Talk:European Union/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

add English?

Bulgarian: Европейски съюз

Croatian: Europska unija

Czech: Evropská unie

Danish: Den Europæiske Union

Dutch: Europese Unie

Ulieno: Eiewo Eunie

Estonian: Euroopa Liit

Finnish: Euroopan unioni

French: Union européenne

German: Europäische Union

Greek: Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση

Hungarian: Európai Unió

Irish: An tAontas Eorpach

Italian: Unione europea

Latvian: Eiropas Savienība

Lithuanian: Europos Sąjunga

Maltese: Unjoni Ewropea

Polish: Unia Europejska

Portuguese: União Europeia

Romanian: Uniunea Europeană

Slovak: Európska únia

Slovene: Evropska unija

Spanish: Unión Europea

Swedish: Europeiska unionen 

2.24.4.107 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

English is the language of this article, the whole text and the headline are in English language. Therefore it is unnecessary to add English. --NarcosDE (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

Hi,

Please could you add the following text to the sentence below in the "Constitutional Nature" Section, in order to take into account new scholarly thinking which suggests a possible avenue for identifying the EU:

Old: It is, however, described as being based on a federal model or federal in nature.

New: It is, however, described as being based on a federal model or federal in nature; and so it may be appropriate to consider it a federal union of states, a concept lying between a confederation of states and a federal state.

The source is as follows (please reference in footnote): Law, John (2013) "How Can We Define Federalism?". Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, No. 3, p. E104. http://www.on-federalism.eu/attachments/169_download.pdf

Thanks alot for your help.

109.153.97.254 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Terra ❤ 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

Hi,

For consistency within the Constitutional Nature section, please could you put the words "federal union of states" towards the end of the second paragraph in italics?

Thanks alot for your help.

85.255.234.10 (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Hi, please could you create a link through to the page 'federal union of states', which now exists, at the reference in the text towards the end of the second paragraph of the Constitutional Nature section?

Thanks alot!

185.69.144.219 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


The page 'federal union of states' does not exist and this type of link would simply direct readers to the 'federalism' page. Johnxsmith (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

How about a criticism section about the EU being a covert socialist club which pays money into the coffers of jihadist groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.19.125 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mmmmmm I always thought the EU was a covert operation of global capitalism to suppress worker rights and destroy their pensions. But of course if you have reliable (unbiased) sources supporting your claim I may have to reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Competences" section is simply correct.

This might sound hair-splitting to those of you who aren't involved in EU law but this section is 100% accurate.

"EU member states retain all powers not explicitly handed to the European Union."

The term 'powers' describes the functions of a state in acting independently, which the EU does enjoy. The EU - which *IS* the member states - does not legislate with the approval of member states, within the specific areas the treaties lay down, to define further the content of EU law, law which states are not free to ignore, but free to ignore without e.g. suspension of voting rights, while they choose not to remain part of the union. That's a power - it's not a very narrow competence, even the exercise of agency.

"In some areas the EU enjoys exclusive competence. These are areas in which member states have renounced any capacity to enact legislation."

All member states have renounced any capacity to enact legislation. They retain none of their capacity to legislate in any area they choose. They have simply said that they choose to restrict their discretion in legislating in all areas, for the duration of the treaty provision, this being a promise they cannot break. There is no difference between capacity and discretion. Retaining your capacity means you can do something.


"In other areas the EU and its member states share the competence to legislate. While both can legislate, member states can only legislate to the extent to which the EU has not."Italic text

The same applies here. States cannot legislate in any area - they cannot do so without e.g. suspension of voting rights, so long as they wish to remain part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronico75 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus on map

Please, see here; http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/cyprus/index_en.htm . In this source we can read that the whole island belong in the European Union so, the map must change!

