Talk:European Union/Archive 21

message: Should there be a section about the tabloid reports (which proved false) for example: Yoghurt is to be called *unpronouncable jibberish* or is that a little irrelevant? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia. (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this article, as this is already overly long, and that bit of information seems of little relevance, and UK-centred as well. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately if we start putting everything the European Union isn't responsible for we might  double the size of the encyclopedia. (We could start by "The EU did not create the universe".) Even more unfortunately there is an article on this: Euromyth. Terribly unencylopedic but I couldn't get rid of it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thanks for clarifying anyway. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Euromyth.- JLogant: 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertain about something 

message: It says in its current form, the Eu can't have more then 27 members, my question is, exactly, WHY can't it have more then 27 under the current arrangement?--Jakezing (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Treaty of Nice says that there must be further reform before it can expand beyond 27 members (the idea is that the current set up won't be able to deal with more, too many countries using a veto, blocking things, too many chairs around the top table and so on). They could just amend it in an accession treaty but leaders tend to support this view (the did after all put it in the treaty) so it won't change any time soon.- J.Logan(t): 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid politicians not thinking the future, foolish!--Jakezing (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Em... they were. That was the point behind it. They thought the EU wouldn't be able to cope with 27+ members under the system so put a cap until it was improved. But regardless, this isn't a forum for general discussion.- J.Logan(t): 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'v always wondered about the "28+ memeber problem" 

message: In the "Competition" section it says that the Competition Commissioner is "notable in effecting trans-national corporations". Shouldn't that be "affecting"? "Effecting" would mean that she caused trans-national corporations, and I don't think even she is that powerful! 81.159.61.104 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha good point, I don't know who drafted that section but it really depends on what the author was trying to say. Common sense would say yeh the person must have meant affecting? --Simonski (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. Tomeasy T C 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a non-native speaker; to be honest English language is a bit weird there with the words affect, effect, to effect and to affect. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effecting"? 

message: The section is right now in a very poor condition. Some statements appear to be redundant, some wishy-washy sentences are not even referenced. And it could be also argued that the "issues" are constantly changing and are not up to date anymore. I would surely not miss the section and its content after dissolution. Lear 21 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I also do not like the state of this section. Any trial for improvement will be regarded with sympathy from my side. Tomeasy T C 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, as it stand now it is a mess. What it mainly refers to is "Further integration and expansion"; which (if rewritten) maybe a valid section header, "issues" as header is too vague. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll delete it. It's horrible right now. People who want to revive, improve and rename it can do so. - SSJ ☎ 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found Arnoutf's idea of course much more constructive, though I am also not very motivate to do this work soon. Tomeasy T C 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the very nature of the EU is a political issue, I think we should have some form of section on the topic so they could be brought up. Though admittedly I do not have the time to invest either. However I do oppose the incredibly rapid deletion of the section by SSJ as "per talk" - the issue has only just been raised and even though there have been no objections as such that was hardly enough time for other editors to raise any concerns.- J.Logan`t: 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think keeping the text is to go down a slippery slope. After all, the accession of Turkey is more of a problem in some member states than it is in others, as are views towards enlargement. Keeping it would bring the danger of having to add more and more sub-points/caveats until the thing would just grow to ridiculous levels, turning into a mini "Pros and cons" of the EU section. I've no problem therefore with its removal. --Simonski (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted the text is crap, I was speaking about the concept btw.- J.Logan`t: 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If a new section is written, we must be sure its scope doesn't collide with the history section. We don't need wishy-washy duplication. I don't think we need a section called Integration as, again, that's what the EU (ergo the whole article) is all about. It's hard to separate the historical enlargements that are included in the history section, from a new section on the "political aspects" of enlargement. - SSJ ☎ 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, there would be too much overlap. How about "political context"?- J.Logan`t: 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, that sounds very diffuse. Can we just make it clear here what the article currently needs? I think it would be possible to cover the political processes surrounding enlargement, partly under history and partly under foreign relations. - SSJ ☎ 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should really watch out that the section does not loose itself in political statements and opinions. Not that it ends up one days like the current version. I am afraid political context will attract exactly this kind of contributions. Tomeasy T C 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, perhaps this is like a criticism section - might be important to the topic but is a potential minefield in practice.- J.Logan`t: 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically yes. I think the best thing to do would be to briefly sum up the deeper v. wider debate at the end of the history section, and leave it at that. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: The section Justice, Freedom, Security in it´s current state explains several treaties, policies, or institution-like agencies. Are there any objections to merge the J,F,S section and the Fundamental Righs into the main Governance section? Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is good to keep it separate given the pillar issues.- J.Logan`t: 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience, fundamental rights is a topic which covers all three pillars... I dont think this would be a useful merger. For me, fundamental rights is one of the key EU areas of activity/concern (perhaps I'm biased from the law perspective) and I'd thus say it should be a separate section, perhaps even separate from J,F,S? Or in a more fitting counterpart section? The whole fundamental rights sphiel originated in the first pillar after all, and is only in recent years entering the second and third pillar in any significant way. Thats just my take. I think if you were going to keep it in J,F,S it might be more useful to rename the section simply "Human rights", less misleading and arguably more accurate for its current position. --Simonski (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted the charter is more wide ranging, though the topic I think would come under justice. Separate or know, I feel they are important.- J.Logan`t: 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: We appear to be having some issues on Euro, Euro coins and Euro banknotes regarding differing opinions on Euro, euro and euros. As I'm sure people are aware, the official use of the name euro is in lowercase and the plural for euro and cent is the same as the singular. Of course it should be noted that English language rules differ and information intended for the public is recommended to use euros and cents. The general consensus thus far as been to use the official terminology - indeed it is commonly used in Ireland where the media have taken the lead from the institutions. However, on the three articles mentioned above there has been some edit warring between people, usually IPs, who hold a differing opinion to that of the traditional practice here. Hence, first I'd like people here to add some weight on the issue and secondly I'd like to add this issue to our new WP:EU style guidelines  in order to give the consensus side extra weight (though may I add, that if people wish us to use the informal s plural then lets please debate what style should be adopted by the project). May I request that page debate be taken to those pages where the edit warring is taking place and MOS debate is taken on that page's talk page - rather than here. Thanks. - J.Logan`t: 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a comment on this, quoting two EU style guides (current and past versions) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines‎. It looks as if the EU is having a rethink, possibly because of the Constitution and concerns by new members.--Boson (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro issue 

message: Can I just maybe save us all a lot of time here - Raggz it would seem to me that there is little if any support for the line you are proposing. I understand that the issue has obviously been raised in good faith and that you may feel that it may add something but I have to agree completely with the points of the others and repeat again that I think this is an issue that has to be left alone. I would certainly strongly oppose the introduction of any sentence similar to those proposed here.
I from my personal view, and the academic staff I have dealt with throughout my time dealing with the area of EU law, would all argue very strongly against your claim that there is not an "EU constitution". As I said already, I even had to do an assignment a few months back on whether the ECJ is "still building an EU constitution". My view has always been that the rejected document that they claimed was a constitution had actually very little constitutional content in it, and that the real EU constitution already existed without the need for such ridiculous and over-ambititous fanfare.
Anyway, the fact is the matter is just not straightforward enough to stick a sentence in about as you wish to do and the constitution debate is something that has, and should remain avoided on this page for similar reasons as to why say, there is no criticism section. Its far too subjective. Instead I would say please lets move on to another topic, it is useful to have another editor come along and say what they think can be improved about the page but this is not an area where you will find much support, best to use your energy on another section of the article is what I'd say. --Simonski (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing that the constitution failed and that you now claim that there is one? Was the proposed constitution rejected - or not? Raggz (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A document with the title Constitution was rejected. The name of the "thing" is not always evidence of what the "thing" is, nor is it evidence that the "thing" did not exist before the document. Look to the "form" of the thing and you will see it was no more of a constitution than the other Treaties. It is, after all, just a name (and an ill-chosen name at that) Lwxrm (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To put Lwxrm's point in a proverb: If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck (regardless whether people call it anything else). Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "European Constitution" was more of a gimmick, like most of that text. I think the difference should be seen as Constitution with a capital C (proper noun) is the rejected text, constitution with a lower case c (noun) is the text(s) which form the legal basis of an entity. The rejected text was the Constitution and, mainly, a constitution. The present treaties are a constitution but not a Constitution, because they are the constitutional basis of the EU. (Incidentally, the term constitution is not limited to states. I seem to remember the girl guides association having a document called a "constitution".- J.Logan`t: 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Among the central concepts of the EU are the Three Pillars. The Reader presently does not learn of these, nor are they effectively referred to that article. Can the Reader understand the EU without knowing of these? I suggest that these are important enough to belong in the WP:LEAD. Raggz (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader who does what readers do, ie READING the article would find a section about the pillars opening with: "The EU is often described as being divided into three areas of responsibility, called pillars.". Please read the article before you say information is lacking. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this issue has been raised in the past and subsequently addressed, please read the article properly before just assuming that since you yourself may not quite understand it, that the average reader will not. --Simonski (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about the pillars. Thank you. Raggz (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Three pillars

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

message: Having the EU FAQ in the talk namespace doesn't make any sense as it's not a talk page and it messes up the naming conventions, so that the "article" and "discussion" links at the top of the page don't go where they should.
Unless anyone objects, I plan to move the article and discussion page from Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions and Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions Discussion to Wikipedia:European Union frequently asked questions and Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions respectively. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving (again) 

message: From WP: Sui generis (English pronunciation (IPA): /ˌsuːiˈdʒɛnərɪs/, roughly "SOO-ee JEN-a-ris", Latin pronunciation: /ˌsuːiˈgeneris/) is a Neo-Latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics.[1] The expression was effectively created by scholastic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept.[citation needed] In the structure "genus → species" a species that heads its own genus is known as sui generis. This does not, however, mean that all genera with only a single member are composed of sui generis species. It is only if the genus was specifically created to refer to that one species, with no other known examples, that the species is sui generis. If the species is alone merely due to extinction, as in the case of the Homo genus, the surviving species is not sui generis, because other members of the genus are known, even if they are not currently extant.
What (if any) qualities make the European Union unique? For example, the G8 is another supranational treaty organization. Members conduct is regulated by the G8, by treaty. NATO has a similar treaty suprnational role, as does the ICC. The UN might also be an analog.
What makes the EU unique? Raggz (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here claims the EU is unique in being a sui generis organisation (the sui generis seems to do so, but that is not the discussion here). The only thing for this page is to establish whether the EU is a Sui generis organisation; and consensus is that it is (what the G8, Benelux, USA, Nafta or whatever is does not matter at all). Arnoutf (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sui generis

message: Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy? No this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the EU between them.
The EU is clearly not a nation in any of these senses. 
* It has no constitution
* It has no elections (of significance)
* The important ECHR is not an organ of the EU
* The EU has no currency or unified monitary policy
* The EU has no authority over its own citizens, except by treaty.
* What else?
The EU is a nation in the following senses:
* The EU has a flag
* The EU has an anthem
* What else?
How can the EU be half a country? There is no such thing. When and if this happens, then 
we should describe it as a country. Even if it were halfway, we should still wait for that point. Raggz (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response is exactly the ind of extreme black-white thinking what the line refers to when talking about "between two extremes". (BTW your arguments are almost all flawed: constitution is not needed to be a country; neither are elections (dictatorships can be countries), ECHU is not an organ of the EU - but UN or NATO are not organs of the US so the US is not a country???; The EU does have a currency (the euro) and monitary policy (although not all members adopt it at this time) and again to what extend is currency essential for a country (several countries use US dollars as currecny having no of their own), EU has no authority over its citizens except by treaty; most modern states call the treaties by which they have authority over their citizen law so that is more a difference in word use; and as you correctly state elsewhere McDonalds and many municipalities schools etc also have flags and anthems.) Arnoutf (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: WP policy is pretty clear, editors on this article cannot project what the EU might become, our task is only to discuss what it has been and presently is. I suggest substituting something like the preceeding (and directly linking to WP policy) for the FAQ language that says:
"Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when speculating about this, as it is basically speculation.
This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors."''
We cannot change WP by consensus here, those who want to change WP policy should do so in the appropriate forum. Raggz (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FAQ is not meant as a "how to" for policies (please provide a specific policy, I think you mean crystal balling) but as a place where arguments from all sides from many repeated discussion are presented in a neutral tone of voice. Referring to policies often results in editors feeling policed and not taken seriously and often does not help making the debate less heated. So I would be very very careful with those. Arnoutf (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do take policy seriouslly, and policy does limit speculation regarding what the EU might become. The EU is not a country, and if someone wants to claim that it is, all that they need is a reliable source for that. Don't take my references to policy the wrong way, please. Raggz (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raggz, I think you're confusing structure and content. Content-wise we don't have to (and don't) enter into the international organisation v. country debate. But we do have to make some choice on how we're going to lay the article out. Thus structurally the article reflects a half-way house between an international organisation and a country. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Policy and this FAQ

message: "Is the EU a country, a federation or an international organisation? The EU is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or International organisation difficult.
This statement is subject to challenge. The United States for just one example underwent an analagous process prior to adoption of the US Constitution. There are many treaty organizations like NATO and the ICC, these are called supernational organizations.
 
This said, I will not support opening a divisive debate on this topic within the article. 
I suggest: The EU is a supranational organization and is not a country, a federation or an international organisation.Raggz (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't the Sui Generis phrase has been the topic of heated debate repeatedly in the past. Consensus was that it is more specific then mere supranational for the EU. Arnoutf (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree, but can defer this. Raggz (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ: sui generis entity

message: The EU is not unique in this respect, other countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the Flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and has its position by de facto status only. Another example be the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E Pluribus Unum being commonly used as such.
Since the EU is not a country, may we agree that it should not compare itself with countries? May we agree that the EU is a supranational entity and is not a nation? How can it not be a country and have still a "national symbol"? Raggz (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the frequent suggestion to remove the flag from the mainspace article because it is in no treaty. And is an essential argument, I see some of your point and would suggest to replace "other" with "several". Arnoutf (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag is a part of the EU and belongs. I support retention. I doubt that half of the national flags formally appear in any law or treaty. It however does not make the EU a country, nor half of a country. That was my point. Raggz (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of the answer to a question (Frequently asked QUESTIONS) If you read the question "Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?" than you might notice that for this phrase no claim whatsoever was made in the relation between flag and country. Only that the flag should stay. I notice that in many example you pick up on a line, take it out of all context, fantasise a new context and use to show the line is wrong in that (non existing) context. Please be careful with that as it will lead to a discussion that is completely besides the point. Arnoutf (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag