Talk:Multi-speed Europe

message: This is tagged as dubious: "Ireland only reluctantly agreed to stay out of the treaty to avoid creating a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland because the UK had refused to sign." While I agree it is need of a citation, I do think it is a widely held view as to the attitude/reasonings of successive Irish governments. (Although, due to the usual diplomatic reasons I doubt the Irish government would say so publicly.) --SJK (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a reference from Hansard. I'm sure there are many others -- this is a frequently held viewpoint, so I'm sure one could collect a few other citations for it. --SJK (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland's attitude to non-Schengen membership 

message: The table on Inner Europe visualizes the integration process - and unlike some pictures it can be easily updated as soon as some member countries enter another step in the integration process. From my point of view it also easier to see where countries opt-in to follow the integration process very tightly - not like Core Europe but sharing some attributes with it - while other countries have opt-outs that are unlikely to change next year. Guidod (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inner Europe 

message: The current article does not hint on the Schäuble-Lamers-Paper explaining the idea of Core Europe. It does not give a hint on the different characterisations of the multi-speed europe ideas, like a federation inside the confederation with its own institutions. It does not tell the users on the relation of having a bunch of formally unrelated treaties and the action to replace them by a single law like the treaty of lisboa. The reader is not given an idea about the tendencies of countries acting towards a strict integration and countries trying to hold off the process arguing for cherry-picking on elements. Overall, the most-parts-deleted article is greatly misleading. Guidod (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have got a reliable source (Schäuble-Lamers). What's more, there are commentaries on it (http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/an-unrealistic-dream-/67439.aspx , www.cer.org.uk/pdf/e335_federalism.pdf and muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v015/15.3schwarz.html come up in a simple google search).  So you can certainly give a summary of the Schäuble-Lamers proposal [and of course the contrary views] - this is entirely legitimate and indeed welcome. --Red King (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing / disputed 

message: See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article focus 

message: Although I agree that this is an important topic and the article is filled with good information, I have nominated it for deletion. The title is very confusing and the article seems to be about one aspect or point of view of a larger topic.  Wouldn't it be better to present the information in a more general article such as European integration? Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my proposal for resolving this issue in the "Article focus" section above. Alinor (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

text: May be you should read an earlier version, i.e. before the relevant parts were deleted. Having uninformative and confusing articles, well, that's what user RedKing believes the Wikipedia should look like. Guidod (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I tried to get back to the basics of the concept, with new editing. It is better when Wikipedia articles are written by people who know the topic ;-)) --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the attempt. I still don't understand why the expression "multi-speed" is in there. Is it possible to begin the article with a sentence that says "Multi-speed Europe is the concept of....(whatever it is)." At the moment it tells me that the concept has been debated, but doesn't say what it actually IS. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, just improved it again. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without telling its background - e.g. the schäuble-lamers-paper of 1994 - the concept of Core Europe still looks faint. It wasn't just a rough concept but more like a definite proposition. Since the British guys were opposing it may be that the idea did not spread as much in the english-speaking world as it had in the Franco-German areas (were knowledge about is almost common sense). Guidod (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I should explain. I'm probably your classic dumb reader here. Yes, I'm an English speaker, but I'm not English, nor even British. I'm in Australia, a very long way from Europe. Our media pays scant attention to political and other goings on there (except sport, of course). So, I'm starting from scratch. The article seems to be suffering from having been written by people who know their subject inside out but, understandably, cannot conceive of a reader who has never heard of it. So, I'll be your test reader. Educate me, please. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best starter is in the historic Inner Six setup - cross-check with the most integrated countries as found in the table of this article. Explanations can draw the lines from there to now but I am currently not investing in new text portions as far as it would be just a target of petty-minded deletionists. Guidod (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the issue, HiLo, and I've tried to explain what the concept means in the lede.  I'm wondering whether it might be useful to give more real-life examples of cases where a multi-speed Europe actually exists in practice in the lede, to illustrate the concept, rather than the theoretical ones we give: the most obvious examples are the Euro and Schengen Zones. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's much better. Thank you. Exactly the kind of thing I was after. If you now do go down that path of more realistic examples, you will to define Schengen Zone. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Anybody to share his thoughts on this proposal for change? Alinor (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed for deletion

message: The map legend lists three colors and their meanings, but the map itself uses four colors. It is unclear what the two shades of blue (blue/azure) represent. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-speed European Union map 

message: I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476 PLEASE HELP! --Gironauni (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developments? 

message: Why are several countries bolded?  --80.187.106.76 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolded countries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-speed Europe. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uned.es/dcpa/invest/cidel/documents/ARENA_Report22005_text.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214194351/http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This article Needs to be updated to include Brexit and remove references to the UK. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It couldn't be just a chainsaw edit, because it gives one of the contexts for Brexit. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent Update Needed 

message: I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to European Integration. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring article