in member states but no where else solution. That would be the logical interim.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, we already reached that middle ground, when it was accepted to leave the flags for the member list and remove it for the cities and names of individuals in the infobox. We are having a vote for just one last item, the flag next to the name of the country running the council. When I made that post yesterday there were more people in favour or removing it; now is different: there are more people in favour of keeping it. So as of now, the flag stays. We will be reaching that conclusion in 24 hours time, I hope there is no tie then ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And people can always change their votes of course, the debate isn't over yet. I still have a pending question up there.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to the apparent consensus that we have to follow the option that wins the majority. Hence, I do not see much sense in discussing questions like how much does a weak agree counts? In view of the editor gathered here, I think it is not necessary to cite the Wikipedia policy regarding polls. What I learn from this poll, is that the camps are equally sized (whether one side has a vote more or less is insignificant to me) and easily respect each others opinions as possible solutions. So from my point of view, if someone produces a really smart idea/argument it can render the whole poll obsolete. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you notice from the :p after, i wasn't being serious with that question. Hence also why I mentioned changing votes, as that would be the only way to gain a proper consensus (unless of course there are a majority three times the size - in which case I'd back favouring the majority). Though I would be happy to go with a clear majority for the sake of agreement considering this is a very small issue.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not even know who had asked this question in the first place (therefore also not a citation) and whether it was meant serious or not. I just followed the discussion and it was all about such technical poll issues which I find not very helpful, since we should not over estimate this poll anyway. That's just what I wanted to express. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As far I can evaluate the situation, the pro-flag side wants to emphasize the presidency itself, right? How about this: We install an image of the current president in office in the Governance section with a caption mentioning the seminal rotation. At the same time we keep out the flag in the infobox... Lear 21 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I read the situation slightly different and I think we're forgetting how the Wikipedia consensus thing is supposed to work. I actually had no problem, like a couple of other people evidently (including the chap who put them in originally) with the flags in the info box, but I have moved since the start towards what I still think is a perfectly acceptable middle ground of having a flag for the Council only. The fact that the poll has been on the middle ground option or no flags doesnt mean the overall debate has changed between flags/no flags. Particularly with its current incredibly small size, I still don't understand why the anti-flag people don't feel they've made enough ground from the original starting point of several flags.

I'm not convinced of the alternative, even the recent attempt (though it was worthwhile suggesting of course Lear) and unless I'm the only person left who's not convinced, then we don't have a consensus here - certainly the poll does not in anyway bind us to anything, nor do I think any of us suggested on either side that we'd be willing to go by what the poll result was. I'm willing to be quite difficult about this as others have been on other issues in the past if necessary, as I feel the anti-flag camp is itself being a bit difficult here. What is the problem with this smallest of small flags beside France at the Council entry? --Simonski (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, both camps have moved to the centre. Flags for the long member states list (27), and flags for the other entries (6). Anti-flag has moved from none to 27, pro flag has decreased from 33 to 27. Now there is a desire to move one flag towards the anti-camp. Overall, I think the anti side as moved more..... so there.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding again, aren't you? Tomeasy_{T C} 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What, afraid this is starting to turn into a bit of a farce? :D In fact, the centre ground would mean that only 11 and a half of the countries in the list should have flags. Wouldn't that be a fair compromise?- _J.Logan`^t: 19:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please cool down, is a very simple topic and we should not make a big deal out of it. We originally had a lot of flags, than in my opinion and I think the vast majority were not necessary. That issue is closed. When all flags were removed we asked to put the flags in the country list and the anti-flags team accepted. That issue is also closed.

We are asking for one last item and I believe that both sides have put very good reasons explaining their views. I personally think is a very small item, and the fact that the anti-flags team had been proposing solutions other than just keeping or removing the flag does impress me as thier hability to compromise. At the end this will be nothing but a compromising situation.

For now I think the poll is being usefull to know that both teams have the same size in people pretty much. As we are civil enough not to adhere to the technicalities of polls of Wikipedia, and I do get the feelign that a couple of people are willing to change their view, let's wait another 12 hours or so to see what happens. Until then, please refresh, there is no need to make this a huge debate. Miguel.mateo (talk)

yeah, I'm switching for consensus sake. I'd still preferably not have it but so long as its kept at the size (or similar) I shrunk it too and that people fend off any extra random flags IPs stick up there. I can live with it.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the poll has proven to be an absolutely waste of time, I apologize for going this path and get no clear results. We are back to square one now; unless anyone has any other suggestion. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it hasnt really, as much as they arent binding they can still be useful in airing some views and showing what sort of support one side has. I hadnt really factored in the 27 Member state flags into my point as they technically are invisible until somebody clicks to check. Here we find another side-debate as to whether we are counting the member state flags! I would say no. Infact I'd be happy for the member state flags to go if it meant keeping the French Council one, I just think its still a nice wee touch that assists the reader in understanding part of how the EU works. --Simonski (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

@J.Logan, you see where it ends up with your jokes. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters anymore but I am changing my view as well, I do like the last compromise proposed by the anti-flags. JLogan, you have not move you position in the poll. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you and JLogan switching sides, now? Or only after JLogan has move he position in the poll??? What would this switch mean to our score? I was asked earlier whether I was afraid this is starting to turn into a bit of a farce? I am not afraid it will, I am certain it has. Tomeasy_{T C} 14:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy, dude cool down, I need you to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I simply expressed that right now I am indiferent; maybe JLogan expressed the same. If this is a farce, then oppose to the whole poll idea from the very beggining. I have explained you, several times, that I thought we will be getting vast majority, we did not, so poll closed and poll scores should and can not be used to make any desicion, since there is no clear consensus. Hence, I apologize already for wasting everybody's time and I am askig for idea. I did like the idea proposed by JLogan on 17:34, 28 August 2008 about the Governance section, and for me that is a lot of compromise. Did you see it? Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patronizing words. No, I did not see JLogans proposition about [moving the flags to (I suppose)] the Governance section. I tried hard with his list of contribs and the time stamp you provided, but could not help my self. Perhaps you can help me once again. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I said something about moving flags to governance? I think it was Lear who proposed an image in governance, that's the closest I remember.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, there will be more light on this when the sun rises in Japan. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's go one step backward

Since obvious consensus seems not reachable and this is a very simple topic which we can not ask "experts" (we are not discussing history or quemistry here, we are discussing a simple flag in one infobox), the let's go one step backward. I would like to hear reasons of WHY; maybe that will shed some light to the topic. But please let me know first if you think this is logical, I do not want to do another type of "poll" and then been critisized when the poll is finished, that is simply not acceptable.

What I would like to hear is why should the flag be there and why not. What does people think? This is a new poll:

Yes if we list the "why" then it will help us understand how to move forward:

Agree Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No it will be another waste of time:

Please sign here if you do not want to do this investigation

I do hope this will help us understand further how to move forward. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, first of all, can you explain what you meant with "I do like the compromise proposal to enlarge the Government section and move the flags there." Which proposal were you referring to? You really wanted to move the flags to a section in the article?

Was there a connection to this other enigmatic statement of yours "I did like the idea proposed by JLogan on 17:34, 28 August 2008 about the Governance section"?

IMO, you are just adding to the confusion here with every of your posts and emails. The newest poll you designed is another splendid example. I do not get it: Are you asking our opinion as to whether we think (i) yes, we should exchange arguments on the flag issue or (ii) no, because listing arguments will be a waste of time. If this is really the intention of the new poll then I am very concerned. Honesty, I hope I am simply mistaken. In this case, I would be pleased to be enlightened. Tomeasy_{T C} 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I think is a waste of time is having a poll on whether or not to make a list. Anyway, I believe the reasons were mentioned in the above poll as people voted. I for one still haven't received a response to my question on why the massive presidency logo (equal to the EU flag) isn't enough to emphasise the presidency - as that seemed to be a principle argument in favour of the flag. It shows there is a presidency, France holds it and it is short term (the date). Now, if people miss that, I don't see how a small flag icon is going to help matters.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The logo of the presidency does not regularly visualize which country has the presidency. I remember Slovenia's logo from the first half of this year, for example. I think, the decision whether or not to put a flag in the infobox next to the Council information, should not depend on the design of the logo. Tomeasy_{T C} 10:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What I seriously believe is that you guys are not helping to find a common ground and we will be discussing this for ages, because there is no right or wrong solution. You guys keep simply critisizing and not trying to reach a common agreement. If we have the reasons listed, in a structured way, with the pros and cons, then maybe some of us will be willing to compromise and come with one magic solution that satisfies everyone. Honestly, I do not care if it has or if it does not have the flag, and I am not spending any more efforts trying to make you both to reach a common ground. You wanna keep fighting and winning about the flag, be my guess; I do have more important things to do than trying to get you into the table to reach an agreement. This is not kinderganden! Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, if it is not kindergarten, then stop trying to lead the discussion as if you are some kindergarten teacher. Enough about polls etc, its quite clear its just a simple black/white disagreement. Interestingly, this is unlike most of the other discussions I've been involved in here in the sense that I have the utmost respect for the majority of the opposing side, and really just think its a case of differing opinions between the two.

I said earlier in this discussion Logan, near the start even, that I dont consider the Presidency logo to be sufficient. As Tom pointed out, the Slovenian one was certainly less clear than the French one as to its meaning, and even then, one could look at the logo and not really click as to what it means. Having a flag beside the French entry beside Council makes it clearer in my eyes and will increase the chance of somebody clicking and understanding the fact that France has the initiative in the Council at the moment. At this moment in time with the status of the EU, and the particularly important nature of France's Council proposals (arguably the most ambitious for some time), I really feel its important that this gets the emphasis it deserves at the top of the page. I don't think addressing it in the Governance section would be enough. --Simonski (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While the argument is fine, the solution seems a little .... well if the issue is so demanding of a solution as is made out - I'd be going for something a little more substantial than a tiny flag. If a tiny flag is all that is needed, then the problem is hardly one of note. Furthermore, I believe this is a case of modern art. You've attached a lot of meaning to what the flag would convey, though I doubt even a fraction of it would come across to the average reader who knows nothing of it. They are not going to see the the words "Council: *flag* France" and think "ah! France has the initiative in the EUs main decision making body as it controls its agenda and considering the council is one half the the legislative branch and has near sole authority on second and third pillar matters...". Sorry if this is sounding a bit childish but I believe that is the extent that we are tempted to tag to such an entry because we know it - other people don't. They see the words Council and France and know nothing more till they read the text further down the page - and in doing so, learn properly about the nature of the Presidency.

Miguel.mateo, criticising is part of debate. If we don't challenge each others arguments we won't understand them properly and we won't understand our own. If we fail to do that we will be stuck in deadlock. The poll has shown division, we know what the points are (to clarify, an executive summery written by one person but I personally don't see the need right now) and need to move on.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can not agree with you more, I am just fed up that the criticism is about everything, not even the arguments, it sounds to me like we are criticising just for the sake of saying something. In my opinion, it is not worth. I think we are all into "I weant the flag" or "I do not want the flag" but we are not clear why the other person says the contrary. Anyway ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I'm optimistic we are moving somewhere, albeit slowly. Besides, it is hardly a vital issue - we can afford the time.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, I am very fine with JLogan opposing my opinion. We both expressed that we consider the issue secondary and would easily cede for a common solution. So your analysis "You wanna keep fighting and winning about the flag" simply does not reflect our motivation. The only thing that deters the focused discussion and induces bad feelings are your confused contributions (e.g., you still haven't explained why you want to move the flags to the Government section and where you adopted this idea) and—I admit—my reaction to them ;-)

Therefore, I will stop commenting on the way this discussion is conducted and only contribute when I want to say something about the content of the discussion. Promised. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment I was talking about [1] that nobody seem to see, it was a small one. It was done by Liar21, not by JLogan. I thought that this could put this item to rest, obviously another missunderstanding.

Let me add that Lear did not at all propose to move the flags to the Government section, as you proposed later referring to (now we know it) his suggestion. Having clarified the cause of this additional misunderstanding, a tiresome operation I have to admit, I am happy this item can be put at rest.

BTW Lear21 is not a Liar ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, IMHO, you are the only one strongly in favour of the flag. Since I am obvious of no help, I would suggest you take the lead or else sooner or later the rest of us will "bend over" and the flag will be removed; without any compromise.

I am agreeing with Tom (once again), no more opinions will be given from my side and no more suggestions, I will only contribute when I want to express my opinion about what somebody else said that is against to my thoughts. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just to take this off the flag no-flag line. To emphasis the presidency, there are a number of other routes. 1) Explicit mention in the intro. 2) removal of Parliament and European Council from government section in the infobox - hence emphasising only the executive presidencies rather than the "unofficial" gathering linked to the Presidency and the Parliament (the head of which is not really on a par with the Commission and Council presidents). 3) add after "Presidency insignia" <br />[[France]] (Jul-Dec 08). Ideas just to start, as if we can get a way to emphasis the Presidency without a flag, that would satisfy both sides no?- _J.Logan`^t: 15:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Logan your earlier point wasn't childish, its a fair point, but its one I'd disagree with. I'm not expecting the flag to tell them all that but I'm expecting it to bring more attention to the particular nature of the Council. I think its done simply with a flag. Miguel, I'm not in any hurry here and I dont think anybody else is so I don't need to lead any discussion. If the flag is removed without any compromise then myself and the other pro-flag people will happily replace it - I think its worth reminding yourself of how Wikipedia works here. For once I find myself a beneficiary of the flawed consensus policy that applies here! Such implied empty threats are hardly going to add to the conversation. This current dispute pales in comparison to some of the other issues people have clashed on this article, which up until now was surprisingly quiet I should add.

So in sum, Logan (and fellow anti-flaggers), I feel the flag will make somebody go "ooh a flag, France... Council... France leads the Council? I shall have to read up on this and see what it means exactly". If I'm honest in my own world I'd have an EU flag beside the Commission guy as well! But once again, at the very least I feel the Council bit needs a flag as it is different from the "European" position of the Commission head, the Parliament head etc. Hopefully you get what I mean here - I suspect this is just coming down to a matter of taste. On the alternatives, I'll have to have a think but certainly the only one I can imagine looking at as reasonable is the third one. --Simonski (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I do not see why the Council deserves a special note here. Considering people perceive the EU to be more intergovernmental than it actually is, it ought to be the supranational elements that are emphasises. And equally, you're point on an EU flag next to the Commission would indeed be the end result in treating them equally - though completely insane to add EU flags next to Eu institutions in the EU article.

Small note on consensus, as we are discussing their inclusion, and the current flag was added as a demonstration - consensus actually favours the default side of the anti-flag team. So there :p- _J.Logan`^t: 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Great it’s going about creative ideas and arguments once again.

I'm expecting the flag to bring more attention to the particular nature of the Council. I did not mark this statement of Simonski as a quotation, because it speaks out why I, in my private encyclopedia, would certainly keep the flag.

Logan, I think with your three point initiative you have proposed a compromise assuming a motivation on our side that I think does not exist. At least for myself I can say that I do not want to move the current balance in a direction that positions the EU more on the intergovernmental edge. Rather my motion to the flags in the list of members and the Council tries to emphasize on the ambivalence between this concept and supranationalism. From that point of view I first loved the idea of putting the EU flag next to Commission.

However, I reject this idea, because the conveyed message would not be clear enough and rather attract ‘’corrections’’ like the change of this icon to the Portuguese version. Still, there is of course the reasonable argument that a flag should be used to visualize a countries nationality and not that of a ‘’persons’’. And, quite right, Italian flags next to Italian institutions on the ‘’Italy article’’ would be kind of insane. At last, the parliament’s president would also need this flag then. So, in it’s execution it would be impractical, because of an illogical appearance.

A single (shown) flag in the infobox appeals to me through esthetics, its eye catching function, and the possibility to raise valuable attention. Once the reader’s attention on this part is indeed catched, it greatly supports the comprehension of the aforementioned ambivalence by simply putting a single national symbol right next to this institution that is lead by nation.

Assuming that your (JLogan') three points are not your declared wish, but rather meant as sketching an alternative solution to our (assumed) intention, I omit to comment in detail; but I am strongly against point 2 and I do not like point 3 very much. Point 1, would be OK, if nicely done, but the lead is already long enough, I find, and I wouldn’t know what should go out. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Simonski, be reminded that I was the one that placed teh flag back so we can have a civil discussion, originally was not5 there. If we start to remove put the flag back, we will get in nothing but a edit war, which is what I wanted to avoid from the very beginning. Good to see you guys have some progress, I keep watching. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, there won't be any edit war on this. Tomeasy_{T C} 00:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I added an image to the Government section. It should be seen as a proposal. BTW, the article already had an image of the president. It got lost after some trimming, but I think it still adds significant content to the understanding of the most important EU body. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a start, but as I've said I don't think thats enough. Anyhow, Logan what I was meaning was the default position here is pretty much just minor back-and-forth editing putting in/taking out the flag. But since the dispute is so minor in nature its clear thats not going to have to happen.

