Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
What's an associate member? The article says that Turkey is one, but makes no other mention of this term. Information on what an associate member is, and a list of current associate members, would be appreciated. -Smack 23:38 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There's a page somewhere which lists them, but it isn't too detailed. They are mostly European nations who wish to apply in the near future, and also non-European members who want to join, but obviously cannot, so this is as close as they can get.
Also, regarding the marriage story above, the UK and Ireland are exempt from many such laws as they are outside the Schengen Area Grunners 03:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
This seems like an odd statement to me. The United Nations is pretty powerful; as an example, if it wanted to, it could attack any country with the largest military force that could possibly be mustered. I'd bet the Roman Empire belonged to a couple of pretty powerful entities that could be called international organisations. Tempshill 00:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The UN isn't that powerful, note its failure to prevent the American led invasion of Iraq, or Indonesia's attack on East Timor. The UN has no economic power, and also no military power as there is no UN army. For peacekeeping purposes the member states 'lend' troops, and more importantly, the UN does not have the authority to declare war.
I also disagree that Empires are organisations. Organisation implies a body made up of member states, an Empire is simply one state occupying many others. Grunners
Pre-May 2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 00:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
The EU is not a country in that sovereignty ultimatly lies with the member states, who can leave the union at any time. The Federal EU government also can only have powers given to it by the member states. Therefore it is a 'pooling' of powers, very unlike the USA which has a domianant central government. The idea that the EU is a 'country' would horrify most Europeans! In fact, it is closer in style to organisations such as the UN, or NAFTA, than it is the United States Grunners
Any claim that the EU is or is not a nation will be politically controversial. The European Union has many features that are normally only held by sovereign countries. Some of these are purely symbolic (a flag, an anthem). Others are more substantial (a currency, supremacy of its law over that of its member states, direct applicability of (some of) its laws in member states). Some features (its foreign policy, police and armed forces) are still embryonic, and can be used to argue either side of the point.
The EU currently resembles an alliance or maybe a confederation more than anything, and bear in mind that historically confederations either dissolve or become federations. And that federations either dissolve or become unitary states.--Tomtom 07:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The United States has managed to become a federation for over two hundred years without dissolving (despite the Civil War) or becoming a unitary state. RickK 07:08, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
The EU is of course not yet a country. It has separate armies and the EU has no way to enforce its rulings. Therefore it is not a state (state's are usually defined by sovereignty over a territory usually ensured by a monopoly of force, something the EU does not have)
- CJWilly
I do not think we need both graphs since by definition they have to look identical. Why do we not just place the scale of the right graph to the right hand side of the left graph? Get-back-world-respect 18:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
i think you should change colours on that percentage graph and leave it there. i mean, it is important for european union policies to know what countries (or regions) have their GDP less than 75% compared to the EU avarege. so, what about add red to those countries?
New data concerning the economic standing of the 25 EU member states was published today . Gugganij 18:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I still think at least one of the two graphs should be sorted by rank. This adds valuable information to the display. Please? Miguel 00:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have doubts about the sense of that list. I would propose that only those countries who have already - at least - applied for membership should be mentioned there (i. e. Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia). (I know Switzerland has applied, too, but this application is frozen, as it is stated correctly in the article.) Otherwise one would have to list all European countries because all are 'possible post-2007 members'. Especially Moldova seems to be odd in the list because Ukraine is not listed, for example. (I know Switzerland has applied, too, but this application is frozen, as it is corrected stated in the article.) --EBB 10:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, Switzerland has since withdrawn its application and the unionist politicians who tried it have been removed from office. Us Swiss like our independance and neutrality.--68.80.223.233 07:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The section Legal history and governing treaties, along with the section about the three pillars has been removed to European Union Law (not by me). It is fair to say that there is some need for the main European Union page to be more streamlined and generalised - with the specifics on seperate pages. In this case, a much smaller section is needed to replace the missing bit. It should cover the most important points and give an overview to the treaties and 3 pillars.
