Talk:European Union/Archive 11

message: In  the template Brussels is said as de facto capital of EU. Shouldn't the Capital be rather changed to "Headquarters" or something? I don't think anything is spoken about capital in law. But I don't really know about this, what do you say about changing it to "Headquarters"? --Pudeo (Talk) 12:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not sound like a good idea. It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU. Arnoutf 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU". Well, I don't really thing so. I have read some of them, especially on language policy, I have read Pascal Fontaine's semi-official Europe in 12 lessons, I have read a couple of books on EU, I have never come across such an information. EU does not have a capital, because there no such thing officially in the EU and because it is not a state. Headquarters, administrative center or centers, maybe, unofficially again. In fact, Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Frankfurt are all important, with Brussels having a lead among them. But it is not "de facto capital". This is too strong a term. --Michkalas 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Europe were a country and the general definition of a capital city of a country is the main location of legislative and political bodies and main institutions then the word capital would be appropriate. In this case brussels is generally accepted as the capital for that reason.--Lucy-marie 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But EU is not a country. Maybe many of us want EU to become a country, maybe EU will become a country. But now, today, EU is not a country. --Michkalas 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is why the words de facto are used afterwards. Brussels is accepted as the captial but it isn't official.--Lucy-marie 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is accepted by whom? Maybe such a term is OK for an informal discussion or even a politician's speech. It is not OK for an encyclopedia though.--Michkalas 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In most popular press Brussels is referred to as the capital. Arnoutf 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought "It is referred to as capital in much of the official communications of the EU."--Michkalas 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is acceptable to call it a de facto capital but not the official capital. So under that guise it is acceptable.--Lucy-marie 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So maybe we should also say -and write in a encyclopedia- that Frankfurt is the de facto economic capital of the EU (a term used in the press, BTW) and Luxembourg is its de facto judicial capital (something like the South African system, though not officially, but "de facto" in the case of the EU). I am not actually proposing it, but this highlights the other possible options if we decide to proclaim capitals. Capital in the encyclopedic/reference discource is too strong a word to use and is an exaggeration in the case of the EU. Let's try something more close to what is going on in the EU: "Seat of the executive branch", "administrative headquarters/center" or maybe another term. --Michkalas 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well infact the first part of your comment is justifiable but the second part removes the importance that Brussels has within the EU itself.--Lucy-marie 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if you think so, lets make then other proposals.--Michkalas 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not bad. Commission is the European body par excellence, the most European of the European institution. Even better: "Seat of the Commission and the Council" (Council=Council of the EU, not the Summit). --Michkalas 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about main political centre or words to that effect. I still prefer capial as peopole know what hat means seat of council is too narrow.--Lucy-marie 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad the Seat of Commissian idea. Can that be placed in the template on the top of the page?Arnoutf 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Michkalas entirely, capital is very misleading, it may be referred to in informal discourse or tabloid newspaper articles in this way but it is certainly not correct or acceptable to refer to it as the capital of the EU in an encyclopedia article. More people may know what this means but that doesn't stop it being incorrect and confusing to the many people who view the EU as a state or something approaching a state. We should shy away from using any phrase which suggests that the EU is a state as it confuses the issue for those not familiar with the subject. I think if a phrase must be used then "Seat of the Commission and Council" is best. --blankfrackis 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition the capital city is the principal city where the government is located, and not necessarily the government of a country. For example, Barcelona is defined as the capital of the autonomous region of Catalonia, but not of Spain. Another example, Zürich is the capital of the canton of Zürich but not of Switzerland, etc. So calling Brussels de facto capital of the European Union is completely correct, because although it is not defined anywhere as the capital of the EU, it is where the government of the EU is located and because although the EU is not a country it is indeed a political entity. Sdnegel 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brussels

