Talk:European Union/Archive 1

message: Someone wrote
:Citizens of member states have the right to reside in other member states for up to three months.  This can be extended by applying for a residence permit, which must be automatically granted in some cases, e.g., if the person is employed in the state  or has means to survive without government support.  Some states (only the United Kingdom?) waive the requirement for a permit or any requirement to report to the local    police.
IIRC there is no need to apply or hold a residence permit for EU or EEA citizens. EU and EEA citizens are basically free to live anywhere in the Union they want, provided they can support themselves; they don't need permits. Only non-EU/EEA citizens need to. -- Simon J Kissane
No, you are mistaken, Simon. In order to get tax and social security status in Luxembourg, you need a residency permit. This applies to other EU countries (France, Netherlands are for sure). sjc
:The principle of the EU rule is that any EU citizen can live and work in any EU country. Some EU countries still issue residence permits even to EU citizens, which are always granted because they have to be under EU law. The only reasons why EU countries still make EU nationals go through the tedious and bureaucratic application process are probably 1) reluctance to give up xenophobic national habits, 2) the need to check whether the condition that people can support themselves is met. By the way, under EU law, being able to support oneself does not necessarily mean you have to have a job. Every EU citizen looking for one is allowed to move to another EU country and to apply for unemployment benefits there (I know several people who did that). There may be a time restriction though (3 months?). -- Herman
But what happens to an EU citizen that doesn't apply for a permit? What can be done to them? I think the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence on the freedom of movement is rather liberal -- SJK
They can be fined at least.  Maybe kicked out of the country too: I don't know.
There was a court case in the Netherlands a while ago where a lawyer was
prosecuted for giving an Englishman a false job, so he could get a residence
permit.  Without a job, obtaining a permit may be difficult, since
"provided they can support themselves" in practice means that
they need to prove that they have an income of some arbitrary amount
(depending on the country) per year, or meet some other condition
such as family/student/pensioned.
:If I might weigh in with personal experience -- as far as I know, everywhere requires a residency permit, because everywhere requires an ID.  Except, of course, the anti-EU UK.  The UK doesn't have a national ID requirement, and it requires a lot more rigamarole than other countries, while pretending it isn't in the EU except when convenient.  Case in point:  I'm American (US), living in Germany (at the time), marrying an English resident of Germany in London, intending to return to Germany, where we both live and work.
At Heathrow, I explain I am there to get married.  The Immigration (Customs?) agents says, "you know that doesn't mean you can live here..."  I explain that my born-and-raised in England to English parents husband and I live in Germany, where we work.  He repeats that he just wants to make sure that I understand I can't expect to be allowed to live in the UK.  I explain that it's not an issue. He replies by telling me I will need to apply for a residence permit, but it's not guaranteed.  
So, I get married.  The marriage license is in English only (despite there being an EU regulation that legal documents have to be in several EU languages). 
----
Is there?  Can you quote me which regulation this is please? -- GWO
----
They are not available in other languages.  I have it translated and notarized for the Germans, who demand that people follow the rules.  I take it, 50 marks, my passport and new passport pictures, and my husban'd residence permit to the Immigration office in the German city where we live.  The civil servant (normally unpleasant in the way civil servants tend to be) smiles hugely, congratulates me on my marriage and, 15 minutes later, hands me my residence permit.   I mentioned my surprise at the ease of the whole process -- the civil servant replied that Germany was in the EU, my husband was an EU citizen, and legally, I was entitled to EU rights, despite being an American.  Why should there be a question?
Every time I go to England, I get the same hassle, though.  Funny thing is, I know a lot of UK citizens living in Germany.  Many of them have lost their jobs, sometimes several times over.  They aren't asked to leave...just given more training and stipends to get them through until they are employed again.   
My point?  I think you'll find that each EU country applies the rules somewhat differently, but that the UK tries to evade as many of the rules that threaten its insularity as it can.
:The UK is specifically exempt from some of those rules because of the fact that it is an island, and probably the most sought after EU locations to live and work in (for some reason). Freedom of movement in continental Europe relates to the Schengen Pact. --Sam
EUobserver.com: Moving within the EU to get easier --Ann O'nyme 00:44, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The right of abode and work and freedom of movement are two different issues. EU citizens have the right to settle and work in any EU country as long as they're not public charges, that's one thing. Whether they have to show passports/ID when crossing borders is another. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The right to settle would be liberalised somewhat by the commission's proposed directive COM(2001) 257 (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/printversion/en/lvb/l33152.htm). The EU Parliament voted in favour of it in early 2003, with various proposed amendments, including that the date of introduction is delayed until 1 July 2004.  See http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=10629&LEVEL=3&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N for the parliament's report.  Hans Zarkov 11:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The United Kingdom agreed to these evolutions, including by signing the Maastricht Treaty. You may of course disagree with those actions of the elected British government. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: right to reside

message: I have a crazy idea: How about applying the template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to this page?
Think about it, the EU has a flag, a capital (Brussels), a national anthem (the "Ode to Joy"-bit from Beethoven's ninth), a currency (well, more or less..), and it's ranking in population and area is already given in the article. Granted, it is not by any definition a country per se, but it still has a lot of things in common with large, federalized countries. Is this (the template) a good idea? Would it be highly inappropriate? --Gabbe 15:27 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
:Not crazy at all, I say go for it. --Brion
:: Go for it! --Kaihsu 17:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Applying Country template

message: I'm going to delete this bit:
Spain: Balearic Islands (Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza, and Formentera) in the Mediterranean, Canary islands in the Atlantic Ocean, Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa. 
All these territories are integral parts of EU, with no special status.
Marco Neves 13:57, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceuta and Melilla are mot part of the EU. . --Ann O'nyme 14:31, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Sorry, but they are: the map you've linked to shows little lines which indicates that Ceuta and Melilla are part of the EU. But that's not the proof, of course, that's an informal map. In fact, nothing in EU treaties excludes those two Spanish cities from EU, contrarily to what happens to other territories (none of them Spanish). I've been in Ceuta and European flag is everywhere, just as outdoors anouncing the use of EU money and declaring that Ceuta is a part of EU (even if it is in Africa). Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain and there is no reason to exclude them from EU - in fact, the Spanish Constitution would forbid such exclusion, since there is no difference between mainland Spain and those two cities. If you have any legal basis to declare those cities as being excluded from EU, please, indicate them. I base my opinion on these fonts: EU treaties (which do not exclude Ceuta and Melilla from EU), Spanish Constitution (which treats them as Spanish territory) and on-site observation of the actual effects of EU membership in one of those two cities. Thanks, and cheers! :) Marco Neves 00:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. . --Ann O'nyme 09:28, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Territories not in EU

message: Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001122551/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/european_political_cooperation_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001122551/http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/index_en.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2010%3A083%3A0047%3A0200%3AEN%3APDF
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080409_en.html
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) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first part of the culture section deals mostly with European culture and lacks a clear link between the EU and the culture of Europe. I think it should be reworked or removed. Yakikaki (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture section 

message: I've just looked over the "Overview of EU Institutions" section. It's bad. Very bad. it oversimplifies to the point of being misleading. EU explained (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview of EU Institutions 

message: The sentence "The European Union accumulated a high portion of GDP as a form of foreign aid than any other economic union" is ungrammatical. The use of the word "high" is probably a typo and "higher" is the intended word. Seewalker (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —MRD2014 talk contribs 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017 

message: 185.9.115.249 (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brezno 3:24 Falow 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601191547/http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408221338/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703155822/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/council/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/council/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624114722/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/parliament/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/parliament/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222001147/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/auditors/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/auditors/index_en.htm
*Added  tag to http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/5926723.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601191547/http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716180819/http://europa.eu/agencies/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/agencies/index_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) 20:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: please change ((athletics)) to ((Sport of athletics|athletics))
: Done: Benign, minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athletics 

message: Could the colors for the corresponding religions be made the same? For example, on the map, the Protestant areas are marked as deep blue, and the Orthodox areas are teal, but in the diagram, it's the opposite. Could they be swapped in either case?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The religion map and diagram colors 

message: The EU as it is now was planned long before the 1953 mention.
It was designed a book called "Practicher Idealismus". 
And I think it deserves an entire section, as they previously handed out a solid gold, tax payer paid award called "The Charlamagne Award". Yoi can look it up.
Its awarded to whom has caused  the most removal that yeat of the white natives religions and race.
Before you call me racist, look it up.
They dont even hide it anymore, Now they just renamed it The Kalergi Prize.
 It 100 percent needs covering.
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.
Now, look at his page and tell me why he isn't mentioned. He came up the anthem, 40 years before we in Europe were told it was a trading bloc. You have not talked about the true start and reason for the EU. DoctorDecker (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The coudenhove-kalergi Plan 

message: Two nations were forced to retake this until a yes answer was given.
Why is this not mentioned?
It also meant that all military forces belong to one unelected official as of April 1st this year.
Why do you think Brexit happened on the 31st March (the signing of Article 50).
The UK did not want an unelected official taking The UKs nuclear weapons and entire army. DoctorDecker (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lisbon Treaty 

message: The lyrics that play when the Ode to Joy media is played are incorrect. Those are the lyrics to the 20th century American gospel tune "Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee" ("Hymn of Joy"). The only thing they have in common with Beethoven's Ode to Joy is Beethoven's melody and the word "joy". The lyrics here (being an American religious hymn) would be unrecognizable to Beethoven and probably most of the EU. The hymn is  popularly known in the US (outside of religious circles) mainly because of its inclusion in the movie Sister Act 2.
The lyrics should either be removed or replaced with something more recognizable. The EU anthem is officially an instrumental, but the original Schiller lyrics are often used, or some language adaption of them. Using an American gospel contrafactum is ridiculous in this context.
I agree. It's a total lie!!!!
We all know it here, so who are you appeasing?
Think we will forget when The EU falls? Did Der Stermur staff get kept on after Ww2? Or the Pravda press for Stalin?
This is NO different. DoctorDecker (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ode to Joy lyrics? 

message: Considering the United Kingdom is (presumably) leaving the EU in a few years time, should the continued use of BritEng on this article be reconsidered? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the UK leaves the EU, British English is still European English. As a French, I don't know why I should contribute to this article with a version of English coming from another continent. Azerty82 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  EngvarB? 

message: I quote that.
It was the biggest voting turn out in Britains 4789 year history. And it was 17.2 million people more.
That is as big as a few countries populations combined in Europe! Nevermind The EU! (Which is not Europe). DoctorDecker (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An election is won by the number who vote for the winning side  minus the number who vote for the losers. in this case the difference was about 1.2 million, which is not that many. Britmax (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brexit was won by "A slight number". 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416165655/http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do to http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
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) 08:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Many articles have criticism section why this should be any different?
second, the excuse of "there is no support section either" is plain stupid. There are many articles with criticism section and no support section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A section which simply discusses why things are bad, even if it includes counter arguments, is not neutral. This article doesn't flaunt the benefits of the EU. It mainly explains what the EU is and what it aims to accomplish. If you want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various aspects, do so in their relevant sections. I don't think anybody opposes that. Rob984 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is needed and the explanation is ridiculous 

message: Change "political and economic union" to "country" because the member-states of the EU do not have sovereign autonomy from one another and share a common government and currency. 70.168.37.88 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: A political and economic union is made up of many different countries, and cannot be a country in itself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211213638/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2054.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2054.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112200650/http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/about_us/our_vision_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/about_us/our_vision_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102215021/http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923204027/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_07/8-10072008-EN-AP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2008_MONTH_07/8-10072008-EN-AP.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124161814/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/policy-highlights/media-freedom/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/policy-highlights/media-freedom/index_en.htm
*Added  tag to http://eu.data-list-search.com/
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) 04:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121070006/http://www.duesseldorf.de/en/economic/standort/agglomerationen.shtml to http://www.duesseldorf.de/en/economic/standort/agglomerationen.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations?amp;lang=en
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) 13:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wanted to link a student's sandbox to see if anything useful could be pulled from it: User:Cchigoche/sandbox. They created a draft, but didn't add anything as far as I can tell. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful? 