I agree. The Republic of Cyprus constitutes the entire island, and it is the Republic of Cyprus which is in the EU. The map seems to suggest that the illegal occupation of Cyprus is a separate entity.
I disagree. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the EU, and claims sovereignty over the whole island. But the northern third of the island is claimed, and occupied, by Turkey. Wikipedia policy is that maps of territories should show the reality on the ground, not the claims made by their rulers; see e.g. India, and Q6 in the FAQ on its talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the upcoming EU referendum in the UK?

Feels like some mention should be made somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.217.213 (talk)

Done

Hello, just a reminder that you can sign off on talk pages by typing four tildes (~) with no spaces. I've added the information you suggested; you can find it under the 'Member States' section. Johnxsmith (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Where? A search for "referendum" finds a mention of the Norwegian 1972 referendum only.109.156.25.231 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

Hi,

Please could you add the following text to the sentence below in the "Leaders" part of the infobox

Old: 

|leader_title1 = [[President of the European Commission]]
|leader_name1 = [[Jean-Claude Juncker]]
|leader_title2 = [[President of the European Council]]
|leader_name2 = [[Donald Tusk]]
|leader_title3 = [[President of the European Parliament]]
|leader_name3 = [[Martin Schulz]]

New: 

{{collapsible list||title = [[President of the European Union]]
|leader_title1 = [[President of the European Commission]]
|leader_name1 = [[Jean-Claude Juncker]]
|leader_title2 = [[President of the European Council]]
|leader_name2 = [[Donald Tusk]]
|leader_title3 = [[President of the European Parliament]]
|leader_name3 = [[Martin Schulz]]

Thanks alot for your help. 92.4.96.96 (talk)


Why? What problem would be solved by this. Also - the offices are dissimilar so why under one list? Arnoutf (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but this change looks like it may break the infobox. This looks more like a request for a collapse option for the infobox. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done Tried it, indeed it does. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: That was basically what I was suggest; a collapsible option for the inbox, with a link to the President of the European Union article. 92.4.96.96 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Will reply in a bit on talk. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Largest Cities

This article says that Paris and London are the largest cities in the EU, which is simply wrong. The city of Paris only has a population of less then 2,5 million, even though its metroplitan area may be the second largest. Second biggest city wihtin the EU is Berlin. It would be great, if you change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:22EC:8CBE:837C:766B:9A93 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

London and Paris are by far the largest urban areas in the EU. Data shows Paris has a slightly larger urban population, but the difference is negligible, so both are listed alphabetically. This has been discussed before so please see previous discussions in the talk page archive. There's a summary by Arnoutf from the last time this was raised here. Rob984 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) Per capita $37,852

GDP (PPP) 2015 estimate 

•  	Total 	$19.205 trillion[8] (2ndb)
•  	Per capita 	$37,852[8] (18thb)

Is wrong it should say 28th instead of 18th Brasileirinhas copa do sexo (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's 17. Including EU countries, it is 28. But It does not include member states, as if the EU is one combined entity. Therefore the rankings for the Finland, the UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland, and Luxembourg are omitted. Rob984 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Although... the other figure for nominal GDP is ranked including member states. I am thinking maybe this is better because otherwise the information is not comparable with countries. The note will need to be changed however, and also the HDI rank. Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the ranking for nominal GDP to also not include member states for the time being (from 25th to 15th), but I am not sure this is best practice. Rob984 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The request itself looks like it's answered. Toggling. I think discussion of how the ranking is done can continue without keeping the request open. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cyrillic version of .eu (.ею)

Hi, maybe the new Cyrillic version of .eu should be added under Top-level domain name?

https://www.gandi.net/news/en/2016-06-01/8296-introducing_._the_cyrillic_version_of_.eu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.10.66 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can point me, and the majority of Europeans to the (single) keys on their keyboard to type it, I would agree. Otherwise it appears too much detail for the infobox. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the official script of Bulgaria. Is there a Greek form as well? It doesn't seem too much to include two addition domains given they would fit on one line. Rob984 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Current events in history of the EU

How about to add a bit information about current events in history of the EU (in this section)? For example the following text: From the beginning of 2010s, the European Union is going through a series of tests, including debt crisis in some Eurozone countries, increasing migration from the Middle East countries, Russia's aggression against Ukraine and potential United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If no one against then I insert this text. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about talking about a United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU in this sense in an article about a possible United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU. I also think the debt crisis is more of a Eurozone than a EU problem. Feel free to insert the other two though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well the referendum on the issue is certainly a current event. I'll add it. Ben Finn (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no criticism??

Why does this article seem to contain no criticism at all (from a quick look through), other than a passing mention in relation to the CAP? How extraordinary! Ben Finn (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Likely because we do not have an article on Criticism of the European Union to draw material from. Just an article on Euroscepticism. Are you suggesting adding relevant material?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 June 2016
Does it read as having a large amount of boosterism? CMD (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The UK is no longer part of the EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubzee (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

They haven't left yet, it was just a referendum, there's a procedure for leaving that they have to go trough first Kamrat (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24th June 2016

Too many people are editing this page saying the UK is out of the EU now. It isn't. They've just had a vote. Opacitatic (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

remove uk from europe union as they left

198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - UK remains an EU member until withdrawal processes are complete, which may take two years at least. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

Remove United Kingdom from list, and add mention of EU referendum

2602:306:C468:FBD0:6552:7334:124E:327B (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball we cannot remove a country just because of an vote wanting to leave the EU Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

uk

the uk has left, changed the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.34.88 (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The UK has not left. CMD (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
... yet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be mentioned somewhere surely - "it would be misleading" to act like nothing had happened. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Like in the fifth para of the introductory section - where it's been for several hours? But, there probably needs to be some more added to the main text. No rush though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone has changes the article's map to indicate the UK isn't in the EU. This is false, some admin should lock the image for a couple days, and fix it now. --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.101.34 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Were probably gonna reach 2020 before they are "completely" out.92.220.75.86 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel it is out of place in the article head because it isn't relevant to describing what the EU is. The History section already has a blurb and I think that's sufficient. I won't remove it from the head though. Just putting in my two cents. Cuebreaker (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per CRYSTAL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Status of the United Kingdom

I'm notice there is no serious discussion on this so...

The UK will soon begin the process of leaving the EU, which will take up to two years to complete. When this process begins is not exactly clear, with David Cameron claiming his successor will invoke Article 50 two months from now, while Jean-Claude Juncker insists it should be invoked immediately. This is obviously a unique and significant status for a member state. I am thinking we should begin determining a consensus how the UK should be treated as soon as possible to avoid potential disruption when the process begins. Already, before official notification has even been given, the remaining 27 members have decided to begin discussions excluding the UK. It doesn't seem like the UK is going to be allowed gradual secession given the stance of EU leaders (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36618317). Two years is only the maximum permitted duration that the treaties of EU will remain in effect after Article 50 is invoked, which otherwise needs approval to be extended. That period is to allow for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement but also to allow the EU to adapt budgets, policies, etc, discussion which will likely omit the UK.

Once this process begins, it seems clear to me that the UK will no longer be considered a full-member state. We should consider indicating the UK in the lead, on maps, in the infobox/lists, as a seceding state. For example as a lighter colour green on the location map in the infobox. However I stress, only when the process begins!

.Rob984 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Current Events

The phrase "will begin negotiations that would last up to a maximum of two years according to the Lisbon Treaty" is misleading. It would be more accurate to state "is now preparing to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, leading to exit negotiations that will last up to two years" would be more accurate.

Also, this section cites no references.