I'd have to second pretty much everything Tom's said, and add as well that I disagree Logan that its over-emphasising the intergovernmental aspect of the EU. In my opinion, the way the page is, the whole thing seems heavily weighted towards the supranational. A flag beside the Council thus to me also says "this is supranational... this bit is intergovernmental" and allows the reader to understand more how the EU works. At least a little bit. I feel the Council/Commission/Parliament distinction is one of the hardest things for people who are learning about the EU for the first time to get their head round, and that the flag in its own way assists here. --Simonski (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I feel it may not say what you intend it to say. People may equally read it as some kind of rotating executive or god knows what. I think it would be wrong to place so much emphasis on what the infobox can display, it is meant as a summery. Take any other article, and the intention is for example to show who is the "President", or "Speaker" or "Prime Minister" but it is not the intention to say anything about the nature of the post, its powers, its functions etc. We should not try to convey anything more than the fact that France is chair of it, it is not the infobox's role to convey more than that, it is not its role to emphasise a certain aspect of the Union's governance. If you wish to do that, perhaps we should have some kind of special infobox/chart in the governance section that can convey pillar/power relations/intergovernmentalism/post holders etc.? - _J.Logan`^t: 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the first point could easily also apply to a non-flagged council entry, people could make the same sort of mistake. I've seen a few infoboxes now in other pages as I've surfed Wikipedia in the last week or so and a good number of them also contain flags actually. I stand by what I said in that I think the flag usefully highlights that the rest of the infobox refers to supranational institutions/matters, and that the Council is different. It doesnt seek to go any further than that, I think its just a simple harmless point to be made. Because of the nature of the EU I think any chart trying to explain how things work would be incredibly complicated. I dunno, it really depends on how others feel - thats my view. As I said, I think the only alternative I see as being similarly useful would be the third one you mentioned earlier. --Simonski (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just a little confused as to how a flag reinforces or makes any clearer that France holds the Presidency or the nature of the Council. The name "France" is not ambiguous or even in need of clarification. Someone reads it and thinks "France". If they see the flag they don't say "oh, they mean France the country, much clearer now I thought they meant Mr. France was in charge of the Council". It seems like a little bit of unnecessary decoration. Just my two cents. Edit of this post: In addition on Simonski's last point I am not convinced. The other bodies are not all supranational and so this distinction is not valid. The European Council is not a supranational body of the EU. It grew out of resentment towards supranationalism in the 1960s. Lwxrm (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the point that confuses you. IMO, the single flag that currently shows up in the infobox catches attention right when the article pops up. You call the article on the EU and you will quite likely see one tiny national flag. This would not happen for the case of the mere text France. The questions remain, do we want this attention? Does it support the intended message and what is this?

Your other point, being that the Council is not the only intergovernmental instrument, is of course right. However, the other one, the European Council, is always presided by the same countries leading politician. So, that's why a second national flag is first not appropriate (as it is a person), and second not needed (as it is the same country). A solution with a single flag is more clear as there is only a single rotation.

I expect many of our readers the go through the following process, talking for those who actually recognize the flag, as for the others nothing will change anyway:

Hmm, the French flag/ A national flag ... then either sure they are currently chairing this club or why is one country highlighted here over the other countries/ what makes this country special and then they either dig deeper into the subject and learn about it or not, but will have had an experience that there was some sort of privilege for one nation. If the flag is not there, this whole process will just not happen and I do not see why we should avoid this process to happen. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

@Logan, I feel, you defined the purpose of the infobox in a strictly limited way. I do not see the rationale for being so dogmatic. Why should we limit our own tools, rather than decide from case to case what is right and what is not.

IMO, as the editors we have the task to convey the message as an optimized mix being: correct, precise, clear, instructive, comprehensible, interesting, and esthetic. To this end, we should simply employ all tools that we have at our disposal. The infobox is a very powerful tool, because it catches immediate attention. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that I completely agree with Tom there on both points, put it a lot better than I've been able to! Lwxrm I have to admit of course that I was generalising on the Council being the only intergovernmental body but surely you get my point in that its essence differs from most of the other content in the EU infobox. The Mr. France example did draw a laugh from me also, haha I wonder actually if there would be any readers out there who would make that mistake. --Simonski (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think having the presidency's logo on such a dominant position in the infobox is enough political uncorrectness for this infobox (the council is not the only institution). To differentiate certain posts on the list of leaders by having a French flag there is not encyclopedic. If the Barroso family had a coat of arms, we obviously wouldn't place in next to José Barroso. But that would be in line with the flag icon. If editors on wikipedia could ignore WP:MOS freely in order to "help readers", Wikipedia would not look very neat. It's interesting how the poll above is being ignored when the minority of editors don't like the outcome. - SSJ ☎ 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost about as interesting as you ignoring the fact that the poll was 6-4, with the majority of voters appearing not to be overly fussed. Coming from a person who was in the complete minority on the sports issue not so long ago where we also had a non-binding poll, forgive me for sensing a hint of hypocrisy in your words SSJ. --Simonski (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SSJ, the remark on the poll can't serious. I do not even see the minority majority thing there. I remember Miguel's change of opinion that actually was not an opinion change but more a tactical move, and likewise did Logan, but not effect this action on the list. My remembrance of this poll is that it was laughable, to be positive about it. I can see that you are here for a long time, so you have probably heard that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that for good reasons (as we have experienced), if I may add. While I mention a policy, you argue on the basis of a guideline and a straw poll. Suggestion: let's rather talk about the good and bad of having the flag in there.

"If the Barroso family had a coat of arms, we obviously wouldn't place in next to José Barroso." Exactly, we wouldn't. Sadly, it appears as if you think our position would imply this. No, it does not. Our position (I hope I really speak for more than myself) would rather add the EU flag next to him—which, btw, is not intended.

"To differentiate certain posts on the list of leaders by having a French flag there is not encyclopedic" And why not? France is the only country in this list, so from that point of view it makes sense that only this item has a flag. But also content-wise it makes sense. What do you find unencyclopaedic? Tomeasy_{T C} 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I also add that it seems that neither side is going to convince the other here so maybe we should focus instead on just proposing alternatives that might soothe the concerns of the others. I dont know how Tom feels but for me something like Logan's third alternative mentioned earlier might be workable. --Simonski (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not like to add this line below the insignia. It would not look proper as the balance of flag and insignia would be destroyed. Plus, in many cases it would double information already conveyed by the figure.

Do not get me wrong: I am very open to alternatives and if, for whatever reason, in the end there is just no flag next to France, I would not be bothered at all. Much more important things are decided on other articles right now where the outcome really matters (see Georgia). But here, I am enjoying the intellectual discussion and most of all when new valid arguments come on the table. So be prepared, I might change my mind any time ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On the un-encyclopedic point as well, I should also say again that if you look at most articles, whether it be say, TV programmes or indeed some other organisations (random examples: Batman Beyond, Seinfeld, ASEAN, NAFTA), flags are present in the infobox. If you ask me, at the very least half of all Wikipedia articles seem to follow a standard practice of "country mentioned in infobox = flag of country beside country name". For me that would be another reason (albeit another minor one in this minor dispute) to have a flag beside the text. Where's a Frenchman when you need one. --Simonski (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it good that none of us is French? So, at least this counter argument is ruled out ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Still about the infobox flag

You talk of drawing attention the Council/intergovernmental point, though the article is supposed to be designed to provide a balanced and accurate portrayal of the topic - if one point needs emphasising then there is a flaw with the article. And I maintain my point that it is the supranational element that would be in need of emphasis considering people tend to imagine it to be more intergovernmental than it is. The response to that if I remember was that the article has a supranational emphasis - though again that draws into the problem of the article not providing a balance, the infobox is at the top and is the first contact - hence it is the common perception it should address rather than a lack of balance further down in the article beyond the infobox.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I do want to make the EU appear more intergovernmental in the article. It's not my intention to lift the Council over the other institutions. I want to draw the attention in the infobox to the intergovernmental nature of the Council, this is what the flag currently does, I think. However, I do not see the flag conveying the message look at me, I am more important than the Commission. That is at least not why I want it and I do no think this is what the current state does.

"people tend to imagine it to be more intergovernmental than it is" That is at least arguable. Many times I make the experience that people are rather afraid the opposite is the case and if you ask me it is more intergovernmental than it should be. But all that, our opinion and that of people[who?] is not our business when editing this article. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, people in my experience. But just here, you try to add anything semi state like regarding the EU on Wikipedia and you get an instant reaction from the EU-is-not-a-country brigade who start comparing it to the UN, AU and OSCE. Supranationalism is the most unique, intricate and confusing area of the EU - intergovernmentalism is very visible and understood.

As for your first paragraph there, I think that is essentially the same in its impact. You draw attention to the Council, you are lifting it above the other and, by raising its profile, you make it appear of greater importance - making it appear more intergovernmental. Sorry but in practice there is no difference even if in theory and intent there is.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the flag in front of the council makes this institution more apparent than the others. This is not my intention, actually, it is against my intention. So there is an argument for me not to have the flag in. If that balances what I explained as being my intention—I am not sure—but from my side we might remove the flag for the Council. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have a newly illustrated Governance section, I´m inclined to say the infobox-flag has become redundant. It adds no extra-value to the article anymore. The article explains the importance of the Council sufficiently I think. We have the insignia, the image and the written text in the intro and the Governance section. One practical comment: A flag within the infobox is a constant source of trouble and will pop up as a talk issue repeatedly. In other words; it costs nerves. Lear 21 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would still argue otherwise, but if I'm the only one left saying so then obviously I'll drop it. Logan as a sidepoint I couldnt disagree more on people coming and thinking its more intergovernmental than it is, that statement was pure opinion. I don't see how putting a flag beside France, as is generally done on most other articles (as I've said) whenever a country is mentioned, raises the profile of the Council above others. If you really wanted to split hairs here you could say well somebody is trying to emphasise supranationality by having (EPP) perhaps unneccessarily placed beside all the infobox entries.

I don't believe the governance section improvements change the flag issue and I seriously don't believe putting a tiny flag beside France will make somebody go "woah, the Council must be the big thing then that runs everything". The EU-is-not-a-country brigade you mention (which I'd be happy to be a card carrying member of) has little to do with the debate at this stage (indeed I could just as easily call the other side the federation yearning loonies), and I have to say Logan I'm of the opposite opinion of yourself, when I would read most of the EU article I'd say it gives an impression of more supranationalism than intergovernmentalism. I would hope on further thought you'd agree that there's a relatively good balance in views these days on the page to prevent in reality one side being over-emphasised at the expense of the other. --Simonski (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add as well again, the new governance image with the tagline explaining that France chairs the Council currently is a good idea. --Simonski (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume this debate is over then - nobody else agrees with me at this stage that the flag is worth keeping? If nobody has joined me in the next few days then I guess we can close this discussion! Shame. :( --Simonski (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am on your side, but removing the flag is OK for me. I have seen that the flag would also support something I do not want to convey. However, I also agree with you that there is a value in keeping the flag. And if you can add something new to the discussion, I am anyway open to it and might change my mind again. However, if you decide to drop the ball, then it seems that it's over. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, "drop the ball" makes it sound like I'll have failed the pro-flag side and be ultimately responsible for its demise. Rather harsh! I still would stand by all my points and think its a shame that people disagree - I feel at the end of the day a rather basic point was never answered by the other side - that most other pages seem to follow a standard practice of country mentioned in infobox = flag of country mentioned placed next to text. I'm guessing in other words Tom you're just bored of the discussion and want to see the end of it! Perhaps that was their plan all along - to prolong the debate until we became bored of it :P Damn them all! Do you feel then that Lear's new image/infobox (debated below in a separate section it seems interestingly) is enough then just out of interest? --Simonski (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't mean it harsh at all. Thanks for explaining me the meaning of my words. Actually, I even have a subpage on my user page where I encourage people to tell me such misunderstandings, but it has not become popular yet. It's not that I became bored of the discussion, I honestly enjoyed it. I found it very sincere, precise and intelligent, and except for some confusion in the middle also very civil. All this even though it was a minor issue to all of us, or perhaps that helped. So, I am really not bored. Our opponents just reached me with one arguments, and even though I would probably put the flag on my personal site, I appreciate their arguments so much that I can agree to this alternative. I hope and trust you do not feel betrayed.

The other issue with the European Council President's picture: i agree to it's inclusion as I argued there, but I think it's a separate question. I do not find it a good procedure to install it as a compromise like you get the picture, we take the flag. Fortunately, we are on Wikipedia and not in the European Council, so we do not have to make dirty compromises. I prefer to argue and decide on separate option individually and not to open a bazar. My apologies for probably having over interpreted everything a lot. I hope nobody feels offended. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, I actually thought you were a native speaker, which is obviously a good sign! But yeh, if somebody "drops the ball", they screwed up :P

Anyway, fair enough, I still think the Sarkozy picture is a related issue and that getting rid of the flag is only even remotely acceptable from my point of view if there's that clear restatement of some sort about the role of the Council at the start. I honestly believe if you read most of the page, contrary to what Logan suggested earlier, its tilted slightly more in favour of supranationalism than intergovernmentalism. You could argue thats reflective of reality perhaps but still, it is an important point I feel that should be addressed by reminding people of the very crucial role played by the Council still in many areas, such as the key one of Energy - if you look at the energy section for example you would fail to realise things such as the importance of current council discussions on the matter. At least in my view.

Alas, fair enough then, no worries Tom no feelings of betrayal here, I guess if its just me then we can close this issue. Ah well! --Simonski (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Economy of the union

the figures for the economy of the union is wrong the GDP for 2008 according to IMF it is €12,581 billion (US$18,493.009) and not US$16.8 trillion in 2007). its figures for 2007 and it is not trillion but billion, please update the page its protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.176.89 (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you to check your sources .. or better: read again what you just post since you have the answer right there in your hands.

Tip One: the GDP of Luxembourg only is around 30 Billion euro.
Tip Two: 17,000 billion USD = 17 trillion USD

Good luck solving the puzzle ;)

Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck solving the puzzle ;) We are on the high horse it needs updating we are in 2008 not 2007.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=998&s=NGDPD&grp=1&a=1&pr.x=52&pr.y=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.165.188.84 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In case "the puzzle" is not solved yet, the first editor said "...€12,581 billion ... not US$16.8 trillion ... figures for 2007 and it is not trillion but billion...". The point that I was trying to make is that €12,581.000 billion is equal to €12.581 trillion, so the numbers, as of 2007 are correct in the article.

WRT the previous reference, I went to the site and I did some queries myself: I got completely different results, check here. So I do not feel comfortable changing the article, specially when 2008 is not finished yet.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, we stick to stable and official figures, that means last years. It is clearly marked as so, hence causes no problems.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The figures in the link is just for the Euro area, the countries who use the Euro as currence but thats just 15 states out of 27. thats why you got completely different results, states like Poland-Denmark-Sweden-United Kingdom is not on that list. the real figures for European Union is US$18,493.009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.130.93 (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You were right, I went there and fixed the query, but a lot of values are now missing (like per capita) since most likely this is not official yet, how can we talk about GDP for 2008 when the year is not finished yet? Do you undertand the point we are trying to make here? BTW, why don't you sign with an account so we can take this conversation to your talk page. You seem to be a potential good contributor to Wikipedia, so I would strongly recommend you to go for an account. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we used the 2007 figure in 2007 because the EU had just enlarged and we would otherwise have had to explain that the 2006 figure only covered the then 25 member EU or create our own figure. I realise all of these figures are made up anyway but I feel more comfortable with a figure for a year which is at least passed over one for a year which has four months to go. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The IMF GDP data for the whole year 2008 will be published in April 2009. Until that time the figure for 2007 should remain. Lear 21 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Effecting"?

In the "Competition" section it says that the Competition Commissioner is "notable in effecting trans-national corporations". Shouldn't that be "affecting"? "Effecting" would mean that she caused trans-national corporations, and I don't think even she is that powerful! 81.159.61.104 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha good point, I don't know who drafted that section but it really depends on what the author was trying to say. Common sense would say yeh the person must have meant affecting? --Simonski (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably a non-native speaker; to be honest English language is a bit weird there with the words affect, effect, to effect and to affect. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Representatives for the institutions

I like the idea that Lear has implemented by putting a picture of the current Council President. In combination with the already existing picture of the Commission president, we have now a format that relates to many country articles that show a head of state and a head of government. Of course, in our case it visualizes rather the EU specific balance of power between the main institutions, i.e., intergovernmental and supranational.

What I am not 100% happy with is that the Commission President is placed far below in the section, actually in the subsection Political issues. I do not agree this is the appropriate place for this position. At this position its function to support the sui generis nature of the EU is lost. I see the problem that the three pillar image does presently not allow for the two Presidents to be shown at the same level. Do you think we can replace the pillars by the Commission President or do you have another idea? Tomeasy_{T C} 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the three pillars and the rotating presidency are clearly explained in the text. I don't think we need to have the pillar structure picture there at all and a shorter caption on the Sarkozy image would be more appropriate. IMHO we should move the Barroso image to where the pillar one is now. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very good to me. I will implement it for now, as it appears that there is no objection. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd be very wary of any move to get rid of the three pillars diagram - Although it is explained in the text my own experience is that people struggle to understand the three pillared nature of the EU without a diagram. I'd prefer to keep it somewhere. --Simonski (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you say to the following? Place the pillars exactly where they were and move Barroso to the right side, above or below Sarkozy. In the source, both peoples' pictures would appear right after the section header templates, and the pillars after the first paragraph. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm I tend to disagree with the addition of Sarkozy altogether. Baroso is president of the commission on personal title (ie when he is incapacitated he will be replaced with the vice-president and a new vice-president will be appointed by the EU); on the other hand France (the country) holds the presidency of the council, and Sarkozy is merely a representative of the country. If the French decide to depose of him his person will change without any EU involvement (which is fine as he (as a person) is not the president of the council but only its representative). Depicting him personally however implies he is acting on personal title (which he is not). So I would suggest to remove his picture from that section altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet he personally presides the European Council. As mentioned in the other thread, it is the same rotation that changes responsibilities in both institutions. How about this? We change the caption to something like Sarkozy holds the semi-annually rotating position as the President of the European Council? Tomeasy_{T C} 13:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

With my changes this morning, I also changed Barroso's picture (to a more professional one, IMO). Obviously, I did so, because I found that This is a better image of Barroso IMO. Now, SSJ reverted me with exactly these words. So, I find this better and install, he finds that better and reverts. Does not make much sense as a revert, I would say. The motivation for my change was that background of the version that SSJ favors awfully intersects the commissioner who is shot from a weird perspective. The picture that I advocate is a very sharp shot of him showing him executing his task with a background that supports the scene. Or is it that you like his smile on the other version better, SSJ? Tomeasy_{T C} 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I do not mind mentioning Sarkozy in the text, but I think putting up his picture is placing undue weight on his person rather than his position. Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind you :-) I am not talking about Sarkozy specifically, when I advocate to have two pictures up front in the Governance section: That of the President of the Commission and that of the President of the European Council. They are arguably the two most prominent representatives for the EU during their tenure. Like in country articles you have a head of state and a head of government, I think it makes sense, to have in the EU article the picture of the head of supranationalism and the head of inter-governmentalism. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about Sarkozy (who is very visible in his role of council president; more so compared to most).

My argument actually follow your analogy but interpreted differently. While the "head of state" is the person "Baroso", the "head of EU's government" is the country "France" but as 'Marianne' would be a difficult person for chairing meetings, this member state is represented by its political leader (in this case Sarkozy). Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the President of the European Council? It's a person. And btw this person is also the main political figure of the country that leads the Council. The position President of the European Council ranks high enough to be exposed next to the President of the Commission similar as is done in most country articles. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, and if I look at the media this is supported by frequency of mentioning, it is the "presidency of the Council" which is with the country (not the person) that is the central term. So in my view the presidency is the main political function, but as a country is not very easy to talk with they dispatch their leader to represent the country (in my view it is comparable to something like "Metropolitan Police Service" is making a statement instead of "Ian Blair" is making a statement).

NB I see your point of view as well as your arguments (which are politely and well-made), and your reasoning holds (some) merit. I just don't agree. Perhaps some additional viewpoints can break through this stalemate. Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is though that although the country is France, Sarko controls that country and hence the agenda presented by France is the agenda of Sarko. Hence, the political reality means we should show Sarko, not the impractical idea of presenting France.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I am misunderstood, I do not suggest to depict France, and I agree France is represented by Sarkozy. My point is that the comparison "Person who is Head of State" -> Image; "Person who is head of Government" -> Image, does not translate easily to the EU as the Head of the Government is primarily a country, and only in second instance a person. Therefore (and image overcrowding of the section) I would suggest to leave it at Baroso, and do not insert a "Head of Government" image at all. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, as it is also hard to get images of the more obscure heads. And then we also have the issue where there is a decent divide in powers between a country's president and PM (read about the fights in Finland and Poland on who gets to go to Council meetings?). Though, we have those good photos of Barroso at that French uni, was Sarko there? I'm just wondering it there is a free image lying about with both of them together. If not, we could always shrink the images, place them side by side using Template:Double image and have a caption refering to the rotating intergovernmental and appointed supranational posts?- _J.Logan`^t: 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a very valid point. It is not always clear from the beginning of the half year term who the acting President of the European Council is. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

@Arnoutf, drawing analogues is never exact as it's not digital :-) Anyway, if one wanted to do so here and compare to a state than you should compare the President of the Commission to a head of government and the President of the E. Council to the head of state. It would make more sense for some reasons that I do not mention because the analogy is still not exact anyway. However, we might think of the concepts head of the supranational instrument and head of the intergovernmental instrument. This is not a mere playing with words, these are the two sides the make the dualism of this union. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, we had a Council president image at this article already for several months without complaints. Both the Commission and the European Council are clearly the most important institutions within the EU. It seems to be not a mistake at all to have them equally represented here. Lear 21 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lear, no previous complains is hardly a gripping argument. Please try responding to the issues that have been brought up.

Tomeasy, I do agree on the head of state/government issue - though I really couldn't be bothered to bring that up - its not very important. Point is we have two top figures. IMHO the Commission President's role is far more important so if we show one it should be him. As for the Council President - as above we have some potential problems but we could adapt depending on the issues at the time. So in this case it is clear, Sarko is the only candidate and we have a photo. If we can fit him in, sure. If he displaced another image, which is a better aid to the reader for understanding the topic of the article.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add on a related point to the flag discussion - I agree with the new picture of Sarkozy mentioning the Council info being added and placed where it is. Interestingly, after the "now now Russia, don't do it again" farce the other day with the EU, (and I've no idea if the picture was used in other countries) I picked up a Polish paper that had with its main story a picture four of the main EU figureheads sitting at some sort of press conference with the EU logo in the background etc - it was the head of the Commission, head of the Parliament, and Sarkozy representing the Council (wasnt sure who the 4th was to be honest!). For me that was just further confirmation that Sarkozy is the current Council figurehead and that this sort of image on the EU page is useful. Random point but hopefully useful. --Simonski (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Political issues really needed ?

The section is right now in a very poor condition. Some statements appear to be redundant, some wishy-washy sentences are not even referenced. And it could be also argued that the "issues" are constantly changing and are not up to date anymore. I would surely not miss the section and its content after dissolution. Lear 21 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I also do not like the state of this section. Any trial for improvement will be regarded with sympathy from my side. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as it stand now it is a mess. What it mainly refers to is "Further integration and expansion"; which (if rewritten) maybe a valid section header, "issues" as header is too vague. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete it. It's horrible right now. People who want to revive, improve and rename it can do so. - SSJ ☎ 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found Arnoutf's idea of course much more constructive, though I am also not very motivate to do this work soon. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the very nature of the EU is a political issue, I think we should have some form of section on the topic so they could be brought up. Though admittedly I do not have the time to invest either. However I do oppose the incredibly rapid deletion of the section by SSJ as "per talk" - the issue has only just been raised and even though there have been no objections as such that was hardly enough time for other editors to raise any concerns.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the entire text of the section:

Two major political issues for the EU are European integration and enlargement. Enlargement, the accession of new states to the EU, is a highly politicised issue. Supporters such as the European Commission, argue it aids democracy in new members, as well as supporting the European economy as a whole.^[2] Opponents^[who?] fear the EU is expanding beyond its current political capabilities, and/or cultural boundaries. Public opinion^{[citation needed]}, and hence some political party viewpoint, has been more sceptical towards enlargement since the simultaneous accession of 10 members in 2004.^{[citation needed]} This is most acute in relation to the candidacy of Turkey.^[3]^[4]^[5]
Integration is another political issue, where the public view is sometimes that national interest conflicts with that of the Union as a whole.^{[citation needed]} The aim of increasing harmonisation between states has meant that national powers have been pooled at the European level. This aim is criticised by eurosceptics who fear the loss of national democracy.^[6]

I think many sentences here are either POV, low quality or both. (bombarded with tags anyway) My main issue with this section is its role in the structure of the article. The title is misleading as virtually everything in the article relates to political issues. I can't see a reason for having a separate section called "political issues". It could just as well be called "trivial information". It's mostly about enlargement - something which can easily be covered entirely in the history section (that includes enlargement fatigue and to a certain extent future plans).

I know that my ability to write quality text on the EU is far from perfect, but to say that "Supporters such as the European Commission, argue it aids democracy in new members, as well as supporting the European economy as a whole." is not a very reflected formulation IMO. "eurosceptics who fear the loss of national democracy" is not balanced (I'd say that the mainstream characterisation is that eurosceptics fear loss of sovereignty (the ref was biased)).

Please, anyone who wants to improve the section, revert my removal. I don't want to dictate anything. I probably was too quick to remove it, but I still think it's not a very good section. Merging an improved version of it into another section would be the ideal solution IMO. - SSJ ☎ 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think keeping the text is to go down a slippery slope. After all, the accession of Turkey is more of a problem in some member states than it is in others, as are views towards enlargement. Keeping it would bring the danger of having to add more and more sub-points/caveats until the thing would just grow to ridiculous levels, turning into a mini "Pros and cons" of the EU section. I've no problem therefore with its removal. --Simonski (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted the text is crap, I was speaking about the concept btw.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A section called Integration and expansion would certainly add value to the article. I find, politically they are the most interesting topics when talking about the development of the EU. This section should be about concepts and scenarios and not about the opinions of individuals or peoples and their respective pros and cons. It's a demanding task, which apparently nobody is ready to do alone. However, we could start working on it together, either on the copy SSJ has placed here or in a sandbox. We have time for this. The first question would just be, do we want this? Tomeasy_{T C} 11:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If a new section is written, we must be sure its scope doesn't collide with the history section. We don't need wishy-washy duplication. I don't think we need a section called Integration as, again, that's what the EU (ergo the whole article) is all about. It's hard to separate the historical enlargements that are included in the history section, from a new section on the "political aspects" of enlargement. - SSJ ☎ 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted, there would be too much overlap. How about "political context"?- _J.Logan`^t: 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, that sounds very diffuse. Can we just make it clear here what the article currently needs? I think it would be possible to cover the political processes surrounding enlargement, partly under history and partly under foreign relations. - SSJ ☎ 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should really watch out that the section does not loose itself in political statements and opinions. Not that it ends up one days like the current version. I am afraid political context will attract exactly this kind of contributions. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps this is like a criticism section - might be important to the topic but is a potential minefield in practice.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically yes. I think the best thing to do would be to briefly sum up the deeper v. wider debate at the end of the history section, and leave it at that. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal Europe says "How far this integration should go, and whether or not federalism is desirable, is subject to much debate.". I think something like that is sufficient for this article as well. We don't need a dedicated criticism section to include that. - SSJ ☎ 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Justice, Freedom, Security - Merger ?

The section Justice, Freedom, Security in it´s current state explains several treaties, policies, or institution-like agencies. Are there any objections to merge the J,F,S section and the Fundamental Righs into the main Governance section? Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it is good to keep it separate given the pillar issues.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, fundamental rights is a topic which covers all three pillars... I dont think this would be a useful merger. For me, fundamental rights is one of the key EU areas of activity/concern (perhaps I'm biased from the law perspective) and I'd thus say it should be a separate section, perhaps even separate from J,F,S? Or in a more fitting counterpart section? The whole fundamental rights sphiel originated in the first pillar after all, and is only in recent years entering the second and third pillar in any significant way. Thats just my take. I think if you were going to keep it in J,F,S it might be more useful to rename the section simply "Human rights", less misleading and arguably more accurate for its current position. --Simonski (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted the charter is more wide ranging, though the topic I think would come under justice. Separate or know, I feel they are important.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's important here to distinush between different kinds of government activity in relation to fundamental rights. Where the EU is bound to respect fundamanetal rights by the ECHR of the Rights' Charter it does indeed affect all areas of policy. However when the EU passes an act on racial discrimination or discrimination in the workplace, this is rather a different kettle of fish, and primarily affects us and not the EU's functioning. It might be a good idea to split to the fundamental right section to reflect this. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

JFS is part of the articles thematic approach to dealing with the EU. It's meant to describe EU activity in the area of justice and home affairs. It's not about how the EU is governed but about an area of policy. Since this is a relatively new area which has developed over several treaties, it describes that development. And since much of the policy is carried out by EU agencies, it describes them too. I guess we could place less emphasis on the development of the policy and more on what the EU actually does, but it a very significant area where the EU has wide reaching powers - wider than most people realise - so I can't see getting rid of it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there was a misunderstanding for some editors. The complete content and the sections are to be kept. The proposal is to integrate them as subsections into the Governance section. Lear 21 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You might as well address me directly Lear. As far as I can see moving and or merging the section under the governance section is as good as deleting it. JFS is a policy area , it doesn't belong under governance. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to remedy some of the problems of the old JFS section. Info on the Charter now goes under the legal section and much less info is given on the various treaty changes. How does it look? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2 huge MISTAKES ,1 old new

1) Greenland in the presentation map isn't coloured like EU all over the world.Greenland is EU because is under Denmark!

2)The economical lists where is EU susch as GDP and others present also Cia list which is NOT credible because a national and so partial agency.

3)The news about european army are old and very insufficient because of its fastness with which has developed!

Thanks.

Giosue' Lorenzo Campi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.188.124 (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) It is autonomous from the EU and withdrew after a vote in the 1980s. 2) The CIA has no reason to lie on its website about GDP figures that correlate with others. As much as I distrust the CIA, its factbook is as partial as any other source. 3) Sorry, something in the EU developing fast? Granted these things move on but the points remain - it still hasn't been established and all other relevant events are mentioned.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Greenland is Denmark and so is EU.

When states sign treaties they can decide what bits of their territory the treaty applies and to which bits that the treaty doesn't apply to. Just because Denmark is part of X body doesn't mean that Greenland is as well. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cia is anational agency and not credible to set in a world book!

As per JLogan Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

EDA is much more complex than is written!

So is everything else. The article's meant to be a summary. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are too american glasses in this writings!

????? Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

GL CAMPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.184.253 (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the GDP figures from the IMF here?--Boson (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't even thought of that. We don't use the CIA's GDP figures. We do use their coastline figure though. Maybe there's a conspiracy to convince us that we have less coastline than we think -:) Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cia isn't an international and mondial recognized organizzation so its coastline in gDP and other subjects in Wikipedia are 0.

GL CAMPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.194.112 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) The news about EDA are very very poor in confront of all developements which happened last years.If you go on EDA site it's the same.There are many missions all over the world of EDA and with the Pettersberg Treaty EDA is First in using weapons before Nato. Main thing if you study the NPT a law asked by Italy and Germany allow at a plitical eurpean subject (at that time EU didn't exist) to declare itself in every moment NUCLEAR POWER.The NPT is known in all its parts very badly.The news was given in Italy first time by the italian ex ambassador to UN Sergio Romano.May be it would be better to develope EDA situation to do not let in ignorance many people!

THANKS. GL CAMPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.192.124 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re CIA, just because its not international doesn't mean it is invalid. Fine us a fact on it that is grossly incorrect?

On EDA. It is still just meant to be a summery. Improved the EDA article with citations and we can maybe correct a few things here but it is not mean to have any great detail. Also, please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ after then. Please also consider registering.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Cia is anational agengy and if we began to use it everiwhere it become a wrong praxis.Cia has different datas from IMF which is the main source.Cia coastline can't stay as official datas iWikipedia,otherwise we should call it Americapedia.EU army is very very important now and in the future all over the world!Many treaties very old have some laws which only high politics know better than us! Think about ex UN italian ambassador Sergio Romano.I think his entourage know international laws and situation better than other common people! THANKS.

GL CAMPI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.185.237 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy

Does it make sense to visualize the situation of an external supplier (Russia) in this section ? Even if I can´t provide a source, I´m 90% sure the oil imports from Norway and the Middle East region are of equal amount and importance. I´d rather see a map/image representing the situation within the European Union. Any idea how to solve this? Also, the EURATOM is not even mentioned. Lear 21 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Euratom isn't actually part of the EU. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, not formally but I think it is safe to include it considering it is governed the same. I suppose its like a personal union in a way...

On the map. Well regarding Russia I think we are far more depending on Russia, hence the desire to "reduce dependency on Russia" we keep hearing about. Perhaps we could get a source to check this though? As for replacing it with inside the EU - I'm not sure what that would say - just a map of pipelines across Europe? Not very helpful I think - and regardless, we need the map first before we can talk about replacing the current one. If we can get one, perhaps a chart on energy imports v usage?- _J.Logan`^t: 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For the beginning: 45% of EU oil imports originate from the Middle East, 21% from Russia. 40 % of EU gas imports originate from Russia, 30 % Algeria, 25 % Norway. [2], [3] The percentage of oil & gas as primary energy source (among nuclear, coal, renewables) is about 50 - 60 %. That means roughly, that Russia provides 20% of the EU total energy consumption. About 25% is provided by the Middle East incl. Algeria.

I don´t see the significance of Russia therefore. Maybe I find some sources for all the energy imports and make a list. Even better would be a list of all primary energy sources in percentage used in the EU. My first research didn´t found cohesive data sets. We´ll see....Lear 21 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, though do remember that 1) Russia is a single unit with a single foreign policy - hence better able to use its weight and 2) some middle eastern pipelines will be running through the routes on that map - so it is not just Russia but also the middle east and central asia.- _J.Logan`^t: 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lear that it would be interesting to show a split off for the EU's energy imports. To this end, it's more informative than a map that is easily misunderstood in the sense that everything comes from Russia. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see the routes, too. I look forward to presenting cohesive data on the provenience soon. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 2006 the 27 member states of the EU had a gross inland energy consumption, by fuel of 1.825.181 (1 000 tonnes of oil equivalent)." Please clarify this statement, currently introduced in the Energy section. Unfortunately, I can't do the job, since I am not even sure that I understand what is meant. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Boson, for digging up everything that was needed! Tomeasy_{T C} 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The EU currently imports 82% of its oil and 57% of its gas, making it the world's leading importer of these fuels." If we agree on not having rank numbers for GDP, area, and population, I think, we should also refrain from the last statement in this sentence. The first part of the sentence is of course OK. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the passage , making it the world's leading importer of these fuels. Tomeasy_{T C} 23:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Euro issue

We appear to be having some issues on Euro, Euro coins and Euro banknotes regarding differing opinions on Euro, euro and euros. As I'm sure people are aware, the official use of the name euro is in lowercase and the plural for euro and cent is the same as the singular. Of course it should be noted that English language rules differ and information intended for the public is recommended to use euros and cents. The general consensus thus far as been to use the official terminology - indeed it is commonly used in Ireland where the media have taken the lead from the institutions. However, on the three articles mentioned above there has been some edit warring between people, usually IPs, who hold a differing opinion to that of the traditional practice here. Hence, first I'd like people here to add some weight on the issue and secondly I'd like to add this issue to our new WP:EU style guidelines in order to give the consensus side extra weight (though may I add, that if people wish us to use the informal s plural then lets please debate what style should be adopted by the project). May I request that page debate be taken to those pages where the edit warring is taking place and MOS debate is taken on that page's talk page - rather than here. Thanks. - _J.Logan`^t: 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a comment on this, quoting two EU style guides (current and past versions) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines‎. It looks as if the EU is having a rethink, possibly because of the Constitution and concerns by new members.--Boson (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

POPULATION - rankings

Why don't you erase also population and density ranking after having erased gdp ranking?It's a huge contraddiction!There are too partial ideas!And also too people to make happy in Usa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.189.194 (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For once a unregistered IP make a valid point. It really doesn't make nay sense to have rankings for area and population if we have agreed to avoid having them for GDP. I vote to remove all the rankings from the page. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the EU is a political complete subject and not a simple organization like many ignorant or pride nationalist people believe!Many people should study laws more.Mr Blue hired lawyer is surely an english anti EU ythat likes ireland because of NO Treaty vote.You are not credible if yuo leave this people write about EU.They are here only to false datas. SO THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO SET ALL RANKINGS!THANKS! dr Campi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Taxi for Dr. Campi please. --Simonski (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxi is for unable like you1Study more somaro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we use english here please. Agree with Blue Haired Lawyer, the numbers are ok, but ranking is nonsense as the EU is not a country and this would introduce all the same problems why GDP is not ranked. Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So how can you define a country?EU if you look at all things is a COUNTRY!Many people have no idea of laws and international treties. The problem is too many young people don't study enough!The truth is gdp of EU is 1st in the world and usa 2nd.Phone in Brussels!Make phone Wikipedia director in Brussels to open the ears!The truth is that Wikipedia is based in Florida and Usa don 't like to be 2nd! If they don't change they won't ever be a true Encyclopedia.Many people is telling me rthat Wikipedia is at low level! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.186.4 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User 79.xx is also disrupting the talk boards on the US site with his sometimes coherent ravings concerning the EU being a country (and the bestest one evar!). Is there some anti-disruption action we can take against him/her?LedRush (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You could always try and have him banned for trolling but it's hard enough to have someone banned overt vandalism. Best just humour and/or ignore him. He'll go away eventually. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Country issues pops up from time to time and is explained in our FAQ section. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see in the presentation of EU talking of "an hybrid of internationalism and sovranationalism".Very different things and very very confused ideas!Why aren't they able to explain the TRUE ESSENCE of EU?In Usa site people has created in ranking datas Ameripedia.In gdp lists there's also Cia list which is 0 because it's a national agency.But here is everithing approsimative!It 'd be better change many things in honour of reality! I don't understad ignorance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.186.23 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU is not a country, nor does it have a unified economy. If it had a unified economy a ranking would be supportable. Imagine if the United States included the GDP of all nations with which it has trade treaties with as its own GDP?

It is fair to rank those nations using the euro. These have at least the beginnings of a unified economy. If the EU is to include every nation with EU trade treaties it needs to include Chinese GDP as well. So, let's think of the Reader first? The EU does not yet have a unified economy and when it does, then it will be appropriate to discuss what then exists. Raggz (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No it is not fair to rank the Eurozone, because to prevent duplicates we would need to remove all separate Eurozone countries from the lists. The EU is currently somewhere between a country/federation and an international treaty organisation. Wikipedia should follow mainstream accepted interpretations (which tend to err on the safe side) hence we do not attribute the EU anything that conflicts with the sovereignty of its members (without clear agreement of these countries). (PS note that this issues has been previously been discussed here, and on the ranking list of GDP's and that a similar conclusion was reached on both, the EU (or part thereof) is not a country, but it is worthwhile to mention it in that context, as long as it does not interfere with true countries - Which a ranking would). Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about NATO? We could lump the GDP of this supernational organization and thus create the most powerful economy on earth? Well ... maybe not.

Do we include those nations with trade agreements with Portugal in the Portugese GDP?

Australians have UK employment rights, does Australia get put into UK GDP?

I'm fine with lumping whatever makes sense, so why does lumping the disparate european economies that do not share a currency together? How does this make sense - please define the criteria? Raggz (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding beteween you and me. I think that the EU should NOT be lumped togehter; AND that even lumping togehter the Eurozone would already be taking it too far, so that even the Eurozone should NOT be lumped together. Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In this site there the worst of knowledge.How much money destroyed to make study such guys! EU has ALL institutions.The difference between EU and other political being is propagand!That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.186.23 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What institutions. The council and commission are populated by representatives of the governments (like the UN, the Nato etc). So these essential governing bodies do not qualify as that of a country. So no, the EU lacks democratically chosen representation in some political offices. Secondly, monetary union, army, sovereingty, taxation, courts, civil rights etc etc are not organised at the EU level at the level of a country (not even a federal country), so no the EU does not have these institutions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So who elect the governments that send rapresentants?Nato is only a military organization like other are only economical.You say EU isn't democratic, and other countries?Also Usa isn't democratic because Cia chief isn't elected! How can you say that there aren't common policies in (also with different currencies)financials,soverignity (look at your passport,above all EU),army,justice,civil rights and so on?Do you live in Utrecht (EU) or on the moon.Read and check the official site of EU (which is more credible than Wikipedia!) and you'll understand the huge quantity of stupid things you wrote.Read before than writing!READ!Somaro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.186.23 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is nonsense. The CIA director is controlled by the US government, there is no EU government that has the power to control council or commission (a problem the constitution would have partially solved).

Yes there are common policies, but then again there are common policies from Nato, UN, IMF, IOC. etc. (my passport opens with "In the name of the Queen of the Netherlands" no mention of any EU institute anywhere but on the cover); what army, there is none, what justice the European court is almost impossible to approach for a citizen (again, the constitution would have improved this). So no, it seems you are living in a fantasy world; not me. I think most people, commentators and politicians in the world would agree with my statement that at this moment in tme the EU is the most closely integrated community that is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Has somedy explained you that Nato or Nafta follow only army or economy?In front of your passport my LIER what is written?So doesn't exist the EU court of justice,that's new!EDA doesn't exist but has done huge demonstrations in south Italy.Esa does't exists,but arrives at ISS!Galileo will send to old irons gps ,but for you is fantasy!ALL institutions exist!Study more and study right souces like EU web official site before than tellin stupidities.I can't understand how you can be part with your ignorance of EU Wikipedia members! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.186.23 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand what I am saying. That maybe because you do not want to understand, or it maybe that your control of English is not sufficient. In both cases there is nothing I can do to come to a solution. (Please study the English language before commenting again as this is going nowhere). Arnoutf (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:"Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding beteween you and me. I think that the EU should NOT be lumped togehter; AND that even lumping togehter the Eurozone would already be taking it too far, so that even the Eurozone should NOT be lumped together. Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)" I have thought about this and realized that the EU and the Eurozone are related, but seperate topics. A discussion of the eurozone (except in passing or to a another article) violate WP policy.

The present discussion about the imaginary Euro economy violates WP policy, because the EU does not have an economy. Modern economies share at least two qualities that the EU lacks, (1) a common currency and (2) a central bank.

Now, perhaps someone can define the word "economy" in a way that includes both a variety of unlinked currencies and operating without a central bank? If so, fine, then this section does not violate WP policy. If not, it does violate policy and so requires deletion. Does the EU (1) have a single unified currency and (2) does the EU have a central bank? If neither condition exists, may we agree that the EU lacks a unified economy in the modern sense? 71.193.22.200 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a sources that confirms that indeed makes the statements "Modern economies share at least two qualities (1) a common currency and (2) a central bank".

Secondly, while I know this is debatable, the EU has a common currency (which is not necessarily the same as single unified currency). New member states have agreed to participate in this at the earliest moment possible. Danish crown is pegged to that currency and makes it therefore very similar. And the UK has negotiated an opt out rule. And, yes the EU has a central bank the ECB (European Central Bank) - although that is not controllng UK pound (opt out) it is the Euro, is has recently intervened with massive injections in the economy during the US mortgage crisis, playing an important role comparable to that of the Fed, and completely taking over such tasks from national banks of the members. Arnoutf (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU may or may not be "an economy". I suggest that without a common currency or a central bank, it cannot be. You of course may offer a coherent definition of "economy" that applies to the EU. So why is the EU an "economy" without sharing a common currency or having a central bank?

You and I know that the EU and the US dollar are accepted widely outside of their issuing authorities. If the euro goes as planned, it will never be the EU currency, that much was decided years ago. If this changes, then we should modify the article, today, there is no common currency. If I take pounds to Italy, what then?

So, may I take pounds to Italy - or not? Need we make this a technical debate unsuited to an encyclopedia? Are we telling the reader that there is only one currency within the EU - or not? Raggz (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy you banned is TOTALLY RIGHT!Thanks.In front of all EU passport is also U that there's written above all EU.NO QUUEN!A huge Lier in my opinion!Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.118.196 (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally accuse anyone of being a sock puppet, but I believe that 151.60.118.196 is most likely the same person as 87.18.185.187, 79.13.186.4, 79.9.189.194, 79.12.191.143, 87.20.186.23, and Vindobona. The only articles that these IPs have contributed to is this talk page as well as Talk:United States with the same arguments and writing style. Kman543210 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious, Dr. Campi has taken the taxi. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that they are sock-puppet IP's but I still want to add my comment cause this person doesn't seem to understand the difference between the EU and a sovereign country. The European UNION is a collection of seperate, sovereign nations, their collective GDP may total more than the United States BUT the United States is one single nation, the European Union may exhibit all the trademarks of a nation, but the truth is, it is just a supranational organisation of individually governed, diverse nations. In the GDP rankings, all the nations of the EU have individual placings because they are their own countries, just as China is ranked, as are Hong Kong and Macau, but they aren't numerically ranked because they are part of China. The EU article itself states "The European Union is composed of 27 independent sovereign countries which are known as member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[20]", note the words independent, sovereign countries. Im not sure how to explain it any simpler than that. But i will leave you with a final message. THE EU IS NOT A COUNTRY, IT IS AN ORGANISATION OF COUNTRIES. Taifar ious1 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have to point this out to an experienced editor but we are not here to discuss the nature of the European Union. This is not a forum for general discussion about the EU. Moreover, please don't feed the troll. It's just annoying and pointless. Blue-Haired Lawyer 06:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental human rights within the EU

This text was deleted: "The citizens of the EU do not have constitutional rights in the sense that these exist elsewhere and within many EU states because the European Union does not have a constitution.^[7]"

Why was this deleted? One of the most remarkable features of the EU is that it is a modern democracy without a constitution (or direct election of its president by its people). The Reader should be informed that fundamental human rights within the EU are handled differently than anywhere else in our world. How does it serve the Reader to omit this remarkable fact?

The Lisbon treaty is now relevant only in regard to EU history and has no present relevance to fundamental human rights within the EU. I deleted this reference as no longer relevant, but this was reverted. Why is the Lisbon Treaty relevant to the Reader today within this context? Raggz (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted. The line makes no sense. It is hard to understand and it makes no sense if you disect it. An example of an equally non-sensical sentence would be The EU does not engage in magic as does Gandalf as the EU has no magic users. Well yes, obviously you don't do things you have no access to. The line is trivial, and irrelevant.

However, I have some doubt about the democratic level of the EU; especially because there is not direct election but a very indirect and opague election procedure; and there is almost complete lack of control of commissionars by the only truly democratic body, the parliament (something the constitution (RIP) would have improved), but that is another discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence. Mainly I'd prefer it if the article avoids the whole constitution debate. There are several problems with the statement anyway:

1. All EU member states have constitutions. The UK has an unwritten one. Even for countries with written constitutions, what counts as a constitutional right differs from country to country. In France and the Netherlands where the courts don't exercise judicial review constitutional rights have a different significance to Ireland and Germany where the courts do exercise judicial review.

2. Whether the EU currently has a constitution is a matter of debate. Many people believe that the EU does have a constitution in the form of the treaties.

2. EU citizens do have constitutional rights in the sense that the ECJ adjudicates on fundamental rights derived from the "constitutional traditions common to the Member States." It can be quite difficult to distinguish this idea from, say, the doctrine of unenumerated rights in the Irish Constitution.

There is simply too much to many debatable elements and errors in the statement which would need whole articles to discuss them properly. This is why I deleted it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now reads rather well. A new article discussing the possibly post-democratic structure of the EU might or might not be appropriate, but adding more than a sentence or two in this article would disrupt the rather nicely written and concise present structure. There would likely would then be unproductive debate. The addition of: The citizens of the EU do not have constitutional rights in the sense that these exist elsewhere and within many EU states because the European Union does not have a constitution.^[8]" works rather nicely and it refers the reader to an insightful academic source for more information. No one can debate that this is both accurate and highly relevant to topic of fundamental human rights within the EU. The Reader deserves a succinct sentence something like the one offered. Perhaps a citation or two might be added, but to extend this very much would lead to unproductive debate of no value to the Reader. 71.193.22.200 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 71.193.22.200 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Mainly I'd prefer it if the article avoids the whole constitution debate." I appreciate your preference, but ask that you consider if the constitutional debate is relevant to fundamental human rights within the EU? Just state that this debate in unimportant or insignificant to the topic? 71.193.22.200 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, for me the line is tautological. "No EU constitutional rights because there is no EU constitution"... Duhhh And indeed in the case of England some qualifier would be needed "UK citizens do have rights comparalbe to constitutional rights although England has no constitution".

Note that my problem is not so much whether it is referenced (which is possible, especially from a UK source, a country that learned to live without a constitution), the issue is much more whether it is informative and or necessary for the article. (e.g. there will be a reference that Alpine Granite is heavy, but that does not mean we should add that information to this article) Arnoutf (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has claimed (yet) that the absense of an EU constitution is irrelevant to fundamental human rights within the EU. For this reason, no one has advanced any argument against inclusion of the sentence. I believe that we have tacit consensus for inclusion, and also for avoiding any debate on this topic? Anyone with a relevant citation should of course add it, the Reader should be informed but not burdened with off-topic debate or extra material unless they click on this. So, does anyone claim that the lack of an EU constitution is irrelevant to the reader? (Judging by the internal EU debate volume, this topic is certainly not irrelevant to EU members.) Raggz (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"It maintains a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy.[5]" While true, none of these claims are supported by even one citation. (Citation #5 is irrelevant to all claims.) A few citations here would improve the article. Raggz (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you have not convinced anybody here, nor does it seem you are going to, so it might be worth dropping this particular point. Having studied EU law in depth and having to recently address as one issue "is the ECJ still building an EU constitution", with most in the know acknowledging that there is some form of EU Constitution already in place, I don't think the proposed sentence is useful in any way. --Simonski (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU does not have a constitution, it has an alternative legal system. The deleted text had a citation that fully and fairly discussed this alternative legal scheme. More ould be added. If the EU actually has a contitution, what was the attempt to pass an EU constitution about? It seems silly to hold the view that a constitution that was never ratified somehow exists.

The alternative legal scheme used by the EU instead of a constitution is likely of interest to the Reader, not enough to deserve much discussion, but enough to at least reference so that the Reader can learn more of this if they are interested. How does it harm the article to mention that the EU has no constitution and cite some academic discussion of the presnt alternative legal scheme?

Is there a consensus that further discussion on the topic (if the EU has a constitution) is presently pointless and that we should instead discuss how to most productively resolve this lack of consensus? Might we instead just tell the Reader the facts? This seems smpler to me. Raggz (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression, and I could be wrong, that you are the only one with an issue here, which from my understanding would bring the discussion to an end. Anyway, I think you meant to write "does not have a written constitution", as with the EU most people involved in constitutional studies would say there does indeed already exist a constitutional framework in the EU. Furthermore, as somebody pointed out earlier, the UK doesnt have a written constitution, yet it is generally accepted that the UK does still have a constitution. So again, I do not agree with what you are saying here. --Simonski (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me attempt to simplify so that we may conclude. Is the EU constitutional system typical for most liberal democracies? No, I feel strongly that it is not. Are the differences within the EU constitutional system properly summarized for the Reader? I say no.

Am I alone in answering no twice? Raggz (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are alone in comparing the EU constitutional setup to that of nation states, when most would agree that the EU is in a unique position between international organisation and loose federation at the moment, hence "sui generis" in the infobox, which then allows the reader to delve further into what "sui generis" means exactly, etc etc.

The EU cannot be compared to other "liberal democracies" - of course it can for an interesting academic study however but its not something I believe is relevant for the main page. At the moment the EU still remains just a large hat that is worn on top of 27 liberal democracies. --Simonski (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh come off it, intergovernmentalism is of course classic IO systems dominated by the actors in the Council. But the Community has always been taking its lead from federalism and we'd be foolish not to make a comparison to help people understand. It is of course more complex, which should be made clear, but you have an executive proposing legislation, which then goes to be considered by two bodies which share legislative and budgetary authority. The text then flies between these two bodies till the agree and pass the law. The executive then ensures it is implemented and the Court enforces. What part of this so far is not a classic system of governance?

As for a comparison to liberal democracies. The EU has poor separation of powers and a lack of accountability to the executive due to a lack of direct linkage to elections. However it is appointed by nationally elected officials and ratified by directly elected officials with the potential for a parliamentary system is Parliament pushed and made good use of its existing powers. Parliament can also sack the Commission, to it does have some accountability. So the main differences seam to be an executive with weak powers (some held by Council) and a lack of accountability, and a legislative branch tilted in favour of the indirectly elected chamber.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, Logan were you addressing me there or Raggz? I suspect the first paragraph was to me? As I said, comparisons may be interesting elsewhere but I do not believe they belong on the EU main page. These sorts of comparisons are always subjective and the ones used depend on the editors involved (ie. the myth we've seen brought up a few times here that the EU system was based on the German system) and again it arguably brings in this frankly boring debate over how much intergovernmentalism/supranationlism there is in the EU. The EU system may have similarities to the systems of its member states but that does not take away from the fact that the EU is unique here, one of a kind, and impossible to compare fully to the situation in any nation state. Perhaps you'll disagree since you already believe the EU is a federation, a claim which is far from the general view in Europe as you well know.

My point was a simple one, that if you try to compare how the EU functions to how say, the USA functions, as if they follow the same template, you're undoubtedly going to get confused/run into problems. Addressing democratic deficit concerns and so on would just lead to the same problems we would have if we had a criticism section. After all its one of the most commonly cited criticisms against the EU.

That said, I say we drop this and stop trying to dumb the article down so average Joe can understand it. If they want comparisons of the EU system they can look elsewhere, this is not supposed to be an academic journal it is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia.

To return to the original point the line that was added is not useful and I do not believe the constitutional debate to be useful for the EU article. --Simonski (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted, the point is dealt with and we can't have too much detail. I was just replying to the increasingly academic discussion.- _J.Logan`^t: 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the EU does not have a constitution is both interesting and relevant. The fact that it has an alternative constitutional scheme, one without precedent is interesting and novel. We don't have to explain this topic in detail, but we should add two sentences with footnotes.

For example: The EU presently does not have a constitution because it tried to adopt a constitution but has been unable to get unanimous agreement from the member nations. The EU presently employs an alternative system, a matrix of treaties that some believe serve the same purpose that a constitution would. (footnotes)

Why make it complex? These two, or another two sentences will serve the purpose of informing the Reader, and are accurate and interesting. Raggz (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While this may all be true, the fundamental rights sections is probably not the place to discuss the general absence of a constitution. (your suggested line itself is by the way rather complex and would need copyediting before it can be slotted in elsewhere) Arnoutf (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For every complex question there is a simple answer (and it is probably wrong).

Stating that the EU does not have a constitution would be misleading and require a non-neutral definition of "constitution". There may not be a (ratified) document entitled "Constitution of the European Union", but by the same token you could probably argue that the UK does not have a constitution, that the United States of America does not have a Bill or Rights and that you do not have a personality.

It has been established that the EU does have a valid constitutional charter.--Boson (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is commonly accepted that neither the EU, nor the UK have a constitution. This is not complex, and is accurate. How can the alternative and novel means to have a constitution without actually having a constitution not be related to fundmental human rights? So it is called a constitutional charter? So tell the Reader that. Just tell the Reader how the EU constitution is called the constitutional charter, and it ______(whatever is interesting about it).

constitutional charter Constitution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 (Redirected from Constitutional charter)

A constitution is a system for government, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles of an autonomous political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. Most national constitutions also guarantee certain rights to the people. Historically, before the evolution of modern-style, codified national constitutions, the term constitution could be applied to any important law that governed the functioning of a government.

Constitutions concern different kinds of political organizations. They are found extensively in regional government, at supranational (e.g., European Union), federal (e.g., United States Constitution), state or provincial (e.g., Constitution of Maryland), and sub-national levels. They are also found in many political groups, such as political parties, pressure groups, and trade unions.

Non-political entities such as corporations and voluntary associations, whether incorporated or not, may also have a constitution. The constitution of a legally incorporated entity is more usually styled as its memorandum and articles of association (U.S. incorporation).

What fundamental rights does the EU constitution protect? Raggz (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement that neither the EU nor the UK has a constitution is indeed not complex. However it is both inaccurate and misleading (though it may be commonly believed in some circles). The quoted Wikipedia article says 'often codified as a written document". The Wikipedia article on the Constitution of the United Kingdom may also be relevant.

Perhaps one should read

Bagehot, W.; The British Constitution
Turpin, C and Tomkins, A; British Government and the Constitution
Anson, W.; The Law and Custom of the Constitution
King A.; The British Constitution
Bélanger, C; The British Constitution
Bogdanor, V: The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century

One could also go to a lecture on something like "The British Constitution and the Institutions of Parliamentary Government" at an American university, or even read Thomas Jefferson.

As regards the existence of an EU constitutional charter, ECJ 294/83 Les Verts might be a good place to start.--Boson (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not commonly accepted that the EU nor UK have no constitution! Political theorists, constitutional lawyers, social scientists accept that the UK has a constitution. The same is true for the EU (although there is more debate here). Your view on the lack of constitution is in a minority rather than a majority. Your citation from Wiki seems to undermine, rather than support your argument. What part of the cited passage supports the notion that the EU doesn't have a constitution? The EU does seek to protect certain fundamental rights, see Article 6 TEU (which is a term in-itself far from clear and not even part of the passage you gave which only mentions "certain rights"). The right to vote is part of the rights of citizenship and could be considered a fundamental right. As could the free movement rights...and so on. The fact that the EU attempted to introduce a document called the "Constitution" is not evidence that we didn't have a constitution before. It appeared no more "constitutional" in many respects than preceding treaties. I know whether the EU has a constitution is hotly debated. I see no reason for this article to support that it doesn't outright, any more than it should state that it does. Your sentences are far too simplified and present the issue to plainly. Lwxrm (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Break (fundamental rights)

Can I just maybe save us all a lot of time here - Raggz it would seem to me that there is little if any support for the line you are proposing. I understand that the issue has obviously been raised in good faith and that you may feel that it may add something but I have to agree completely with the points of the others and repeat again that I think this is an issue that has to be left alone. I would certainly strongly oppose the introduction of any sentence similar to those proposed here.

I from my personal view, and the academic staff I have dealt with throughout my time dealing with the area of EU law, would all argue very strongly against your claim that there is not an "EU constitution". As I said already, I even had to do an assignment a few months back on whether the ECJ is "still building an EU constitution". My view has always been that the rejected document that they claimed was a constitution had actually very little constitutional content in it, and that the real EU constitution already existed without the need for such ridiculous and over-ambititous fanfare.

Anyway, the fact is the matter is just not straightforward enough to stick a sentence in about as you wish to do and the constitution debate is something that has, and should remain avoided on this page for similar reasons as to why say, there is no criticism section. Its far too subjective. Instead I would say please lets move on to another topic, it is useful to have another editor come along and say what they think can be improved about the page but this is not an area where you will find much support, best to use your energy on another section of the article is what I'd say. --Simonski (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing that the constitution failed and that you now claim that there is one? Was the proposed constitution rejected - or not? Raggz (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A document with the title Constitution was rejected. The name of the "thing" is not always evidence of what the "thing" is, nor is it evidence that the "thing" did not exist before the document. Look to the "form" of the thing and you will see it was no more of a constitution than the other Treaties. It is, after all, just a name (and an ill-chosen name at that) Lwxrm (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To put Lwxrm's point in a proverb: If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck (regardless whether people call it anything else). Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The name "European Constitution" was more of a gimmick, like most of that text. I think the difference should be seen as Constitution with a capital C (proper noun) is the rejected text, constitution with a lower case c (noun) is the text(s) which form the legal basis of an entity. The rejected text was the Constitution and, mainly, a constitution. The present treaties are a constitution but not a Constitution, because they are the constitutional basis of the EU. (Incidentally, the term constitution is not limited to states. I seem to remember the girl guides association having a document called a "constitution".- _J.Logan`^t: 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@JLogan: True and I even remember Jack Straw trying to convince the British people that the Constitution was ok, likening it to the constitution of a golf club Lwxrm (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the issue as far as I see it. Some people argue that the EU has a constitution and some people believe that it doesn't. Caught up in all of this are different conceptions of what constitutions are and, when you peel back the layers a bit, what constitutes a state, what are the attributes of sovereignty and so on. The NPOV way of dealing with this is not to take one particular view as fact, but rather give an account of all the different opinions. The "Constitution debate" I talked about earlier. We don't have space for the debate here so we don't mention it at all. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the last few posts pretty much hit the nail on the head. There are of course also academics who even claim that the Constitutional Treaty was not really a constitution and that there is no EU constitution at present. But once again, much like with the criticism section (or lack of one), it is just an issue that we cannot and should not try to deal with. Hopefully that is that, and we can move on here. Thinking that the issue of such widespread and significant debate could be condensed and dealt with accurately and effectively in a sentence, or a section on some wikipedia article would not just be silly, but also arrogant if you ask me. --Simonski (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty

The article says: "In 2000 the EU drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter is not legally binding at present but would become so if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.[51] Under that treaty the EU would be required to accede to the ECHR.[52]"

I really don't understand what this means. Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights have force since the Lisbon Treaty does not exist? Who would object to updating this language since the Treaty of Lisbon is now a historical footnote?

If the CFR does have force, might we now write the language so that the Reader can know that this is the case?Raggz (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The ECHR is entirely unrelated to the EU. Is it relevant to an article on the EU? If so, how? Raggz (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since ratification of the ECHR is a requirement for EU membership, fundamental rights are binding, and the ECJ has regard to the ECHR in interpreting the duties of member states in that respect, "entirely unrelated" is something of an overstatement.--Boson (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The CFR does have force in the sense that it has been solemnly proclaimed. However it is not legally binding. Fundamental rights are binding, and the ECJ may (and does) have regard to the CFR and the ECHR when interpreting those rights. It might be somewhat difficult to find a formulation that informs the reader without undue interpretation.--Boson (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a challenge. Outside of the EU courts written constitutions set hard (and soft) legal lines beyond which governments may not intrude into human rights. For the EU there are no such hard constitutional lines, only soft ones? Might hard and soft lines serve to communicate to the Reader?

The US Constitution and the UN Charter have also both been solemly proclaimed. May the EU courts consider both of these as well? My understanding is that the ECHR preates the EU and is not formally an organ of it?Raggz (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the terms hard and soft help at all. I would prefer to leave the text as it was originally.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights was proclaimed by the European Parliament etc. and is formulated as if binding.

I don't see the relevance of whether the ECHR predates the EU. Many things European were developed by the Council of Europe but are still relevant to the EU. --Boson (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of leaving the text as it was as well, agreeing with the points of BHL and Boson on this and the other legal issues raised in the last day or so. Adding Hard and Soft distinctions would be a mistake I feel, if anything confusing the reader. To say that the Charter is not binding, yet used on occasion by the ECJ is enough I would say. The fact that the ECHR predates the EU means absolutely nothing. Any confusion on these issues can be resolved by a reader clicking elsewhere or doing some proper research. --Simonski (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The ECHR is not part of the EU, do we agree on this? It presently has a role analagous to the UN Security Council and UN Charter, in that it has relevance but is not part of the EU legal system or EU law. It is part of European Law, but is not a part of EU law. Because our article is about the EU and is not abut the ECHR, we need to focus upon our topic. The EU is not Europe. It is wrong to claim European institutions as part of the EU if they are not part of the EU. Such institutions belong in another article about Europe.

Does someone claim that the ECHR is part of the EU? I am of the opinion that while a European institution of relevance to the EU (as is the UN) that it is not part of the EU. Am I in error? 71.193.22.200 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you login before you repeat your arguments? Tomeasy_{T C} 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now as to what exactly the problem is here. I like to consider myself quite knowledgable on the fundamental rights aspect of EU law, and I can say that if somebody asked me "is the ECHR part of the EU legal order?" (not just 'European law' as you put it) my answer would be a qualified "yes it is" (see also the Nold case). A number of cases before the ECJ (ie. Carpenter and the Article 8 ECHR private life rights, the ERT case and Article 10 freedom of expression) have seen the rights under the ECHR play a key role in the resulting judgment. Tomorrow if you were to have your own case come before the ECJ, any good lawyer would throw in an ECHR point if possible and the ECJ would address it, whether its a case coming under the first, second or third pillar.

The ECHR has played a key role in the development of the ECJ's fundamental rights (human rights) jurisprudence and so to claim the ECHR is just "European law" and not related to EU law, is just wrong. In that case I think the only thing we will agree on here is that you haven't quite grasped the relationship between the EU and the ECHR I'm afraid. --Simonski (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that it seems that the EU article includes material that belongs to Europe and not to the EU. I'm prepared to cede to an expert editor such as yourself on the issue of what is European Law and what is actually EU law. The fundamental question that I am asking you (as an expert) is if the ECHR is part of European Law in a sense larger than just EU law. If you assure me that (1) the ECHR is an EU organ, and (2) that it concerns itself for law within the EU rather than within Europe, fine, I accept your expert opinion. What is your expert opnion? Raggz (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I said quite knowledgable, not expert. Still, here all I can do is point you towards the first two paragraphs of Article 6 TEU (I think somebody may already have done this though):

"1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law."

See also Article 7 TEU, which says that if a member state does not comply with Article 6(1) they may lose voting rights/face political sanctions etc. The ECHR is the backbone of European Human Rights Law, yes, but it is also a key part of EU law, if that makes sense. The relationship between the ECHR and the EU is complex, and has evolved over time.

The Constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty aimed to address increasing complexities through having the EU become an official party to the ECHR, which would for example remove the possibility of the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights interpreting ECHR rights differently (as has happened in a few cases, ie. Niemetz). Does that clarify anything? Just because the ECHR has its main application elsewhere, that does not take away from the crucial role it plays in the EU. --Simonski (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My question is and has been: Is the ECHR a European institution or an EU institution? Your answer (oversimplified) seems to be both. (Thank you for the detail and time invested.) I suspect that most Europeans if asked if European and EU art are the same thing might say yes?

Analogy (imperfect): I live in the US and also in California. The ECHR is like the US (broader), and the EU is analgous to California (more narrow) in that the ECHR has a broader scope than just the EU? It is still my impression that the EU law looks upward to the ECHR and has the ECJ as the primary EU court.

The point of all of this is if the ECHR is really an EU organ, or is the ECHR broader than an EU organ. I will accept your opinion on this as authoratative. I only offer this as a confused reader to point out that the text suggests that the ECHR is an EU organ but the ECHR article suggests otherwise to me.

The new text works better, and is better written than I could have managed. Thank you, issue on the ECHR is resolved. Raggz (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

When there are chapters in textbooks written on this issue alone it is difficult to do anything other than simplify the discussion here I'm afraid.

Anyway, I would disagree that the article infers that the ECHR is an EU organ (by the way I don't know here if you're refering to the convention itself or the court, which is generally abbreviated to ECtHR to make a distinction). If you mean the Court of Human Rights, I would say the article makes it very clear that its not the case, if you mean the Convention on human rights itself then I would also disagree. If any interested reader is confused they can follow up their research by clicking on the ECHR page, which I think most would do.

The ECHR is indeed broader than just an EU organ as you put it, and I think enough is done on this article and other EU related articles (ie. the European Court of Justice page) to make a distinction on the issue of human rights jurisdiction/protection. --Simonski (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearing up the confusion

"The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law."

This is Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty in force. But the ECJ decided along time ago, 1970, that fundamental right should play an important role in the EU's legal system, in the form of general principles of law. In order words if someone believes that their rights are infringed by a piece European legislation they can take a case before the ECJ and that court can strike down that legislation if it agrees. This is the current situation. BHL, 5.9.2008

I don't think we should declare Lisbon dead before it it officially declared dead. As time passes we can always say that it's looking less and less likely, but that's it. It's not up to us to decide these things. BHL, 5.9.2008

As far as the Charter on Fundamental Freedoms is concerned. Even if Lisbon never comes into force that fact that both the European Constitution and the Lisbon treaty wanted to give the Charter legal force is still relevant to a discussion on fundamental rights in the Union. BHL, 5.9.2008

If Lisbon comes/came into force the EU will/would accede to the ECHR. Were this to happen, citizens (or any one else) could sue the EU in the ECHR for alleged breach of human rights. However much like most European countries, any decisions the ECHR might make would not be legally binding on the EU. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BHL is absolutely right here. Again, I feel the current text is accurate enough. --Simonski (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Lisbon Treaty is not dead, then it is not dead. Are we agreed that the Lisbon Treaty is alive and that there is a significant probability of passing soon? Presently, has it passed? If not, then by WP policy we need to say what the present state of law is and minimize or omit speculations about what might or might not occur. The Lisbon Treaty has not passed, so it is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article (but not other formats). The time to include it is when it passes and the provisions about human rights come into existance.

If the Lisbon Treaty has not passed, and we are thus speculating about what might or might not occur, are we violating WP policy to speculate? Should we instead simply inform the Reader of what the present human rights law is? How does the Treaty of Lisbon affect what the EU Courts decide tomorrow? If the moon falls into the Atlantic it would make a huge splash, if, if, if ...

The issue is if the article informs the Reader about fundamental rights within the EU. My opinion is that the text does not properly inform the Reader on this topic. I'm raising the question of speculation and WP policy as well. Does anyone hold the opinion that the passage of the Lisbon Treaty can be covered as anything but speculative guessing and that it has no prsent force? 71.193.22.200 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I said "If I die tomorrow I won't be able to go to work the day after", I am talking about the future but I'm not speculating. It's just a logical statement. We neither say that Lisbon is alive nor dead. We just say what would happen were the treaty to be ratified. If and when Lisbon is officially declared defunct, we could say, "had either the European Constitution or the Lisbon treaty been ratified...", but there is still a (small) chance that it will be ratified. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your points all make sense. In an encyclopedia our rhetorical style is generally more limited than for other writing. My concerns are directed to our encyclopedia format. As long as the text informs the Reader, I'm fine with keeping Lisbon in. If the Reader has never heard of Lisbon and is fifteen years old living in Shanghai, does this text help them understand human rights within the EU? Do they care about Lisbon? If so, why? I say no, Lisbon is presently irrelevant to human rights within the EU. Things that are presently irrelevant are not covered by WP until they become relevant. If you went to court tomorrow, could you cite Lisbon as an authority to enforce humn rights law? If so, I say that Lisbon is presently relevant. If not - I claim that it is presently irrelevant. So, could you cite Lisbon - or not? I request your expert legal opinion, is Lisbon presently binding law? Raggz (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is rather an overuse of detail on Lisbon, but do not fall into the trap of thinking Lisbon is dead because of the Irish. People said the same of the Constitution and I think that even if Lisbon never comes into force, most of its changes will (or have already in practice) come into force in some manner within the next five years and hence the mention of them is very relevant due to its impending nature. It is also a point on the evolution of the EU. A principle point of the EU is integration, successive treaties have added to it. We have it happening right now and by discussing this, the recent politics around it and showing what it is doing (a before and after in practice) we can convey a side of the EU that would be very difficult to portray with open intent.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just add that even though I'd say from my point of view that Lisbon is probably dead, the changes with regards to Human Rights will most likely be enacted in whatever replacement there is. Saying that I suppose since the Charter was controversial amongst some sectors maybe it won't be. Hmm. My gut would say it would still find its way in though. Anyway, I would still say keep the Lisbon information in though until we know what is to happen instead. At the moment after all the EU stance is that Lisbon is still to come into force.

On the other point, to answer your question, no Raggz you would not be able to cite Lisbon in the ECJ, but you would try anyway since the ECJ's human rights jurisprudence is influenced (note influenced, not bound) by numerous sources that are not necessarily "binding", ie. the Charter of fundamental rights. --Simonski (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Reader deserves a sentence or two about Lisbon, very general language, with good footnotes for those who are interested in this. I ask: Is Lisbon significant to the EU? I also ask: is it presently adequately summarized? If we agree to a sentence or two, well footnoted, with no debate on the subject (except by footnote), would this serve the Reader? Raggz (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

EU Voting

EU citizens]] do not directly elect their President or their Council of the European Union but do directly elect their Parliament every five years.

Is this accurate? Is it relevant?

The text mentions only those officials where EU citizens may vote. The fact that EU citizens may not vote for half of their Pariliment nor their President is relevant and interesting to the Reader. Raggz (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is the lead section, which is necessarily a summary.

Secondly, by presenting the quote as you do, you take it out of context. If you consider the whole section:

The EU operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. In certain areas it depends upon agreement between the member states. However, it also has supranational bodies, able to make decisions without the agreement of all national governments. Important institutions and bodies of the EU include the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. EU citizens elect the Parliament every five years.

It becomes clear that the line "EU citizens elect the Parliament every five years" implies that this is the only direct democratic system. I agree some rephrasing may be in order, for example "The only body directly chosen by EU citizens is the parliament"

The suggested line (above) raises more questions than it solves. Ok, so they don't directly choose the president, but from the previous we don't know whether there is a president at all (or a monarch or a prime minister or a dictator or whatever); so we cannot refer to "their" president in that line. That leaves the Council of the EU, but if we mention that,why not the European Council, what makes these two councils different that one deserves mentioning and the other not. And why not mention the European Commission is not elected, and the court of Justice, and the board of the bank. In that light - No the proposed line is not accurate (as it randomly omits and treats bodies) and not relevant (as it introduces bodies that are not yet introduced, and makes not clear why these posts should be elected and others not). Arnoutf (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd second everything Arnoutf just said. Such discussions here are making problems out of nothing. --Simonski (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is remarkable that a modern democracy does not have direct elections for their president or parliment. If the WP:LEAD includes voting, it should also include these remarkable facts that are likely of more interest to the Reader than what was there. Where else in our world is there such a situation in any democracy? Why wouldn't we want to include this most remarkable fact?

Who claims that the EU indirect voting system is not remarkable and unusual? Why only cover the direct election and not the other? This unusual form of democracy deserves to be in the lead. As editors we need to include remarkable facts like this into the Lead. How exactly, I'm not sure about. 71.193.22.200 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of modern democracies featuring indirect elections. The United States presidential elections and the Bundespräsident elections spring to mind. I'm not saying the lead shouldn't be changed, just pointing out that mere indirectness is not unique or remarkable in any way. -- Jao (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The editors at United States say: "The president is not elected by direct vote, but by an indirect electoral college system in which the determining votes are apportioned by state." Raggz (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany"The Bundespräsident (Federal President)—currently Horst Köhler—is the head of state, invested primarily with representative responsibilities and powers. He is elected by the Bundesversammlung (federal convention), an institution consisting of the members of the Bundestag and an equal number of state delegates." Raggz (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Neither of these articles (US or Germany) mentions this in the lead (please consider both my arguments); and indeed I would have no problems with a more detailed description about direct and indirect votes in another section than the lead; but not in the lead where we have to summarise. Arnoutf (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where but within the EU does the voter elect neither their entire Parliment, nor their President? The House of Lords comes to mind, but seems irrelevant in this context... Raggz (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany still works, as the Bundesrat is indirectly elected. -- Jao (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. This fact might belong in the article, did the EU model itself after the German system? The real question is if the editors at Germany so inform the Reader.Raggz (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Essential questions that need to be answered before the discussion can be productive.

What part of the European Parliament is NOT directly elected (where did this weird idea pop up from suddenly half way through the thread?? It seems completely random, but if there is such a non-directly elected part it is not in this article, nor in the parliament article - so apparently there is a reliable external source of undoubted quality for this extraordinary claim)
Why is this level of detail relevant for the lead section (ignored before, but essential as the questioned text is from the lead).

Finally, I don't think the EU was modelled on the German system, there are only so many ways an election of semi-independent states can be held, which all will be at least somewhat similar. But again, that is irrelevant detail (WP:UNDUE) at best and more likely original research. Arnoutf (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete any OR that you find, no consensus is needed. Remove the parts of the article that are innaccurate as well. No worries. Raggz (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC) WP:BOLD Be bold.

ANSWER MY QUESTION What part of the parliament is not directly elected. (If you add anything like that into the article without references, I will not consider it OR but vandalism). Arnoutf (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Perhaps some people are confusing the Council with the Parliament, or thinking that the Council is the upper house of a bicameral parliament. It's difficult to know where to start. The European Parliament is elected directly. There is no president of the European Union as such. Even in presidential democracies (and many democracies are parliamentary democracies, not presidential democracies) the president may not be elected directly. --Boson (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What lunatic is claiming that part of the European parliament is unelected? Please for the love of God can you familiarise yourself with the issues that you want to bring up before you bring them up and start spouting such nonsense! Otherwise what can you expect from fellow editors but to consider in future your contributions completely worthless. Jeez. --Simonski (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If I have inserted inaccurate text into the article, it would help if you would tell me where this text is? Raggz (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Council of the European Union is not directly elected and is what I meant. Am I mistaken to believe that this body exercises significant legislative authority within the EU? 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But that council is not the parliament and should not be confused with it. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, unlike most national parliaments, the term "Parliament" does not apply to the legislative branch as a whole, only to a single chamber. Yes the Council shares legislative authority but there isn't even a term to describe the two together. You have the Council and Parliament, separate entities which are very distinct in their powers, remit, composition and working style. Ergo, the Parliament is entirely elected, where as the Council is composed of national government ministers. To fuzz these two institutions would be incredibly misleading and confusing, hence the harsh nature of the responses here. I would also like to state that this article has had a lot of editors on it. Although being bold is good, it will be seen as arrogant if you correct what you think is a major factual mistake when it has been written, corrected, improved and maintained by countless editors each day who have little patience for such mistakes. It isn't a good situation in that sense, but be conscious of it.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The Reader can easily be confused by the EU version of "parliment", which happened to me, and is in part why I raised the question.

The EU has a most interesting version of indirect voting for the EU President and half of the Legislature. I remain convinced that the Reader deserves a sentence or two about this, a review of country articles will establish that most (or all) discuss voting. The Economist said this week: "The EU is not a single country, whose most senior leaders are elected by a single electorate.^[9] As an example I might say: The EU electorate at this satge of the EU's development vote indirectly for their President and the more powerful half of their Legislature and directly elect the less powerful half. (I'm sure this may require editing or total replacement, but it is an example of what I think need be said.) This article is admirable for its clean lines and lack of debate, too many others are cluttered and disunified by debates. This sentence could then be footnoted for those who are interested. I strongly believe that the Reader deserves to know the present state of democracy within the EU. I also believe that a single footnoted sentence is all that is necessary. Raggz (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the system may seem interesting to you, I would say that most do not find anything particularly unusual about it once they learn about it. Only when you try to compare it to the situation in some nation states, something which the EU is not, do you start to become confused. I really think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and considering this is the first time that the issue has been raised on a heavily edited/discussed page I would say it is one that should just be forgotten and left alone.

I think your proposed sentence would not be a useful edition (not just because the "less powerful half is a POV and debatable comment). It is quite simple for the reader to understand that the EU consists of a handful of main institutions, namely the Commission, Council and Parliament, and that Member state citizens are able to vote for the Parliament only. If they want to then know the exact powers of the parliament and its role regarding EU legislation, they can go ahead and do that with further research including looking at the article on the European Parliament. The Economist sentence you quote... I don't see how it relates to the sentence you then propose afterwards. There is no "President of the EU" and attempts to try and fit the EU here into some template are ill-advised. --Simonski (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again if the Reader reads beyond the lead section, the "split" in legislative power is explained in the institutions and legal system sections. The lead is doing its job of summarising the content. The main sections do their job of providing further information. If we follow "the reader may become easily confused by pre-conceived ideas" lines we would quickly become bogged down with giving a few sentences for most terms in the lead which have a specific "EU" meaning.... Lwxrm (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

EU foreign policy

Is the EU an actul member of the UN? Does it represent anyone at the UN, or do the individual UN/EU members each represent their people? The article claims that the EU is a UN member and represents people to the UN. Is this true? Raggz (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No it is no UN member, it has an observer status (and through this represents the EU). There is no claim that the EU is a United Nation member anywhere in the article. Stop trying to read things in the article that are not there at all, or only there if you read sub-sentence phrases out of context. Arnoutf (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not what it says, but it is what it seems to say because the text is very unclear. It does not say "observer status", (nor does this status imply that the EU has any foreign policy). My objective as an editor is to improve the text so that the Reader gets an effective and accurate summary. Text that seems clear enough to you does not seem clear enough to me. At this point I am uncertain about whom that EU "represents" in regard to foreign policy. I believe that every EU member presently represents their people. It will be of interest to the Reader to fully elucidate how the EU "represents" her citizens rather than this confusing and incomplete text.

The text should speak directly to the Reader without the need to be explained here on Talk. Please read the foreign policy text again - and see if it still seems to manage to clearly explain this to you?Raggz (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A nation isn' t obliged to be in UN.The most powerful state in the world isn't in UN.In UN are rapresented other being like the Red Cross or Malta Order.So UN is different from many people thinking! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.191.143 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what that last comment was about. But a day or two back I added in a note on observer status. The article did not state it was a member, only that its influence within it was increasing (which, granted, may be interpreted that way but it was not claimed as such not do I believe anyone with knowledge outside this article would come to that conclusion). As for the general notes on representing citizens, the very point of foreign policy is representing the state abroad. I think to go into it would be too much detail but if anyone disagrees the basics is that the CFSP is an agreement to coordinate foreign policy and the Commission's external representation is essentially the EU conduction foreign policy with its competencies. Where the EU has control over something rather than member states then it doesn't make a lot of sense for this to be dealt with by each state - de facto the Commission runs foreign policy in these areas but they are rather limited and not really termed foreign policy.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I like these changes. How would you feel about a general EU foreign policy statement that would have a few key cites for those interested in EU Foreign Policy? Example (the text could be quite different): The EU faces considerable challenges for the development of an integrated foreign policy and the process is as yet still in an early stage.^[10] We would offer footnotes to link the interested reader to quality reviews? This is a strategy to permit a broader perspective for the Reader without trying to explain something too complex for effective summary within an encyclopedia.Raggz (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

European Central Bank

The European Central Bank is not an EU institution, but is a Eurozone institution. It belongs in that article. It is run by the Eurozone for the Eurozone, and really has nothing to do outside of the Eurozone.

The EU is not Europe. As editors we need to ensure that we carefully exclude Non-EU European institutions, (especially if they are important) from discussion in the EU article. There is nothing wrong with referencing important non-EU European institutions in an EU article IF the Reader easily understands that they are non-EU institutions. The ECB is mentioned in a way that the Reader is not likely to know that this is a Eurozone and not EU institution. Raggz (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Eurozone is not an official body and hence cannot run the bank. The banks own website reports that "The legal basis for the single monetary policy is the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank." making it clear that the bank is indeed (founded under the EC) and EU institution.

You are truly messing things up in a way that shows you have little understanding of the matter; I would strongly advice you to do a little bit of homework finding reliable sources before putting your personal ideas as the TRUTH anywhere, as your current practice is taking up a lot of time to respond to and as such is taking away valuable time from editors who could have done constructive edits. Arnoutf (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the EU. For this reason I can better see some of the weaknesses in this article that you cannot. WP:Bold Why is suggesting the relevance of the three pillars "messing things up"? What "personal ideas"? If you believe that these suggestions are irrelevant to the Reader, simply say this. Try to engage with a more cooperative spirit, please? Raggz (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but both your arguments are blatant nonsense. First of all, non-experts can only see inconsistencies in language and terminology, but if those apparent inconsistencies are the reflection of a complex situation then the non-expert should shut up. Secondly WHERE do you mention 3 pillars previously in this thread. You are randomly adding new arguments to this discussion as they suit you, while writing as if this has been discussed before. This is not bold, this is blunt, and unconstructive. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Europe has many tightly interwoven institutions, and none of them are Europe. This article is about only one of these: the EU. The EU is not Europe, do we agree? Our article is not about the Eurozone or the Bank that runs it. The Reader doe not understand from our article that the European Central Bank is mostly about the Eurozone and apart from this, the European Central Bank has no role within the EU, nor in almost half of the EU members.

Does the European Central Bank belong in the EU article? Apart from the Eurozone, why is this bank part of the EU? This is unclear within the article. If you live ithin the EU, but not the Eurozone, please explain why this bank is important? This bank is the organization (created by treaty) that controls the Eurozone, not the EU.

The article claims that the EU has a currency, but it does not actually have one. It has plans to have a more unified currency, but even these plans leave out the UK. Why should our article make claims that are misleading? So tell me, can I take my pounds anywhere in the EU, in Rome, what will they say? The Reader deserves accurate information. I'm just helping the Reader, many of whom are not Europeans and need information now missing. This article is not written solely for Europeans. Raggz (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument, as usually, is flawed in many ways. No Europe (geographic entity) does not have many tightly interwoven institutions; actually it only has one or a few I know of. All other institutions are only for a sub-set of European countries. The EU is not an institution but a collaboration of countries that is running several institution (the EC, the parliament, the council those are institutions). So no we do not agree. Europe (geographic region) does not have many institutions and the EU is not only one of them. The reader who reads the article (instead of snippets that fit a preconceived idea, as you seem to do) would read the monetary union section where the Eurozone is explained. So the reader (reading the article rather then only subsentence phrases) will get the correct information. Nobody ever argued the ECB controls the EU; the only argument is that the ECB is an EU institute. Your argument is a fallacy of the type if a penguin is a bird, all birds therefore are necessarily penguins. Nevertheless the ECB is important as it is in control of one of the most powerful currencies in todays world. So yes, clearly it belongs in the article of the Union that controls it. (why is this important to all members - The Danish crone is pegged to it, all others countries committed to become part of the Eurozone, UK is the only exception so to the overwhelmingly vast majority of members it is important and hence fits the article - but this is an argument I made before, and has been ignored by you). The EU has a currency (through its central bank ECB) which is called the Euro (for the twentieth time, just accept it). The pound is not the currency of the EU so they might appreciate the design of the coin in Rome but will not, nor should they, accept them in payment. This is however irrelevant (and another fallacy). The long term plans of the EU do allow for the UK to become part of the Eurozone. That this is not well known in the UK is not the EU's fault, but that of the Europhobia on that island. You are not helping anyone. The issue is complex, simple explanations may not be possible. The current text maybe a bit vague and complex in places, but your suggestions are clearly nonsense and hence actively uninformative/harmful to the reader. Either you do know enough of the EU to understand your arguments make no sense (in which case you are very close to trolling) or you don't know enough in which case I will only respond to your future arguments if you provide reliable sources for any of your suggestions (and before you say that this is not needed on talk - without such sources presented on talk I will never ever agree with your suggested changes, so without them you will get no consensus). Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ECB is the main central bank opeating in EU.EU any recognize all the smaller central banks operating in EU.Al the economic system anyway is under control of EU institutions.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.191.143 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf, thank you for your long and technical discussion. The reason that we are discussing any of this is because a reader from outside of the EU is likely to be unable to understand many parts of the article.

It gets confusing because the ECB page says that it is controlled by its members and not by the EU. The articles says that the EU uses (what, 10?) curreencies. Everyone who travels to the EU soon disovers that there is no one EU currency. To an EU economist there may be some technical support to say that the EU has a single or unified currency, but you fail to appreciate that your perspective is European and quite technical, that from an external view that the EU seems to have many currencies that one must continually exchange.

No worries Arnoutf, I'm in step with you. Reliable sources are not required on talk, but out of respect for your frustration and because I have made errors, I accept your request, at least for a time. I read the ECB page, it does not talk much about the EU, but the eurozone. It appears to only regulate one of the EU currencies. I consider it as authoratative as you, and it does not discuss regulating outside of the eurozone. Will you accept it as a reliable source in regard to the euro and the other EU currencies? Raggz (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something of a nonsense. Whilst I don't agree with formally calling the ECB an "institution" (it is not a formal institution under the current Treaty structure; rather it is a body of the EU) the suggestion that it is not part of the EU is a step too far. It was established under the law of the EU and it derives its powers and responsibilities from the EU (Article 8 EC).

The fact that it has pretty much been given sole control over the "single" issue of maintaining price stability in the Eurozone does not mean it is not part of the greater "thing". The Court most certainly considers it part of the EU legal order. It confirmed this in the Olaf (Case C-11/00) case where it held that despite the ECB having "policy" autonomy from the other institutions it is still subject to the binding principles of law of the EU. In addition the Council may adopt legislation under Article 105(6) EC which confers powers to the ECB for handling matters relating to the prudential supervision of credit/financial institutions. This would affect ALL Member States and not just those within the Eurozone. The existence of this provisions alone is indicative that the ECB is a body of the EU and not just the Eurozone. The ECB must also be consulted and can offer opinions in a large number of circumstances which can affect all Member States, not just the Eurozone ones. Whilst "new blood" and fresh looks are to be welcomed, these should seek to be informed. Suggesting, against all respected authorities (look to the texts of Shaw & Hunt, Usher, Mohamed, Barnard) that the ECB is not an "institution" without providing much evidence should be avoided. Lwxrm (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the ECB is not of the EU is insane. It is like saying the euro is unrelated to the EU. The ECB is not an "institution" in the formal sense but under the generic definition of the word, or if we were to say a "body" of the EU, it is. The Eurozone is merely a concept, those countries which sit in the board and have adopted the currency. The whole thing is an EU body, set up by an EU treaty by EU members, membership limited to eu members with all but to obliged to join, part of the EU idea (single market), reports to other institutions, its head is appointed by an eu institution, it issues the currency used by the eu (and ref back to membership obligations) which bears its markings, it is identified as such, its politics are related to those of the EU (including the independence/couterweight debate) and so on and so on. Now do I have to carry on or is that it?- _J.Logan`^t: 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that information supports your opinion well. It is confusing in our article, as it states that the euro is the EU currency, but the ECB article makes it sound like the ECB is not running the other EU currencies. Raggz (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Three pillars

Among the central concepts of the EU are the Three Pillars. The Reader presently does not learn of these, nor are they effectively referred to that article. Can the Reader understand the EU without knowing of these? I suggest that these are important enough to belong in the WP:LEAD. Raggz (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The reader who does what readers do, ie READING the article would find a section about the pillars opening with: "The EU is often described as being divided into three areas of responsibility, called pillars.". Please read the article before you say information is lacking. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this issue has been raised in the past and subsequently addressed, please read the article properly before just assuming that since you yourself may not quite understand it, that the average reader will not. --Simonski (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the pillars. Thank you. Raggz (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Common EU currency

Blue haired lawyer reverted the following text, citing nonsense. Is it nonsense? "Currently, a single currency is in use between the 15 members of the eurozone^[11]^[12] ~~and the EU is attempting to adopt a common currency for all members~~.^[13] A reliable source stating exactly what was reverted was quoted exactly.

Is the EU is attempting to adopt a common currency for all members, or not? If not, I apologize for my error. If so, why was this reverted? More importantly, why does BHL believe that this objective is "nonsense? Raggz (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

# The provided factbook link does not give that quote, provide the deeplink please. Even then the reliability of a heavily condensed summary line in the factbook especially since it is contextualised later in the same section is doubtful without that contextualisation. Anyway verbatim copying of text is plagiarism (althoug this line might be brief enough to get away with).

# You added this to the overal lEconomy section; which functions as a kind of internal lead summarises what follows. The economy section also has a monetary union section where this issue is explained in detail. Hence addition is not necessary, and only distracting from the focus in the rest of the section. Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU dosn't adopt currencies, its member states do. Most member states either have adopted or plan to adopt the euro. I deleted your edit because it didn't make any sense and because as Arnoutf says it's too much detail. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

During the last decade any nation (from Poland to Romania) which has been admitted into the European Union as a member state has accepted and signed the adoption of the Single Currency (Euro) It is not an option but an obligation as any other normative to be part of the European Union...for those which doesn´t want to participate there is an option to be just part of the Free Trade Area and Customs Union like Turkey or Norway, outside of the European Union.

Only the UK and Denmark, which were already member states before the Euro, don´t have that obligation to adopt the Euro, but of course it is a complementary step of the Common Market, like Schengen (free circulation of people inside the Union) In fact, Denmark is part of ERM II, which establish a fixed exchange rate between the Euro and the Danish krone. And the British bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Southern Cyprus already have adopted the Euro at the same time as Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.27.145 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All of which is true, but it still doesn't change the fact that member states decide their own currency, even if they take that decision in principle when they sign the accession treaty. Even then, they decide the timing. See Sweden. --Red King (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think subsequent EU members will have to agree to some realistic timing in their membership agreement to prevent another 'Sweden' which is using the self-timing clause as an implicit opt-out option Arnoutf (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweden was a legal loophole, all but UK and Denmark have the legal obligation, its not just in principle. Of course there is no way to force it really outside the usual pressures but that applies to all aspects of the EU. But can't we just phrase this according to facts? This isn't a very relevant discussion. Euro used by 15 states, all but two are obliged to adopt it eventually. Wikilink for detail.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I offer a reliable source that states that the EU is attempting to form a common EU currency. The Reader deserves to know if the EU has developed a common currency or if there is an effort to do so still ongoing. As an Encyclopedia, a single sentence might be all that is needed? Question:

Has the EU already developed a unified currency - or is it attempting to do so? Raggz (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge there was a mention in the Constitution that stated the Euro was to be the currency of the EU, however this was dropped with the Lisbon Treaty. I believe others will know more than I do on this particular subject but from what I understood the answer was a qualified yes the Member states are attempting to do so, with Sweden, Denmark and the UK the only ones allowed to opt out. However the situation is not currently straightforward enough to sum it up in one sentence as you wish to do. I would say keep the current text and move on to other areas where the article might be improved. --Simonski (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially, the UK is using the excuse that it doesn't meet various economic tests which would allow it to join the eurozone without causing massive disruption to the home market and the wider EU market. Sephui (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Change the wording, what your currently arguing over is ambiguous. The euro is termed the common currency and was included i the constitution, used by institutions etc, is an olibgation to all others - while at the same time it is not, and won't be for a very long time, the only currency - which is an equally valid definition of common currency. So just don't say it like that, and if you do have to use that term, say it has broung it a "common currency between 15 of its members, with most other members obliged to adopt it eventually" or something like that.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Raggz (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the situation is exactly as described in the article.

What is called a "single currency" has been implemented.
It has been adopted by 15 of the 27 member states.
Special situations apply in Britain, Denmark, and Sweden.
The other 9 states are legally obliged to adopt the euro.

Admittedly, it would be possible to go into further detail, explaining the differences between the Danish opt-out giving them an exemption until such time as they may abrogate the exemption, the wider British opt-out, the derogation applying to Sweden (including its political interpretation), and the derogations applying to the other states.

On the other hand, if we had less space we might be tempted to oversimplify and just write that the EU was attempting to adopt a common currency. This would be misleading because the single currency applied in all countries of the former EU except Britain, Denmark and now Sweden, and in those countries there is currently no attempt to adopt the single currency; on the other hand the EU has recently acquired several new members and they are still in the process of transition, meaning that many EU rules (including free movement of people and the single currency) have not yet been fully implemented.

I think a lot of the superfluous discussion stems from unthinking comparisons of the EU with established countries like the United States, which do not change their external borders, official languages, constitutions and presidents with the same frequency as the EU.

What the article currently says is:

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. . . .
Currently, a single currency is in use between the 15 members of the eurozone. . . .
The creation of a European single currency became an official objective of the EU in 1969. However, it was only with the advent of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 that member states were legally bound to start the monetary union no later than 1 January 1999. On this date the euro was duly launched by eleven of the then fifteen member states of the EU. It remained an accounting currency until 1 January 2002, when euro notes and coins were issued and national currencies began to phase out in the Eurozone, which by then consisted of twelve member states. The Eurozone has since grown to fifteen countries, the most recent being Cyprus and Malta which joined on 1 January 2008. All other EU member states, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are legally bound to join the euro when the economic conditions are met, however only a few countries have set target dates for accession. Sweden has circumvented the requirement to join the euro area by not meeting the membership criteria. Slovakia is scheduled to introduce the euro on 1 January 2009. A number of other countries outside the EU, such as Montenegro, use the euro unofficially. The euro, and the monetary policies of those who have adopted it, are under the control of the European Central Bank (ECB). There are twelve other currencies used in the EU. The euro is designed to help build a single market by, for example: easing travel of citizens and goods, eliminating exchange rate problems, providing price transparency, creating a single financial market, price stability and low interest rates, and providing a currency used internationally and protected against shocks by the large amount of internal trade within the eurozone. It is also intended as a political symbol of integration and stimulus for more.

--Boson (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sweden is also legally obliged to adopt it, after they have fulfilled all requirements (to be checked on a request made by Sweden). However Sweden is not legally obliged to request the check on requirements, and thus as found a loophole in its contract with the union to stall their legal obligation to adopt the Euro as long as they like. The legal obligation still exists. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: doesn't that same loophole work for all other states that are supposed to join the Eurozone? (Is Sweden's case different than that of, e.g., the Czech Republic?) Tomeasy_{T C} 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, I would expect the EU closed the loophole after Sweden went for it; but could not do so for Sweden anymore. I am not sufficiently an expert on the topic to be sure though. BTW the loophole was the requirement that a country should be member of ERM II for two years prior to adopting the Euro; ECB apparently has announced that this "trick" won't be tolerated again. Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose change for the lead

Instead of "is a political and economic union", to greatly get inspired by

“

Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism.J.H.H. Weiler

”

Something like"EU is a special case of federalism,neither a federation,neither a confederation"

federalism,is simply a type of governance where authority is divided between a center and constituent units, and thats it,it doen't say anything about the details,federations and confederations are a type of federalism, so federalism is not a synonym for federation or confederation. I propose to say that EU

for sources(why use "type of federalism",little explanation plus the names of the scholars)

“

Those uncomfortable using the “F” word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal

or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast).

”

thats 6 scholars(hmm i still don't know what et al means),the guy that wrote this is in the list(R. Daniel Kelemen) plus 2(Jean Michel & Marciano)[4] plus 1(J.H.H. Weiler),thats 9 in total. I consider that the case for saying that EU is a type of federalism is rock solid.--88.82.47.8 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, as those here familiar with my standpoint know, but it is too politically sensitive to put "federalist" without a clear consensus which you would not gain on this page. Secondly, the federalist nature applies only to EC matters, which complicates the description and furthermore we have to contend with the perceptions of the meaning of the word rather than the actual definition. I'd support changing it to "is a quasi-federal union" but only where there is a consensus. Agreement on this is hard to get and I am not comfortable with the debate reopening once again.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just again to try and save some time here, I'm happy to state again my total opposition to introducing something like this into the lead. A very bad idea in my view. Maybe we should put this into the FAQ section if it isnt already there as it seems to be regularly brought up with the same conclusion always being reached: avoid. The federation debate is one cluttered with POV/OR issues and this page should once again avoid being drawn into it. I don't get how you can cite such well known sources, and give an impression that you know what you're talking about, yet fail to acknowledge that its just one stance amongst many in a vast pool of debate which suggests that you may not.

Actually to be honest, I get bored of this issue coming up time and time again. Its almost as troublesome as "why is there no criticism section"! --Simonski (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the POV pushing of some here is very wheal known @JLogan.The proposal is to say that is a federalism of its won.The term federalism is very broad, it's not a synonym of federation or confederation, federation and confederation are special cases of federalism.There is no debate that the EU is a form of federalism, the contentious point is in what subcategory of federalism it falls under, this has nothing to do with the proposal.This is the first time that this isue has been set forth.The proposal seems to me very whel sourced.If you want we can put that according to those 9 scholars the EU is a form of federalism.I'm not going to start quoting rules, but the sources seem solid,so any POV of any editor to the contrary can be safely ignored.Again, in order to make less waves as possible,i'm proposing to say in the lead that according to those 9 scholars, the EU is a type of federalism.--88.82.47.8 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also proposing to add this interesting bit about the distinction between EU-scholars and federalism-scholars.--88.82.47.8 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not enttirely sure exactly how you wish to change the lead. Please read this before you continue. Federalism is too broad and vague a word for inclusion in the article. It's nothing to do with Britain's aversion to the "F-word". Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still remain unconvinced. Your sources may be solid but only in the sense that they put forward a particular point of view in a debate where there are numerous differing opinions. Similar ideas have indeed been put forward in the past and for the same reasons that they were passed on then, I would say again that this one is not worth following up on. Once again the important distinction between factual encyclopedia and academic discussion/analysis must be made, Wikipedia should host only the former. --Simonski (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is basically the sui generis debate all over again, this time from the federalist POV. I don't think there is a consensus for stressing the federalist element as proposed, definitely not in the lede, because it is not possible to state the situation in terms of federalism both correctly and concisely.

As Valéry Giscard d'Estaing [5] said:"it is evident that the Union is - and will remain for some time to come - a mixed system. Europe's answer to the question "federation" or "confederation" ? is the acknowledgement that the Union is a unique construct, which borrows from both models". And he does not state that it borrows only from these models. I suggest leaving the lede as it is in this respect, though I would not object to use of the phrase "unique construct" since, last time round, people complained that sui generis was too arcane.

An additional problem is that there may be the different interpretations of the word "federalism" among different groups (particularly between people who have lived all their lives in federal states and those that have lived all their lives in unitary states, meaning that we get side-tracked into lengthy discussions of definitions and points of view, rather than stating the facts and letting the reader make the assessments.--Boson (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

“

Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism.(Joseph H. H. Weiler and this is beater then the wikipedia article)

”

Lets create a new section about the different debates on,federalism-federation-confederation.Something like "debate on federalism" at the end of the article.The fact that we are discussing it proves that a section like that is needed.Boson, the quote of Giscard is excellent, lets add that too.Plus what the FAQ says on the issue.--88.82.47.37 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I'm loosing track of what on earth is being proposed and rejected. Can we just keep this to the Federal Europe article? We can't go into scholarly opinions and counter opinions here.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, 88, you might find that you can make some useful editions to the Federal Europe page. However, I think its clear that you won't find support here I'm afraid for introducing the federation/federal debate or discussion to the main EU article. --Simonski (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with JLogan and Simonclamb above. I think this discussion hold too much detail level for this page. Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove a sentence in the legal system section...

"Directives require member states to achieve a certain result while leaving them discretion as to how to achieve the result. The details of how they are to be implemented are left to member states.[47] When the time limit for implementing directives passes, they may, under certain conditions, have direct effect in national law against Member States." The section in bold is the part I propose should be removed. Simply, it is pretty much the only time the term "direct effect" appears in the article and is thus confusing. Also whilst being true I think it is misleading (perhaps not the correct word!). Yes it does require certain conditions to have such effects, but the same can be said of the Treaty and Regulations. See for example the lack of direct afforded to the original Article 67 EEC in Casati. I think it is just unnecessary clutter without further elaboration. Also the citations are out of numerical sequence in that section. Lwxrm (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about merging the lines:

"Directives require member states to achieve a certain result while leaving them discretion as to how to achieve the result. The details of how they are to be implemented are left to member states.[47] When the time limit for implementing directives passes, they may, under certain conditions, have direct effect in national law against Member States.

to

"Directives require member states to achieve a certain result while leaving them discretion as to how to achieve the result. The directive is the standard law text, while within an agreed time frame nationally specific details of the implementations of directives are left to member states.[47] Arnoutf (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sudden mention of direct effect without explanation (except for the link) might be confusing, but I'm a little worried that deleting the sentence completely might imply that directives never have direct effect, which would also be misleading. Perhaps something like "The details of how they are to be implemented are left to member states,[47] though failure to fully implement the directives by the specified date may result in rights conferred by such directives becoming enforceable directly." --Boson (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should remove the statement, but we could rephrase it. I had thought that the phrase "direct effect" was reasonably self-explanatory, but then again I studied law and it's difficult for me to imagine looking from the outside in. Then again the statement is IMHO an accurate reflection of the law and we may well find that any alternatives sacrifice accuracy without making the topic easier to understand. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are similar to that of BHL... I honestly felt that the fact that Direct effect was linked was enough, and that any confusion could be settled by a quick check of the Direct Effect page. I always considered Direct effect to be one of the most important terms used within the EU and I think to remove it here might be a mistake. It also might not be, I dunno. --Simonski (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to rephrase my concern slightly into a question. Why is that the direct effect of directives and the fact this is contingent on "certain conditions" worth mentioning, but direct effect of regulations (direct effect NOT even mentioned) and even treaty articles (direct effect mentioned in article) under "certain conditions" isn't? Suggesting that directives require certain conditions to become directly effective and not saying the same for regulations and treaty articles implies that they do not have to satisfy these unexplained "certain conditions". Lwxrm (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regulations don't have direct effect, they just apply. Vis-à-vis regulations we say that: "Regulations become law in all member states the moment they come into force, without the requirement for any implementing measures, and automatically override conflicting domestic provisions." I thought that was as clear as it could be. We mention the direct effect of directives because it's what differentiates them from recommendations (cf Framework Decisions). As far as treaty article are concerned, you may have a point but I'm not sure how that relates to your proposed deletion. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@BHL I am afraid I disagree. Regulations can have direct effect. I think you are mixing direct applicability with direct effect. They are not the same concept. Regulations (under the same conditions of directives) can have direct effect. See Case 39/72 Commission v Italy [1973] ECR 101. Direct applicability just means that the measure automatically satisfies the one criteria of direct effect (non-discrectionary). For it to become directly effective it must also be sufficiently clear and precise and unconditional. I see it relating to my proposed deletion as it over-emphasises the direct effect of directives. I thought either make similar claims for regulations, decisions and treaty articles (increase the length of the article) or delete the reference to directives Lwxrm (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The case you quote decided that member states are forbidden from conditioning the applicability of regulations on national implementation measures. This kind of conflicts with what you're arguing. Were it the case that regulations could lack direct effect, how could they be given any legal effect at all, given that member states are, in any cae, forbidden from implementing them? The reality is that a directive which lacks precision fails to have direct effect, while a regulation which lacks precision can be annulled by the ECJ. Regulations need precision be have any force at all but directives don't. This is why Craig and DeBurca talk about dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s, when enacting regulations. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on about this but I feel again that I should reply.

Firstly: My citation of Case 39/72, in particular para [11] was to counter your claim that regulations don't have direct effect. The Court clearly held "all methods of implementation are contrary to the Treaty which would have the result of creating an obstacle to the direct effect of Community regulations."

Fair cop. They do use "direct effect" to describe the legal effect of regulations, but I'm still not sure we're comparing like with like. If anything else the situation is inverted for regulations when compared with directives. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly: Member States aren't "forbidden" from taking measures implementing regulations. They are prohibited from doing so in such a way which obscures the nature of the regulation in question. On this point see Case 50/76 where the Court held "the member-State may neither adopt nor allow national organisations having legislative power to adopt any measure which would conceal the Community nature and effects of any legal provision from the persons to whom it applies." [7]

I was generalising. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly and finally: The Court has held provisions of a regulation not to be directly effective in Case C-403/98 where it held "In the light of the discretion enjoyed by the Member States in respect of the implementation of those provisions, it cannot be held that individuals may derive rights from those provisions in the absence of measures of application adopted by the Member States.' [28] Here the particular provision of the regulation was not sufficiently clear and precise so as to be granted direct effect, a conclusion shared by Craig and De Burca. I was never arguing that "most" regulations do not have direct effect. Their very nature is indicative of an existence of direct effect. What I am saying is that the conditions need to be fulfilled, nonetheless. Without those conditions being fulfilled, the provisions will not have direct effect. Lwxrm (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The case you quote mentions neither "direct effect" nor "directly effective" although I admit they could have hypothetically come up. But then this particular regulation explicitly required a certain amount of implementation which is IMHO reasonably unusual. The nature of directives is that they require implementation, while the nature of regulations is that they don't. As a legal doctrine direct effect is considerably more important regarding directives than it might be regarding regulations. Hence we mention it for one the former and not for the latter. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't agree firstly with the original comment that regulations dont have direct effect - however at the end of the day I honestly didnt feel the article read as if to say Direct effect was only of relevance to directives, rather I felt it just reflected the fact that the concept plays an arguably more important role vis a vis directives. Maybe instead what we need is a re-wording of the section on the three main legislative instruments rather than a removal of an important reference to a crucial concept. --Simonski (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I am fighting a losing battle here. However, is the doctrine really more 'important' with regards to directives than regulations and, more crucially, treaty articles? Granted it's handling by the Court and application to directives is more controversial...but does that equate to importance? A lack of direct effect granted to an article of the treaty has a long-term impact on how areas of law are developed. This is not as important as a directive not having direct, so as to not merit a mention? I agree that deletion of the sentence may be a bad idea but I don't think it is justified to have it there ONLY in relation to directives Lwxrm (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

God or god

I would interpret Wikipedia:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents to mean that reference to the monotheistic deity of any belief system without an article should be treated as a proper noun, and capitalized. Some might also extend capitalization to a monotheistic god/God used with an article ("the concept of a singular God"):

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in any god or gods?
Do you believe in the Christian god/God?
Do you believe in the Islamic god/God?
Do you believe in the god/God of Abraham?
There was no mention of God.
There was no mention of any god.

--Boson (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by this in the context of this article??

I tend to agree with your versions except for the first and the one but last. I would only capitalise God without article if it does refer to a single monotheistic deity of a known belief system. Ie only when the context makes clear which god is referred to it should be capitalised; God (capitalised) can not refer to the Christian and the Islamic god at the same time.

For example a line: "45% of EU inhabitants believe in God" should only be used for a single deity (eg the Christian god) and exclude all believers in other monotheistic deities, while the line "52% of EU inhabitants believe in god" may include believers in the Jewish and Islamic god. (with the 7% making up for the fictitious % of Muslims and Jews and other monotheist believers) Arnoutf (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No offence Boson but I find it difficult to reconcile the style guide and your interpretation of it. The former refers to honorific titles as being capitalised but that's not what we're dealing with here. And in any case "any" isn't an article, it's an adjective. Why the difference between the first two and the last two? Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the MoS says

Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit, the Horned One); the is not capitalized. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin, a Muse). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse.

Although this is open to interpretation, I understand ithe general meaning to be that the word is capitalized when used as a proper noun and not capitalized when used as a common noun; so if we are talking of God as a personal god (which is how I imagine most respondents would understand the question), I would use "God" ("Do you believe in God?"). If we are talking about an uncountable abstract quality, I would say there is an argument for non-capitalization, but I don't think the English language community normally has that concept of their personal deity (though the concept might be shared by Einstein and Dawkins). As regards "any", I should have used the word "determiner", but that might have confused non-Linguists. Determiners include articles and words like "any", "some", etc.

As regards different religions (Arnoutf), I think Islam would claim that they are all the same personal god, and even Christianity would at least accept the Jewish god as the same god, even if different qualities are attributed to the God of Abraham ("the God of Abraham" having a different meaning from "the god of Abraham"; the presence of a determiner is merely indicative). -Boson (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The survey cited did not specify a god nor draw a distinction between the religions. Hence the term has to include all religions, including the polytheistic ones and agnostics. Ergo, to capitalised it as God would be misleading, implying that the data refers to a single particular God, rather than the concept.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wise to use the convention of the source? I think, there are good reasons to simply follow their example -- independent whether they opted for lower or upper case:

If there is no semantical difference, capitalization is likely a matter of subjective judgment. If the source opted to convey one and we report another, I would consider it an illegitimate change to propagate our own opinion on the subject.

If their is a semantical difference in the two options, then the authors of the survey might have been aware of this. They have probably been close to the design and conduct of the survey. In this case, a conscious decision on the capitalization of the word underlies the survey itself. This means that the specific survey question might have been explained to the test persons in a specific way. The preparation of the test person might have been different, if the test was designed along the other option. Bottom line: If there is a semantical difference, the survey results depend on the choice of the capitalization and changing this spelling might disconnect the reported figure from the reported question.

BTW, the source writes In fact, over one in two EU citizens believe there is a God (52%). but my argumentation, to follow their choice, is independent from the choice itself. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure that following the source is the best way. That may lead (hypothetical) to sentences like: "While Europeans do not believe in Gods perse (source1) what believe there is is in a specific monotheistic god (source2)" and other inconsistencies. Arnoutf (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what the source uses, they may not have been aware of the difference or merely overlooked it. Secondly, there is a difference, it is whether it is a noun or a proper noun. Basic rules of the language, if you say God then it means a specific god, if you say god then it could mean any. There is no provision for indicating which one we are talking about hence we should state god. In relation to using the source, we should only say God is it is a direct quote, which could be a way around this issue.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION OF FAQ

Moving

Regarding AfD debate. I propose moving the FAQ back to this talk page's space and this talk page would be renamed Talk:European Union/FAQ talk. There would be links between the top pages at the top of each of them.- J Logan ^t: 12:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving (again)

Having the EU FAQ in the talk namespace doesn't make any sense as it's not a talk page and it messes up the naming conventions, so that the "article" and "discussion" links at the top of the page don't go where they should.

Unless anyone objects, I plan to move the article and discussion page from Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions and Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions Discussion to Wikipedia:European Union frequently asked questions and Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions respectively. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sui generis

From WP: Sui generis (English pronunciation (IPA): /ˌsuːiˈdʒɛnərɪs/, roughly "SOO-ee JEN-a-ris", Latin pronunciation: /ˌsuːiˈgeneris/) is a Neo-Latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics.[1] The expression was effectively created by scholastic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept.[citation needed] In the structure "genus → species" a species that heads its own genus is known as sui generis. This does not, however, mean that all genera with only a single member are composed of sui generis species. It is only if the genus was specifically created to refer to that one species, with no other known examples, that the species is sui generis. If the species is alone merely due to extinction, as in the case of the Homo genus, the surviving species is not sui generis, because other members of the genus are known, even if they are not currently extant.

What (if any) qualities make the European Union unique? For example, the G8 is another supranational treaty organization. Members conduct is regulated by the G8, by treaty. NATO has a similar treaty suprnational role, as does the ICC. The UN might also be an analog.

What makes the EU unique? Raggz (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody here claims the EU is unique in being a sui generis organisation (the sui generis seems to do so, but that is not the discussion here). The only thing for this page is to establish whether the EU is a Sui generis organisation; and consensus is that it is (what the G8, Benelux, USA, Nafta or whatever is does not matter at all). Arnoutf (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A nation - or not?

Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy? No this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the EU between them.

The EU is clearly not a nation in any of these senses.

It has no constitution
It has no elections (of significance)
The important ECHR is not an organ of the EU
The EU has no currency or unified monitary policy
The EU has no authority over its own citizens, except by treaty.
What else?

The EU is a nation in the following senses:

The EU has a flag
The EU has an anthem
What else?

How can the EU be half a country? There is no such thing. When and if this happens, then we should describe it as a country. Even if it were halfway, we should still wait for that point. Raggz (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your response is exactly the ind of extreme black-white thinking what the line refers to when talking about "between two extremes". (BTW your arguments are almost all flawed: constitution is not needed to be a country; neither are elections (dictatorships can be countries), ECHU is not an organ of the EU - but UN or NATO are not organs of the US so the US is not a country???; The EU does have a currency (the euro) and monitary policy (although not all members adopt it at this time) and again to what extend is currency essential for a country (several countries use US dollars as currecny having no of their own), EU has no authority over its citizens except by treaty; most modern states call the treaties by which they have authority over their citizen law so that is more a difference in word use; and as you correctly state elsewhere McDonalds and many municipalities schools etc also have flags and anthems.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz you overlook a hell of a lot. You particularly over look the importance of EU law. We're not the only ones who think that the EU deserves a status different from your average international organisation. The cia think so too. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has a flag doesn't make it a nation! Counties have flags, businesses have flags, the UN has a flag, the BBC has one, I could even wave my own personal flag about... same can be said for a motto, symbol, anthem, etc etc. These things do not make the EU a nation, a state, a country, etc. It is a sui generis international/supranational organisation. David (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

moved discussion from mainspace talk

FAQ: Is the EU a country

The FAQ needs a bit of revision to be accurate. It says:

"Is the EU a country, a federation or an international organisation? The EU is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or International organisation difficult.

The EU has developed from an international trade organisation aimed at improving the economy and thereby fostering peace in Western Europe. Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity; like an anthem, a flag, a common currency, but also representation among other countries in international organisations like the G8. However, other properties of countries, like a fully-fledged defence force, or the power to make laws binding to the whole area are not part of the EU's mandate.

This means the EU can neither be described as a federation or country, nor as a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as any of these, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. Nevertheless, to promote consistency within Wikipedia, we borrow ideas from both the international organisation structure and the country articles.

Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy?

No this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the EU between them.

Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when speculating about this, as it is basically speculation.

This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors."

WP Policy and this FAQ

WP policy is pretty clear, editors on this article cannot project what the EU might become, our task is only to discuss what it has been and presently is. I suggest substituting something like the preceeding (and directly linking to WP policy) for the FAQ language that says:

"Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when speculating about this, as it is basically speculation.

This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors."

We cannot change WP by consensus here, those who want to change WP policy should do so in the appropriate forum. Raggz (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ is not meant as a "how to" for policies (please provide a specific policy, I think you mean crystal balling) but as a place where arguments from all sides from many repeated discussion are presented in a neutral tone of voice. Referring to policies often results in editors feeling policed and not taken seriously and often does not help making the debate less heated. So I would be very very careful with those. Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I do take policy seriouslly, and policy does limit speculation regarding what the EU might become. The EU is not a country, and if someone wants to claim that it is, all that they need is a reliable source for that. Don't take my references to policy the wrong way, please. Raggz (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I think you're confusing structure and content. Content-wise we don't have to (and don't) enter into the international organisation v. country debate. But we do have to make some choice on how we're going to lay the article out. Thus structurally the article reflects a half-way house between an international organisation and a country. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ: sui generis entity

"Is the EU a country, a federation or an international organisation? The EU is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or International organisation difficult.

This statement is subject to challenge. The United States for just one example underwent an analagous process prior to adoption of the US Constitution. There are many treaty organizations like NATO and the ICC, these are called supernational organizations.

This said, I will not support opening a divisive debate on this topic within the article.

I suggest: The EU is a supranational organization and is not a country, a federation or an international organisation.Raggz (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't the Sui Generis phrase has been the topic of heated debate repeatedly in the past. Consensus was that it is more specific then mere supranational for the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, but can defer this. Raggz (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Common currency

Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity; like an anthem, a flag, a common currency...

Does the EU have a central currency? If not, may we delete this?

McDonalds has a flag and an anthem. What does this make McDonalds? Raggz (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Euro is by the treaties the common currency. Opt-out can only be after agreement, so yes it has a common currency, and we cannot delete it.

McDonalds has more power and money (and probably owns more land) compared to several countries ;-) In the context it is clear we are talking about political unions not companies. Arnoutf (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is very unclear. The world is awash in flags and anthems that are not national. Neither makes the EU into a nation. Why is this important? I have no problem with mentioning that the EU has a flag, but why is it important is my question? Does the treaty require the UK to accept the euro? Is the UK part of the EU?Raggz (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an example aimed at editors on a non mainspace explanation. Stop measuring it against mainspace standards; these are irrelevant in the context. Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag

The EU is not unique in this respect, other countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the Flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and has its position by de facto status only. Another example be the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E Pluribus Unum being commonly used as such.

Since the EU is not a country, may we agree that it should not compare itself with countries? May we agree that the EU is a supranational entity and is not a nation? How can it not be a country and have still a "national symbol"? Raggz (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about the frequent suggestion to remove the flag from the mainspace article because it is in no treaty. And is an essential argument, I see some of your point and would suggest to replace "other" with "several". Arnoutf (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The flag is a part of the EU and belongs. I support retention. I doubt that half of the national flags formally appear in any law or treaty. It however does not make the EU a country, nor half of a country. That was my point. Raggz (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the answer to a question (Frequently asked QUESTIONS) If you read the question "Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?" than you might notice that for this phrase no claim whatsoever was made in the relation between flag and country. Only that the flag should stay. I notice that in many example you pick up on a line, take it out of all context, fantasise a new context and use to show the line is wrong in that (non existing) context. Please be careful with that as it will lead to a discussion that is completely besides the point. Arnoutf (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy

"It has developed a role in foreign policy, representing its members in the World Trade Organisation, at G8 summits and at the United Nations."

This states that the EU is a UN member. The EU does not represent its members at the UN, nor is it a UN member. The EU is not a member of the G8. In fact, the EU does not really engage in foreign policy, does it? Does the EU hve embassies or ambassadors? May the EU sign treaties?

If the EU really has a foreign policy, please edit in a summary that is accurate. If not, may we agree to delete this? Raggz (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The EU as a body has ambassadors/observers (without voting rights) in all these organisation and as such represents its members. So no this cannot be deleted. Arnoutf (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this out of place as this is not about the mainspace article. This should be discussed here. Arnoutf (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The EU is not a UN member and does not represent any member of the EU before the UN. The EU does not have an ambassador to the UN with the voting rights that the Ambassador from Spain has.

Can the EU even sign a treaty on behalf of its members? Of course the EU has some foreign presence at a few organizations, but where does it vote, where does it sign treaties? Is there an EU Ambassador to Indonesia? Is there an EU embassy there?

My problem is simple: the text suggests things that are not true. May we modify it so that the Reader understands what the EU does and does not do? Raggz (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ is not aimed at the Reader, it is aimed at Editors. That is the reason why it is not in mainspace. That is also the reason why we should not discuss it on the talk page of a mainspace article. Arnoutf (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct on all points.

^ Key facts and figures about Europe and the Europeans [6]
^ "Myths and Facts about Enlargement". European Communities. Retrieved 2008-07-09.
^ Smale, Alison; Bilefsky, Dan (2006-06-19). "Fighting EU 'enlargement fatigue'". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-08-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "EU enlargement - voices from the debate". British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
^ "Q&A: Turkey's EU entry talks". BBC News. 2006-12-11. Retrieved 2007-08-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ British Withdrawal from the European Union: A Guide to the Case For, ISR/Google Books, 2008. ISBN 978-0-906321-23-2 [7]
^ Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/00, Jean-Claude PIRIS. DOES THE EUROPEAN UNION HAVE A CONSTITUTION ? DOES IT NEED ONE? Harvard Law School · Cambridge, MA 02138. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000501.rtf
^ Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/00, Jean-Claude PIRIS. DOES THE EUROPEAN UNION HAVE A CONSTITUTION ? DOES IT NEED ONE? Harvard Law School · Cambridge, MA 02138. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000501.rtf
^ http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009627
^ In Europe, it is rarely enough to show that the union, in aggregate, will gain from a given policy. One must also show that the overall European gain manifestly outweighs individual national interests. This may seem a shabby calculation, but it has democratic roots. The EU is not a single country, whose most senior leaders are elected by a single electorate. In its highest decision-making body, the European Council, the 27 heads of state and government remain accountable to 27 different sets of voters. Charlemagne: Unity is strength. Aug 28th 2008. From The Economist print edition. http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009627
^ Cite error: The named reference euro website was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Europa Single Market was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html. Retrieved 2008-09-7. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Economy" ignored (help)

[1] Key facts and figures about Europe and the Europeans [6]

[2] "Myths and Facts about Enlargement". European Communities. Retrieved 2008-07-09.

[IHT_fatigue-3] Smale, Alison; Bilefsky, Dan (2006-06-19). "Fighting EU 'enlargement fatigue'". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-08-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Enlargement_voice-4] "EU enlargement - voices from the debate". British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Retrieved 2007-06-27.

[BBC_Turkey-5] "Q&A: Turkey's EU entry talks". BBC News. 2006-12-11. Retrieved 2007-08-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[6] British Withdrawal from the European Union: A Guide to the Case For, ISR/Google Books, 2008. ISBN 978-0-906321-23-2 [7]

[7] Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/00, Jean-Claude PIRIS. DOES THE EUROPEAN UNION HAVE A CONSTITUTION ? DOES IT NEED ONE? Harvard Law School · Cambridge, MA 02138. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000501.rtf

[8] Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/00, Jean-Claude PIRIS. DOES THE EUROPEAN UNION HAVE A CONSTITUTION ? DOES IT NEED ONE? Harvard Law School · Cambridge, MA 02138. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/00/000501.rtf

[9] ttp://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009627

[10] In Europe, it is rarely enough to show that the union, in aggregate, will gain from a given policy. One must also show that the overall European gain manifestly outweighs individual national interests. This may seem a shabby calculation, but it has democratic roots. The EU is not a single country, whose most senior leaders are elected by a single electorate. In its highest decision-making body, the European Council, the 27 heads of state and government remain accountable to 27 different sets of voters. Charlemagne: Unity is strength. Aug 28th 2008. From The Economist print edition. http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009627

[euro_website-11] Cite error: The named reference euro website was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Europa_Single_Market-12] Cite error: The named reference Europa Single Market was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[CIA_exports-13] The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html. Retrieved 2008-09-7. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Economy" ignored (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]