message: There seems to be a common misconception that the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. This is untrue, however. The UK and EU will start a transitioning process for the UK to leave in 2019. This process will last to and end on December 31 2020. Meaning the UK will officially have left the EU on January 1 2021, if everything goes as planned.  92.220.75.86 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the termination of membership takes place on 29 March 2019.  If no agreement is made between the EU and the UK then that's it.  If a transition arrangement is agreed, then membership has still ended but certain mutual arrangements will continue, if they can be agreed.  The framework agreement settled recently includes an obligation for the United Kingdom to contribute to certain pre-existing programmes in the budget for a short time after termination, with the proviso that during that period the United Kingdom may still participate in those programmes as if it were a member. Hogweard (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK will not have left the union untill 2021 

message: Links to wrong article, which can be found here and at other places. Don't want to fix it myself, as the fn has a bunch of text included and could be difficult to reformat.-Shtove (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  fn.144 

message: Quote: 'The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located "primarily" in Europe.'
The word primarily is superfluous as ALL member states are in Europe. 
Also I saw no mention of the Marshall Plan which initiated the idea of a United States of Europe, and the development of this superstate is not dealt with; for instance no mention of plans for Nuclear armed EU Army. The position of other member states as well as the UK having substantial numbers wanting to leave, roughly the same percentages as the UK vote, and the likelihood of several major players holding referenda in the coming years. With current challenges to the stability of the EU and the safety of the 'open borders' question, there is a possibility that the EU will break apart in the future as first one then another vote to leave.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetePassword (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member countries 

message: Hi, the map in the section Member States has links embedded that take you to the respective country’s article – nice!
Only Croatia doesn’t have such a link yet, and I don’t know how to fix that. Any pointers?--Geke (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add link for Croatia to clickable map? 

message: this line?
or this one? 174.82.196.148 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018 

message: The source cited for GDP seems dubious to me in this context because it an IMF forward projection, not a factual record. Can someone find a better source? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: Some piece of information are missing here.
A support section could be added. It could include, for instance the support could be expressed as “Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.” by Margaret Thatcher and the invention of single market bt herselfhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/21/margaret-thatcher-backed-single-market-in-draft-bruges-speech.
Also the artcle could include the mention that  “The EU was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2012, in recognition of the organization’s efforts to promote peace and democracy in Europe.” as Britannica does.
Britannica also deal with Single European Act and foreign policy.
Britannica also says that “A variety of legal, technical, fiscal, and physical barriers continued to limit the free movement of goods, labour, capital, and services”.
Britannica also says that:
* “the countries of western Europe have achieved an unprecedented level of integration and cooperation.”
* “The degree of legal integration, supranational political authority, and economic integration in the EU greatly surpasses that of other international organizations.”
* “Indeed, although the EU has not replaced the nation-state, its institutions have increasingly resembled a parliamentary democratic political system at the supranational level.”
There are also missing critics: “In the debate on the future of the EU, fundamental institutional issues are – for the first time since the signing of the Lisbon Treaties – again under discussion. Should the Presidency of the Commission and the European Council be merged? Are “Spitzenkandidaten” and transnational lists needed for the European Parliament elections? And how can national parliaments be strengthened in the European context?” — Jacques Delors Institut – Berlin   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.27 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: Someone seems to have copy-pasted a report on the UK leaving the EU in the competences section, and it flies in the face of proper Wikipedia formatting / style.
Doubletriplereversepsychology (talk) 2016-06-24 18:31 UTC
:Kind of lack any competence too. How about them turning us into a war zone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDecker (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsatisfactory content in the "Competences" section

message: It looks like very few information is missing for this article to be rated as Good Article.
My proposal of sections to add is as follow:
* a photography of Jean Monnet;
* Only the 2011 budget is shown, not the 2019!
* Competences section should be at start of the article, first because this explains which regalian competences are in the EU scope, and which are not, but also because this provides some kind of natural plan for the article;
* Currently, there is no map of candidates countries;
* How much Internal imports and exports have been increased by the EU? (compared to imports and exports with third countries)
* Foreign trades (such as the CETA or the Japan EU partnership) are not dealt with...
* Citizenship is very few discussed;
* Road traffic safety is not discussed, while the EU is involved in transport, and in monitoring the member state monitoring for road safety.
* Mobility
* Map of countries that have exited the European Union  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.216.24 (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics for a Good Article 

message: To assert that a club of sovereign independent nations (who have agreed to act as one in some areas, notably excluding defence) is an "emerging superpower" is controversial at best. Great claims need great evidence and one book by one person [whose notability and competence is not demonstrated - is he one of the list at John McCormick and if so which one?] is not sufficient. More importantly, material in the lead section of every article should summarise the major themes in the article (see wp:lead) so one should expect that there is a substantial section in the body that amplifies that material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real opinion on the issue but I have heard the claim that the European Union has the potential of becoming a superpower many times. I doubt that the real problem is how it is sourced. So, what is the actual reason why it should be removed? Eleventh1 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is even an article devoted to the European Union as an emerging superpower, whose only link from this article is in the deleted sentence. Supporting and contrary views are presented in that article along with several references. I'd say a single reference and a link to a more comprehensive article is enough for inclusion. \color{blue}\chichi (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JMF spelled it out: if it's not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. This is a simple and fundamental principle. EddieHugh (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not automatically what WP:LEAD advices : see the paragraph about scope of article. The sentence about the EU as a superpower sends to another article (European Union as an emerging superpower). It is where it is developed and explained. Now, if you really want to add  one or two sentences about that in the body of the article, why not but I don't think that it is absolutely necessary...  Eleventh1 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The original challenge was that it should suddenly appear on the scene and go straight into the lead. I for one would be very happy with a solution that added a new subsection summarising that article (with Main link) - and then the sentence in dispute being restored to the lead. (And John McCormick needs to be identified, otherwise it might look like a book promo). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's within the scope of this article: this is the main article on the EU! I support JMF's suggestion immediately above this comment: it's how things should be done. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so who will create this new subsection ? And where should it go ? Toward the end of the article ? With Foreign relations? After History ? I could do it myself but only later in the week... Eleventh1 (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Offer grabbed with both hands! - thank you. If all else fails, just copying the lead of the subsidiary article would not be far wrong, though maybe the "oh no it isn't!" view needs to be developed. After Foreign Relations seems best to me.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superpower? 

message: Could somebody help, I am trying to determine exactly when did the EU come into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2018‎ 
:EU was established on 1 November 1993 through the Maastricht Treaty. --Glentamara (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the EU come into existence? 

message: I believe somewhere in the article it says 27/28 countries have a 'very high' HDI; the new results have been out on the 14th of September 2018, and I believe 28/28 are very high now. Maybe this can be accentuated earlier in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy@ACS (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Human Development Index results 

message: Could and should we create a new infobox similar to the one shown above but for EU member states? It could have on it the date of accession, the number of European Parliament seats and also the  permanent representative as well as the current Prime Minister and President As member of the EU council. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox for EU member states 

message: Can a article please be set up to show not only current bilateral relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom but for also when the UK leaves the EU in 2019, I know the UK has not left the block as of yet however a article should be started anyway being as perceptions of the EU are very different in the UK to that of other EU member states. Also such a article would help to show where the UK has opted out of various projects of the EU such as the Euro and etc. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a good idea. The latest sources write about plans to repeat the referendum and also the option of omitting brexit is considered. So, a separate article of :brexit is enough, especially since it is likely that brexit will only be unfulfilled plans. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a UK citizen myself I can tell your facts are not quite correct, yes there are groups  advocating a second referendum with the option to stop Brexit however to assume that 100% that Brexit won’t happen is simply not correct. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  these are not only "groups", this is the current government policy. Besides, I did not write "100% that Brexit won’t happen", I wrote only that these are only plans that may not happen. Therefore, there is no need to write about it in the main article of the European Union. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let be be straight and correct you, currently a second Referendum is only policy within some of the main UK opposition parties. It is not and I repeat not the current policy of the current Conservative Government to have a second referendum on EU membership at this time. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. In addition, there is no need for a second referendum. A referendum is only the public opinion, the government has a decisive opinion. There are too many pressures from the EU and within UK (including disintegration of UK: Scotland and Gibraltar announce disconnection from UK, many companies and banks have announce leaving the UK). UK government policy in 2016 and 2018 is different, currently, most politicians and citizens are willing to stay in the EU. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

text: A referendum in the United Kingdom May not be legally blinding but it’s generally seen to be politically blinding. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:C9B5:A9C7:C4A7:E7AF (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

text: What does this discussion have to do with the idea of setting up a  bilateral article about relations between the UK and the EU? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, maybe it could be changed if and when the UK leaves I rest my case. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union - United Kingdom bilateral relations article 

message: In the EU Page the percentage of religions it's wrong. Please correct. Livone (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a clear edit request and references. Île flottante (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have to make some corrections 

message: The "Media" sections doesn't adequately reflect the current situation in the EU. How free the news media of most countries in Central Europe are is up to debate, considering Concentration of media ownership etc., however in large parts of Eastern Europe the situation is really bad: The state owns lots of media outlets, strong limitations on free speech, intimidation of free media and much more. This is also reflected by the Freedom House scores, which rate some countries in Eastern Europe as "unfree". The section should appropriately reflect restrictions placed on the media in large parts of Eastern Europe. 2003:CD:7F0C:3900:7054:98B2:51FF:604E (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019 

message: I propose the second line be edited to start as below. The reason being: after basic facts should come origins and achievements. At the moment origins are missing. I suggest that the second World War was a clear differentiator in the ideas of forming a European Union and that Churchill's 1946 address was the earliest significant/influential address covering the subject.
Proposed edit:
The EU... originated in ideas of federation, confederation, or customs union such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" and...   14:44, 24 January 2019‎ 2400:4070:3640:c100:d900:5382:736a:422a
:It is a good idea in principle but as can be seen from the history section of United States of Europe, Churchill's contribution was not unique nor obviously pivotal. IMO, the key psychological threshold was the Europe Declaration (1951), made at the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1951) that estblished the ECSC. 
"By the signature of this Treaty, the involved parties give proof of their determination to create the first supranational institution and that thus they are laying the true foundation of an organised Europe. This Europe remains open to all European countries that have freedom of choice. We profoundly hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour." Der Schuman Plan. Vertrag ueber die Gruendung der europaeischen Gemeinschaft fuer Kohl und Stahl, p21 Ulrich Sahm mit einem Vorwort von Walter Hallstein. Frankfurt 1951.
:This seems to me to be unequivocal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new start to the second line 

message: The section that is as follows...
"In 1929, the latter gave a speech in favour of a European Union before the assembly of the League of Nations, precursor of the United Nations.[41] In a radio address in March 1943, with war still raging, Britain's leader Sir Winston Churchill spoke warmly of "restoring the true greatness of Europe" once victory had been achieved, and mused on the post-war creation of a "Council of Europe" which would bring the European nations together to build peace."
Very specifically goes from 1929 to 1943, leaving out entirely Hitler and Nazi Germany's stated goals of restoring the German Empire (which was based on the Roman Empire), establishing a single European currency and by-and-large succeeding in creating a unified European continent under Nazi rule.
I find it very telling that this dark part of history has been seemingly left out on purpose despite how relevant it is to the section.
I think there should, at the very least, be some references to Hitler's obvious goals and achievements regarding unifying Europe. And if this does not change it will be reasonable to assume those in charge of Wikipedia want no correlation between the EU and Nazi Germany, despite their geographical end goals being exactly the same.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:c024:9d00:bdf8:d73a:58f5:1dbb (talk • contribs) 18:05 29 January 2019 UTC (UTC)
:Wikipedia only reports what wp:reliable sources and wp:notable people say. I know of no such source that supports what your opinion but if you can produce material that meets wikipedia's criteria, please present it here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Background" should at the very least contain some reference to Hitler's dream of a united Europe 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Eirepas.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The 29 March 2019 needs to be changed to 12 April 2019 90.202.194.206 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

text: But I have done it in effect by deleting the date as not needed in the lead in any case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019 

message: Every time biased editors here find a new excuse. The last one was that it will be changed on March 2019. So now what the new excuse is? and for how long are some editors here going to be biased and violating the rules of Wikipedia itself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid the editors of Wikipedia are (probably) not those in charge of whether the UK is in the EU or not. CMD (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the UK still 'in the EU'