European Union Law is also messy now, the aforementioned sections should perhaps go to their own page, or European Union treaties (does it exist?).
Finally, I would say that the missing history section is a similar case - a summary is required from the seperate History of the European Union page.
Considering the time I put into the treaties section, I will get around to doing this eventually - but I would absolutely love if someone else could put some work into it! I would say to the user who removed the section - you've created a heck of a lot of work - hope you realise this! :o)
In conclusion - there's also other loose ends in the article - the role of the community in the Union is once again obscure in its seperation from the main bit on the 3 pillars. Also some other areas are now discussed in a greater level of detail - they may need looked at. Thinking intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism particularly - it's not as sensible without the previous sections - and is obviously longer despite its being a less weighty subtopic!
ARGHHHHH - help please!!!!! Let's get this article back on track!
Zoney 11:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Zoney, can you explain your last edit regarding the list of currencies? — Miguel 23:26, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
I produced this new map by editing the Europe map and the existing EU map (for the further east bit). I hope that this is clearer - the paler background on the EU countries is done to show up the text more. Unfortunately this is slightly at the expense of a clear difference between Romania/Bulgaria and Turkey, but it's distinguishable. I added the names of the EU neighbours. Yes the font is VERY small, but as they're not as relevant to the topic, it's no matter. They are recognisable. (I don't relish the prospect of trying to fit all those Balkan countries in the EU countries font!!!)
Please let me know your opinions. Unlike the old map, I have one on my PC at 300% of the size, with no anti-aliasing, which makes changing things easier.
I hope those who have put such effort into the old map are not annoyed. I did spend about 2.5 hours myself doing this new version!!!
Zoney 00:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Your map shows the UK as part of the EU, which it is not.
This talk page was HUMONGOUS (or however one is supposed to spell that!) – so I archived everything back to 3 weeks ago. Everything from about the 10th May should still be here. One or two topics above have been discussed some time ago, but with recent comments. I've archived the old comments too (in the cases above, the headings are enough context for the comments). I hope no-one has any problems! (man it took longer than I thought!) Zoney 01:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
In Mozilla Firefox (0.8) the table with all of the information about the EU does not display correctly. It overlaps the text, and moves the text over to the left- doesn't let it spread out through the page. It works fine in IE and Safari, though.
Currently, on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, they're discussing removal of footers, such as EU membership boxes, as they are thought to be aesthetically unpleasing. They'd be replaced by Category:EU countries at the top of the Country page.
What do people think?? -- EuroTom 16:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The EU footer is helpful as it can be easily skimmed and in my opinion looks asthetically pleasing. Just a thought...maybe the applicant countries should also be added (eg. Croatia, FYR Macedonia) -
I love the footers. Please don't remove this one Dmn
As long as there are not too many footers, I think they are quite convenient. Gugganij 16:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm quite a fan of the footers, they're a really useful navigational aid OwenBlacker 20:37, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
These are not currently mentioned and there are certainly no pages created to explicitly explain them. Would it not be a good idea to create a page on these issues as enlargement is one of the fundamental properties of the EU and these two areas play a key role.
Anyone know how to alias international organisations to the international organizations category? The page is quite appropriately written in British / International English. But this category heading at the bottom is a problematic Americanism that introduces inconsistencies. See also Category talk:International organizations. Zoney 09:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
According to American and British English differences#... -ise / -ize the Oxford English Dictionary uses the version with 'z'. Edward 09:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What's the source of the GDP data? There are some differences between this table and recent published data of Eurostat . The GDP index (EU25=100) in the case of Cyprus shows for instance a difference of 18 (sic!) points.
For comparison
GDP per capita | |||
Member state | Figures published by Eurostat | Figures in the article | |
Austria | 121 | 122 | |
Belgium | 116 | 127 | |
Cyprus | 83 | 65 | |
Czech Republic | 69 | 67 | |
Denmark | 123 | 126 | |
Estonia | 48 | 48 | |
Finland | 111 | 113 | |
France | 113 | 113 | |
Germany | 108 | 114 | |
Greece | 79 | 83 | |
Hungary | 61 | 58 | |
Ireland | 131 | 128 | |
Italy | 107 | 110 | |
Latvia | 42 | 39 | |
Lithuania | 46 | 37 | |
Luxembourg | 208 | 213 | |
Malta | 73 | 75 | |
Netherlands | 120 | 119 | |
Poland | 46 | 42 | |
Portugal | 75 | 85 | |
Slovakia | 51 | 54 | |
Slovenia | 77 | 84 | |
Spain | 95 | 93 | |
Sweden | 115 | 113 | |
United Kingdom | 119 | 111 | |
EU-25 | 100 | 100 |
Gugganij 11:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
From the section "Member states and successive enlargements": "In 1952/1958 the six founding members were..."
Can someone explain the significance of these dates? They aren't referenced anywhere else in the article.
--Wasabe3543 08:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The ECSC was founded in 1952, the EEC in 1958. john k 09:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A new edit suggests German economists' ideas as an early origin of the idea of a European Union. Problem is, the date mentioned is 1940. Is it just me, or would they have envisaged quite the EU we have today. I was under the impression that other views on uniting Europe prevaled in Germany at the time.
These lines may be perfectly valid, and my skepticism unwarranted, but I am seeking some other opinions.
Zoney 23:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
To which respect was the European community proposed by Hitler-Germany similar to the current structure of the EU? Gugganij 16:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well... if the Atlantic rift widens, maybe we will arrive at one of Hitler's wishes, namely the chance of even competition with the United States. Like the Coal and Steel Union, Hitler's Neuropa was intended to cement the positive result of war, and to take up competition with the Soviet Union, but nevertheless, I see no reason to include this reference to similarities in structure when the differences (democracy being only one of them) aren't mentioned at all. It's not very relevant to the later creation of the European Union.
--Ruhrjung 19:46, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
I don't know how much inter-war thoughts were reflected in the development from Coal and Steel union to European Union, but the first sentence seems correct to me. The second sentence, however, ...what I've stumbled over when reading on World War II and Nazi policies does not at all warant any emphasis on similarities. I guess Elizabeth has some source to lean on. The question then is, if that source represents a scientifical mainstream view or something else.
--Ruhrjung 01:49, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Stop trolling, Ruhrjung. The structural similarities are described in the main article, and you are constantly trying to delete them. A lack of democracy is irrelevant, EU isn't particularly democratic in any event, and has always been more about economical structures, which we are discussing. Without Germany and a genuine German interest, there had been no European Union today, so the original German impetus for what now is the EU cannot be underestimated. Note for instance that the German proposal from 1943 have much, much more in common with present-day EU than what Churchill proposed in his speech in Zürich. Elizabeth A
@EuroTom: Note that I wrote "rather similar", not "similar". I do however agree to "some structures rather similar". Elizabeth A
It's false to imply the EU is not democratic. Yes the parliament is the only DIRECTLY democratic force, but the other parts are controlled/elected by ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS. Bah! I hate this "undemocratic" Euroskeptic argument - you hear nothing but it on British news! It's much better than only directly democratic institutions IMO. Democracy can be pretty screwed up sometimes! Look at the US! Wow, a lot of choice there! Zoney 11:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Still, most decisions are taken secretly in the council of ministers. The EU lacks transparency, that is why most people regard the institutions as undemocratic.
Who wants to vote for representatives that will have no say over important matters for the EU (foreign policy, defence, fiscal policy...) in the following five years?
The average citizen will not be able to elect candidates for the european comission.
thewikipedian 22:37 UTC+2, 22 June 2004
I agree. Since the council of ministers can't seem to agree on a candidate for president of the commission, they should just submit a slate to the European Parliament and let them elect (rather than rubberstamp) the president. Miguel 04:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Leadership of the Commission is accountable, the vast majority of are not. I don't think anyone should deny the EU, is *currently* undemocratic and very technocratic. They are slowly attempting to repair this, notably with the EuroCon by strengthening parliament. CJWilly
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.