Perhaps someone with an account will rectify this. 94.195.18.36 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Also added one reference. Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2016

remove united kingdom 46.208.106.171 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Nope - the UK is still a member (see multiple earlier posts) until the withdrawal process has been completed, in some years time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes but a member that has stated that it intends to withdraw, so having a map showing it as wholly green is misleading --Andrew 23:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Map

Should the colour of the United Kingdom on the map be changed to indicate that it has stated its intention to withdraw from the European Union? --Andrew 23:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not until it invokes Article 50. Then I think so. See my comment above. Rob984 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close per extension of WP:SK. Nomination appears erroneous, nominator's justification is not strong, and "European Union" is the union's name. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

European Union → European union The "U" in union does not have to be a capital letter. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E831:4AAB:3D71:12D8 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy close It doesn't have to be, but it is. Per their website, for one. And you have no rationale on WHY you think it should be moved too... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a proper name, not a descriptive title. CMD (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention of UK decision to leave in introduction

I think in the fourth paragraph which discusses the transformation and expansion of the EU, we should include one short sentence mentioning that the UK is the only state ever to vote to leave the EU. This is a significant event in the EU's history, and the UK is an important member state, forming one of the "Big Four" and encompassing 17% of the EU's economy. Commenting here because I realise a lengthier version has been removed once before, and I will remove the addition if anyone still objects to this. Rob984 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the sentence I added:

"On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave EU—the only member state ever to do so."

Rob984 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's important, but is it more important than say the fourth enlargement to 10 new states in 2004, or the incorporation of East Germany in 1990? At the moment there is no discussion at all of the member states in the lead, so it seems rather WP:UNDUE that the only member state to be mentioned in the lead is the one that plans to no longer be a member state. It would be like if the lead of the United Kingdom article didn't have any discussion of the constituent countries, but mentioned the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on it's withdrawal from the Union. TDL (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
At most, we could add words such as "In 2016, the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU." No more detail than that is needed (or known) at present - but it is such a major event that a brief mention like that may be appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I would find the argument to include the Scottish independence referendum in the lead of the UK credible if it had resulted in a victory for Yes and an independent Scotland. While Brexit has not yet occurred, and while the principles of wp:recentism must be kept in mind, most sources seem to treat this as quite a major event in the history of the EU. CMD (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
46.130.24.251 (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Ukwas tried to leave EU, but failed. If Scotland turns to independent, UK will leave EU.

United Kingdom Referendum

Having read the article, and in lieu of the result of the referendum in the UK, I have changed some of the sentences. I felt that the article was not taking a neutral perspective on this matter (perhaps having been written by a Europhile). Wikipedia must of course be neutral.

Firstly there is no need for that one sentence about the EU result in the same paragraph that describes the history of the EU and the treaties. So I have deleted it. Keep Brexit as a topic for the very end of the introduction.

Secondly concerning the last paragraph in the introduction there are some problems. It uses the date of the results (24th) of the referendum instead of the actual day when people voted and decided (23rd). It doesn't use a source (I have used the BBC). It didn't mention it was a referendum. Furthermore the use of the word 'consider' gives off the impression that this is something that won't happen when it reality it will (all major party leaders agree to that). I have changed this to one sentence because it is a fast moving topic at the moment and it only warrants the one sentence.

Thirdly concerning the paragraph under 'current events'. Another major issue debated was sovereignty and 'immigration' was a topic discussed much more often in debates and amongst the public than 'migration' (which are technically different). There is no real need to mention that it 'shocked' and the idea of 'unity' is questionable and it is a very ambiguous term. That sentence has been deleted. The legal standing on the referendum does remain unknown (no referendum IS legally binding) but on various political television programmes the claims made by Nicola Sturgeon over Scotland do not hold ground legally (the Scottish Parliament is subservient legally to the UK Parliament) and all major political leaders abide by the result:

For this reason that last sentence has been removed.

Furthermore concerning Brexit on Wikipedia I think we should try to use articles written by the BBC. The BBC is British, but also it is one of the major broadcasting corporations that has to stay neutral in the referendum and officially did stay neutral. Newspaper articles from The Guardian (as one sentence used) are not as good because the Guardian is biased as it campaigned to vote a certain way (as most newspapers in the UK did). The BBC should be used over newspaper articles when possible. Poiuytre (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, sources are not required to be neutral to be reliable. Any source that is generally reliable may be used, even if it has its own biases. What must be avoided is the presentation of a source's bias as WP's voice. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Unjustified rollback of article a number of days by Marthainky

I had a revert this change, and as a result, any intermediate edits since then (apologies to any editors who have made changes since Marthainky's rollback). Marthainky, if you want to contest the addition of the section on the UK referendum, then remove that section, rather than rolling back the whole article. Unless you can give justification for reverting every change since then? Rob984 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually it looks like intermediate edits were just editors redoing changes reverted in Marthainky's rollback. Rob984 (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I did wrong by correcting some links. I don't live in Europe, but thought the article could use the links. I'll also try looking for the deadlinks, to make them current. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. I think your corrections have all been restored as I reverted to your last revision right before Marthainky rollbacked the article. Thank you for your edits. Rob984 (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rob984, I moved the content of the "UK referendum" to History of the United Kingdom. Please be fair. The article here is not about the national development of a single country. BTW, officially Britain is still a member state. Marthainky (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion above (#Mention of UK decision to leave in introduction), where a number of editors (including myself) have supported with reasoning, mentioning the UK's secession. Rob984 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove Great Britain

Brexit was confirmed on 24/06/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.201.52 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain is still a part of the EU until exit negotiations are complete

Das größte Problem, England Autoindustrie hat, ist , dass es praktisch nichts davon im Haus besitzt . Es hat null Fähigkeit, sich von zu isolieren , was an anderer Stelle entschieden. Wird es überleben? Niemand weiß es, und die Engländer kann nichts tun, das zu ändern. Dies ist , warum Sie Ihre nationalen Marken in inländischen Besitz zu halten, um Situationen wie diese zu vermeiden.

Two issues:

1st GB is an EU member the UK is not (ie including NI) - This is incorrect. Northern Ireland is part of the EU as part of the member state of the United Kingdom.

2nd at any rate this map should be changed back (or UK shaded to show it has voted to leave but presently still a member) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.198.243 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed UK is Great Britain and Northern Ireland and some other territories. No, formally nothing has happened as the legal representatives of UK have not formally announced its intention to leave. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maps, infobox and Member states section

What are everyone's feelings on the map? Personally I prefer the one previously (EU on globe without internal borders) but I don't have a strong preference. The purpose of the map in the infobox is suppose to be a location map. So I don't think showing the internal borders is helpful since it is difficult to distinguish the different member states. Instead, the labelled map under European Union#Member states is for this (although that one isn't great either, I think I added a much clearer one but that seems to have been removed?). And again, as this is a location map, showing the EU on the globe is clearer. It shows where the EU is location in relation to a much wider area, such as how far it is from North America.

Rob984 (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I did change the member states map last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&oldid=642861719#Member_states I certainly don't think the current version is an improvement. What are everyone's thought on this map too? Rob984 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is definitely important to show the members' national boundaries on the map. Some people may look to it in order to quickly find out which states are members, and a borderless version would make it much difficult and confusing if they are not expert cartographers. Also, this model of map sort of (subjectively) transmits the erroneous idea of members being much more united than they actually are, like if border control was close to inexistent between all of them. Anyways, if you look in articles about other supranational unions, like the Arab League, Unasul, etc., in none of its maps the borders are simply erased.
As for the format of the map, I think a centralized planisphere seems easier to read, but you made a good point on its purpose of location, so I'm not sure about this one.
Choosing among the four maps presented, I would vote for the first and the third. - Alumnum (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I say without internal borders. The EU is, according to many sources, more than just an organisation, as member states have delegated a significant share of their otherwise sovereign "rights" to an entirely new political body. The argument about the state of schengen is irrelevant in this case. If someone will really care who's in and who's not, he should look at the proper map lower in the article. He, who does (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would think that either no international borders should be shown (ie non-EU state boarders should be removed) or all borders should be shown (ie EU borders should be shown). To just show the EU as a single entity on a map that differentiates between nations implies that the EU is itself on par with a national state (and potentially implies the politically charged position that membership diminishes the equality of EU states with non-EU states). This is a complex issue due to the desire by some to create an unified EU state (presumably similar in nature to the USA). Wikipedia should represent the reality as it is today (not how some might foresee, desire or fear the future reality to be). The UK's recent vote to leave the EU highlights that individual EU members currently maintain a reasonable degree of sovereignty, or at least at present the sovereignty to decide on their level of sovereignty! Concerns over erosion of sovereignty were one of the main reasons for Brexit - but this concern/desire is not for us to represent through this map. Wikipeadia should be neutral and either all or no borders should be shown until such a point as the borders within the EU are very clearly no longer international borders. Once (and if) the EU holds a single seat at the UN (presumably the current French seat) we should review but not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.18.44 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Primarily?

The lead section states that the countries of the EU are located "primarily" within Europe. Surely they're all completely within Europe? I realise that "Europe" can be a bit of a fuzzy concept but I'm struggling to think of any of the current 28 that are not squarely within Europe, however defined. If a country like Turkey, or even Russia, were to accede then clearly there would be an issue but as of now the situation seems clear. Unless one excludes the islands (GB, Ireland, Malta)? But that would be ludicrous, like excluding Tasmania from Australia or Copenhagen from Denmark. Presumably, a very strange and hair-splitting definition of Europe could be arrived at that would exclude some places but the question is whether such a definition would be widely accepted, and my guess is that it would not. Having clicked on the individual member states, it seems they're all considered part of "Europe" (both currently and historically), so if for no other reason than internal consistency it seems daft to leave in the word "primarily".Brooklyn Eagle (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus is usually considered to be part of Asia. In addition, several member states, like France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have territories outside Europe. That said, I nonetheless agree that the sentence sounds strange and that we should remove "primarily". --Glentamara (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removal. They're not all completely within Europe. France is the simplest example (although not the only one). Parts of France are in South America and off Madagascar, far far from Europe. There's a reason Euro notes have little squares below the map. CMD (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think this should not be removed. Parts of France are an incredible distance from Europe. The UK is more complex due to the different structure to France. It is, in my view, non geographic to describe Cyprus as within Europe - it so clearly is not. Primarily seem a reasonable word to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.18.44 (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Brexit" Referendum

Hello Wikipedia, 

   As you may know, the United Kingdom has left the European Union, and so, this article needs to be changed DRASTICALLY, and we need to do this swiftly, and to add a lot of new content to this page, and so I would encourage everyone to contribute to this page as much as possible.

     Sincerely,
         A Chap from London


[1]

Can we change the map to show the UK in light green consistent with other territories (e.g. Crimea) where the current legal status is unclear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:C101:1BBC:311C:AB25:126E:2E4B (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The UK is not out yet, regardless of the result. The vote may be in, but the referendum did not automatically trigger exit. This will come down to the negotiations and treaties that will be done in coming months. Other than updating the article to show the result, we should not be removing UK from the membership section etc Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, but we should change the colour of the map to indicate that the United Kingdom has indicated that it wishes to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and wishes to withdraw from the EU --Andrew 23:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The EU has officially announced they have 27 members now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mettie7 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's only an announcement by the EU President. However, the formal departure of Britain hasn't been completed yet. Thus, EU laws still apply to Britain. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/livecoverage/breaking-news-now/lc-AAhtfvM

The UK has not left the EU. The UK referendum is not even binding on the UK parliament. As much as it would be an affront to democracy the UK might not even leave. Remember the referendums against the EU constitution, and the Greek bailout referendum and the Irish referendum... There is a great deal of precedence within the EU for distortion of democratic will (perhaps one reason for the result in the UK). Wikipedia should no jump the gun but rather wait and see and then represent facts as they actually change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.18.44 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Change colour for the UK

Should be a different shade of green. Potentially marked as 'leaving member' or 'uncertain situation due to referendum outcome'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.57.38 (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No. The UK is still part of the EU and it would be misleading for readers to suggest otherwise. There is a process to be gone through before the UK leaves, and that will take at least two years. When it formally leaves at that time, the map should be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Once we have Article 50 from UK then there should be large edits (including on differential shading on the map). There will need to be a section within the article explaining what has happened and that it is expected (but of course not guaranteed) that that the UK will leave the UK. At the moment all we can say is that a referendum result means that it is very likely that the UK will use Article 50 and very likely that will then lead to the UK leaving. It is clear to those that believe in democracy (even those that square the circle of supporting both democracy and the present EU) what should now happen but not clear what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.18.44 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

UK membership topic series

I feel that including this article as part of a series on "United Kingdom in the European Union" stretches the definition of "series" far too far. This article's topic is the European Union; that does not make it a part of a series of every topic on the European Union. The membership topics of its specific member states are subtopics of subtopics of this article. CMD (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, it is to remain included until consensus otherwise is reached. Please do not edit war. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How exactly does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL justify ignoring WP:NOCONSENSUS? It doesn't from what I can tell. It states "Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". So the addition of the template should be removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS, unless you can explain how exactly policy infers otherwise. Rob984 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
If you would actually read the policy you're citing, you would notice that it only applies when a discussion has first occurred: "What happens next depends..." Ergo it's irrelevant right now and perfectly fine to "ignore". The sidebar should be included and only removed once consensus to remove, or no consensus on inclusion, is developed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Applogies, evidently I cited the wrong part of the policy:
"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion."
"Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism."
WP:CONSENSUS
I don't believe you haven't grasped this basic concept of Wikipedia.
So there isn't any clause in WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to ignore WP:CONSENSUS? If you choose to continue edit warring, I will report you at WP:AN3.
I also oppose the addition of the template per CMD's rational.
Thanks,
Rob984 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says that navigation should be bidirectional unless consensus develops otherwise. My reverts were thus "policy-based", though not safely included among the official list of 3RR exceptions, and the reverts to remove it were in the wrong. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah right. You can't just add templates without consensus because "European Union" is listed on the template. That would be absurd. Why not stop arguing about formalities and instead put forward a good case for including the template? Rob984 (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Policies exist to be followed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
1) It is a guideline not a policy 2) Even a policy would not be a fantastic justification for creating a template and then edit warring it into articles.
Do you have any reasoning besides referencing a guideline as to why the template belongs on this article? CMD (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines exist to be followed, too. And yes; since the "Brexit" is such a notable event, along with the whole history leading up to it, the series sidebar should be there to direct readers to it. As for objections to it giving undue weight to Britain out of all the other members: none of them have had such notable events pertaining to their membership. The special nature of the UK's entry and apparently imminent exit warrant the sidebar's inclusion. Finally, I did not edit war it in, I placed it in, and tried to revert your and others' borderline vandalous removal against guidelines without stepping over 3RR. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Regarding notability and weight, the UKs entry and potential exit are covered in our article text. This article is not about the UK and Europe, even though it includes information about their relationship, and thus is not part of a series on the subject of the UK and Europe. The template is very out of place in such a broad article. CMD (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Then would you like to propose an edit to the template itself (as WP:BIDIRECTIONAL indicates)? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the idea that the spirit of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL refers to topics within the template, rather than every single link including those in the title. It's a good template, but the guideline is being interpreted far too literally. CMD (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
My opinion would be to remove it to prevent the unworkable listing of Any member in the UK sideboxes. Otherwise the inclusion of only one is biasing the article. If the following problem is to be solved by changing the UK sidebar, the discussion should be there (not here). For now, I think WP:IAR (which is a policy) could apply, in particular since bidirectional is merely a guideline. Arnoutf (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jujutsuan, your idea is senseless and devoid of common sense. You can not add the template of "United Kingdom in the European Union" to the article because this break of the rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (reason: why only UK? must add templates of all member states - 28!, not only one). Nonsense, nothing more. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You can disagree without resorting to insults like "your idea is senseless". It's not POV, it reflects the comparatively higher notability of UK events that other member states simply don't have (except maybe Greece and "Grexit", but I have no involvement with that series, if there is one). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: yes, this is POV. Also, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not newspaper. Jujutsuan, you're doing unnecessary confusion. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to WP:NOTNEWS, that doesn't apply here. Adding the series sidebar is not original reporting, a news report, a "who's who" section, or a diary. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not newspaper. European Union is union of 28 member states (on an equal footing), European Union is not union of UK and 27 other states, because in the UK held a referendum. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: There's some confusion about WP:BIDIRECTIONAL here. It does not say that templates should be transcluded on all articles it links to. Rather, it says that all articles it is transcluded on should be linked from the template. As such, it does not justify including the template here. I agree with others that it does not add any value to this article. TDL (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to explicitly. It does say thing should be set up "so that the navigation is bidirectional.". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan, your over-interpretation.... Let's finish it finally. Please read intro of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL: "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.". Also, your idea break Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (reason: why only UK? UK is one of 28 member states, this is favoritism UK). Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is "core content policy", see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not POV or favoritism (FWIW I'm not even from the UK), it's a matter of notability. None of the other member states' relationship to the EU have been nearly as notable as the UK, again with the possible exception of Greece (whose series sidebar, if one exists, should also be added). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
First: Jujutsuan, on your user page is a template with the inscription: "This user supports the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit)." - so, you're not neutral. Second: This encyclopedia is not a measure of publicity. European Union is union of 28 member states (on an equal footing), European Union is not union of UK and 27 other states, because in the UK held a referendum. Simply. Can not you understand? That is your problem. Competence is required, see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Calm the tone Subtropical. At least they are actually trying to seek consensus for the change now, rather than arguing about policy. I agree however that it is undue weight. Just because the relationship is notable, does not mean it is of a high importance. Rob984 (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Supporting Brexit doesn't automatically make me an Anglophile, or otherwise "pro-UK" POV. This isn't just a publicity thing, it's a major historical event. The others simply haven't had those (to date, anyway). And Rob is right—cool off. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
For me it is a waste of time. I do not see a chance to be a consensus for add this idea. This idea break: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. Author of idea are not neutral (on Jujutsuan's user page is a template with the inscription: "This user supports the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit)"). There are no serious arguments, even intro of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say: "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply (...). So, have a nice day :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You disagree with me, so you call my argument "not serious"? Resorting to ridicule is a classic sign you have lost the argument. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 02:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's get back to the topic. It is placed within a section memberstates. This is about a template referring to the relation between the EU and 1 out of 28 members. If I make a visual survey of the section, I see (this rather bulky) template is covering about 10% of the total screen space of the section member states (which includes other images and tables also referring to the UK). So the main questions to be answered here would be (1) How much of the section should be at max be reserved for bilateral relations of individual members states to the EU (currently it is about 10%, is that fair, too little, or is that already overdoing it)? AND (2) What is the maximum amount within the bilateral EU-member states space that can be assigned to the bilateral relation between a single country (the most important one) and the EU as a whole (currently this seems to be 100% to a single country, is that fair). (if the template would have been much much smaller, the debate probably would have been less intense) Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the scope of the member state section of this article should be to give an overview of all of them, with more weight given to memberships which have greater weight in other sources. The UK would I feel qualify as a more notable member. I'm not sure it deserves, say, 10%, but even if it did, I would argue a template that is simply a list of articles is a poor way to do it. The template helps with navigation, but our aim is to give a concise understandable summary that can be taken away from just this article, which in this case is far better done through other means than the template at hand. CMD (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the UK has currently considerably more than 10%, as it has the template in addition to mention in the section. Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Union/Archive_29&oldid=1146018962"