message: It always said if ranked on the information bar since the E.U. is not a country but somebody keeps deleting if ranked. Who come? 
User:Daniel_Chiswick 19 February 2007.
: Because it messes up the infobox layout. The editor who deleted it set up a footnote instead, but I agree that is hardly readable. Arnoutf 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had read my edit summaries, you'd know that there is already a footnote (the #4 you keep deleting) that explains the whole "if ranked" thing. You have not addressed this in any of your edits and you seem to just be ignoring it in order to blatantly mess up the formatting when it can just be shown through a small footnote. Gdo01 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes comparisons of Europe to the USSR and the HRE will make people want to listen to you. I'm also enlightened as how I, someone from Florida in Southern United States am obviously a European despite the fact that I'm an American citizen. Use of a sockpuppet discredited you already as an editor and these baseless assumptions and accusations you make further prove that you are not the kind of editor that is trying to help Wikipedia. Then there's your edit that changed the suggestion to speak British English to a suggestion to speak American English despite the fact that Europe obviously includes Britain. I was willing to assume good faith until you made this edit that shows that you are trying to further an USA-centric POV on this article. There is no other logical reason to suggest American spelling for a European(which includes Britain) article. Gdo01 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the footnote is a good way out; however, I agree that the footnote is very hard to spot; perhaps due to font size or something like that. Maybe if we make the footnote more easily visible the 'if ranked' is no longer necessary? Arnoutf 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The real thing is not in here, it is out there in the real world. Readability is a great good in any text; you simply cannot explain the world in any article, you will always have to sacrifice a bit of 'realness' for readability. I think the footnote is a good way of doing it. Arnoutf 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did somebody delete if ranked?

message: I think the line about Schengen in the introduction should be removed for two reasons. First of all according to WP:LEAD the introduction should be a summary, however, the Schengen agreement is not mentioned as an important issue in the main article. Added benefit, removing Schengen issue from intro brings the intro back to the maximum adviced four paragraph length. Secondly; Schengen includes Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (non-eu). Although the overlap is sufficient to treat it in the article itself; I would not place it in the introduction, which should be a summary of the essential information on the EU. Therefore I have been bold and took it out.Arnoutf 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schengen is one of the major achievements of EU politics (all 27 ratified it -493 mil people). The involvement of 3 EFTA states ( 12 mil. people) is of minor relevance here. It´s not sufficiently covered in the article, correct, so please extend the content rather than deleting crucial information. Lear 21 07:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, I partially agree; if it is important (and I agree it is), it should be in the article (including the argument that it is EU, in spite of the EFTA states and not antother European thing). However, as long as it is not treated in the article in detail it should not be in the introduction. The introduction should give an overview of the article, not a list of topics that should be treated in the future. Arnoutf 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No it is not illogical. If Schengen is important it should be treated in the main text. The introduction should not give an overview of issues that are not in the main text. Hence the Schengen bit needs to be written in the main text first (or at the same time). Arnoutf 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is of hypothetical interest only; the Euro is mentioned. What I am less sure about is whether the Schengen agreement will ever be as prominent in the article. I will try to have a go when I have some time. The intro must be short, and therefore some important issues may need to be dropped even if they are treated in the article proper. I would prefer dropping stuff that is not mentioned over issues that feature in the article. The problem with your reasoning is that it opens the door for brief statements that are not explained in sufficient detail (due to intro brevity) anywhere in the article. This goes e.g. for the mentioning of nation state. So in spite of your noted objections, I remain with the opinion that no issue that is not treated in the main section should be named in the intro; its either all or none, I go for none. Arnoutf 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schengen in introduction

message: I cannot find where the given source says the EU consists of Nation states exclusively; please provide a page no. It seems the author says that the EU is the salvation of nation states in a time where many say they are an outdated model; this implies there are some nation states in the EU, however (as I said before), I cannot find a hard quotation stating that the EU consists only, and can only consist out of nation states. Hence as far as I read into the source, the author says that the book present his own POV, and lists contrary sources. Arnoutf 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The given source contains no support of nation-state thesis. Its therefore not relevant. Lear 21 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Second source much more conclusive, thanks. However, if it is taken for granted, why does it have to be in the intro. Arnoutf 12:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That maybe a reaons to place it in the article, but the intro should not be an overview of arguments not mentioned in the articel (that's why not). Arnoutf 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading into your quote - ".the EU is best understood as a regional union of nation-states..." That means that although it is officially NOT a regional union of nation states it is best understood that way. Thus the reference cannot be used to state it as a definite "The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of nation-states" as the whole scientific care in using the word Understood has disappeared. Hence based on this reference nation cannot be added to the states. Arnoutf 12:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nation states

message: I propose that the introduction should be revised with the following points:
* it should identify the EU member states as nation-states
*it should identify the EU as the successor to other entities, such as the EEC
*it should place the EU in historical context as part of a longer process of European integration
*it should not state that the EU exists as a response to globalisation
*it should mention and link to Euroscepticism and sovereignty
Because of reverts, a poll seems inevitable.Paul111 11:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro reverts by Lear 21 

message: My response comes down to a single guiding principle:
* The intro needs to be a concise overview (ie summary) of the article (see:WP:LEAD). In that light:
# It need not identify EU-member as nation states, as this did not receive attention elsewhere in the article, and is only a non-imbedded statement as it is now
# It should identify the EU as successor to other entities; as this has a prominent place in the history section.
# It should place the EU in relation to European integration as this is the main issue in the Politics and Three Pillars section (it should not mention Schengen in much detail, as this is only scarcely mentioned in the three pillars section).
# It should not state that the EU exists as a response to globalisation, as this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I agree that there might be a section conceivable EU in relation to Globalisation but that does not (yet) exist, so no place in the intro.
# It should not link to Euroscepticism, as this issue is not treated elsewhere in the article. I agree that there might be a section conceivable Euroscepticism but that does not (yet) exist, so no place in the intro.
# As it is now, the issue of sovereignty should be treated with the utmost care. It is mentioned twice (foreign policy and law); howver not in the context that states will lose it when entering the EU. Again, as long the article proper does not pay much more attention to the issue, it should not be in the introduction. 
I hope these argument give a reasonable idea of what the introduction shoud look like given the current underlying article. Please do not consider a poll on this, that will not help anyone. Arnoutf 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your views (by points)

message: First, I do not think you should call the EU a union of "nation-states". The definition of a nation-state is the following: "A nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and which derives its legitimacy from that function.", however at least the United Kingdom is a state which does not represent a particular nation.
Second, in my opinion this statement is wrong: Critics are concerned that process will ultimately deprive member states of their sovereignty.. This might be controversial, because member states could in theory quit the Union, but they are forced to implement some European laws, they have to accept the European court of justice resolutions, for some members the monetary policy is decided by the ECB etc... so if we accept that there might be different levels of sovereignty, then members states would have already been deprived of at least part of it.
And third, "The Union is a customs union and a developing single market" The Union is already a single market. Read the definition of wikipedia, or just read the reference you give, which says "The Single European Market stands for ‘free movement’ of people, goods, services and capital. On a practical level, it means the possibility for EU citizens to live, work, study and do business throughout the EU as well as to enjoy a wide choice of competitively priced goods and services. Since its inception in 1993, the Single Market has opened up economic and working opportunities that have transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans. Removing the barriers that still prevent citizens and business from fully enjoying the benefits of the Single Market is a key aim of the European Commission.". It is not a perfect single market, but those markets only exist in theory. In practice no perfect single markets exist, so if we assume that, for example, the US has a single market then we should do the same for the EU.
Sdnegel 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your introduction

message: This version for an introduction is comprehensive, logic, and contains factual content. It hasn´t been
argued and represents a stable base for the future. Please support or comment on it. There are 
repeatedly introduced versions by User:Paul111, which contain either unsufficient, unsourced or unlogic content. These versions have been repeatedly argued by several editors, but are reinserted
by the named user undiscussed or unilateral. This must have an end. Lear 21 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version is comprehensive, logical, provides factual description of the EU structures, and indicates historical and political context. It is also shorter, and copy-edited. Blanket reverts to older versions remove copy-edits, and should be avoided.Paul111 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanket reverts should be avoided by all parties as that is an easy way of escalating into edit war. Arnoutf 12:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussed version gives an emphasize to the state of being. Historic entities are of minor priority in the introduction. The Eurosceptic attitude towards EU is one of many and cant be expressed exclusively. The GDP figure is most recent and referenced. Lear 21 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My remark above is that two editors who don't agree go out both using the revert option there will never be reached a middle ground, as both dig themselves into their fortified revert trench - an edit war follows or better named a revert war. This can only be defused if at least one (but preferably all) of the involved editors try to see the value in the others issues, and tries to incorporate his/her own issue while respecting the others visions. So no, you should not allow another to veto anything, but neither should you use the revert or deletion options as a veto yourself. Arnoutf 16:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wo~uld say, be bold and do it.Arnoutf 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Introduction

message: The older version of the intro links 'union' to the political union article. However, the EU is not a political union, and there is no immediate prospect of it becoming one.Paul111 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EU is not a political union

message: The older intro gave a GDP estimate in dollars. I can not find the figure in dollars, at the web page cited. Additionally, the figures there are IMF staff estimates, at current prices in dollars. I propose that it is more appropriate to use Eurostat figures, which include purchasing-power-parity comparisons with the US, and are priced in Euros.Paul111 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wo~uld say, be bold and do it.Arnoutf 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EU GDP figure

message: The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union
* EU is not a political union, link is misleading
of 27  democratic member states in Europe.
* EU is a union of nation-states, an essential and defining characteristic. It is not a state, and not a country, because it consists of separate sovereign states. 
It forms the three pillar framework 
* no it doesn't, it is the other way around. The three pillars are a temporary solution.
and includes the European Economic Community, 
* Historical context is missing, in fact the EU is its de facto successor.
Many aspects of the Union existed through a series of predecessor relationships,
*unclear and bad English
The progress and the degree of further European integration is discussed controversially, 
*bad English, things are not 'discussed controversially'.
but is considered to be open-ended.
*it is open-ended. No end state is set out anywhere in official documents.
estimated nominal GDP of US$14.2 trillion in 2006.
*why use an IMF staff estimate when official Eurostat figures are available?
The union has a single market consisting of a customs union
*incorrect, the union does not have a single market yet, it is developing one. The customs union precedes the market.
Citizenship of the European Union and the Schengen Agreement allow citizens to live, travel, work and invest in other member states.
*incorrect, the freedom of movement preceded the creation of EU citizenship and is not derived from it. Schengen does not apply to all member states, and has nothing to say about work or investment.Paul111 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in the older version

message: A key objective of the EU is the free movement of people.   The article currently says:
Citizens of member states can live and work anywhere within the EU with their spouses and children, provided they can support themselves
Surely this is not correct - are there not restrictions in most states on employment of the citizens of the newer member states?
Peter Clarke 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is true in the Netherlands (e.g. for Polish people). However, I am not experienced enough in legislation to know what the exact conditions are. As far as I learned from the media, there were people referring to the line above, stating that it was not legal. So apparently someone found a loophole. Where I don't know. Interesting issue though. Arnoutf 09:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the EU treaties, all EU citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, without the need for a residence or work permit. However, a number of countries have temporary opt-outs to this rule with reference to the new member states. These opt-outs cannot be kept beyond 2011. At the moment, a number of old member states place work restrictions on the new member states (except Malta and Cyprus). There is one loophole in the opt-out: that of self-employment: self-employed people are allowed to work anywhere in the EU freely.  Ronline ✉ 10:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I know it is not the migration but only the working permit that is restricted. The Dutch really doesn't care if a Polish millionaire buys a house here to spend his money in the Netherlands. I think the section just added by Paul111; should be framed a bit more carefully to make this important distinction. Arnoutf 14:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Movement of People

message: So where is the mention of the EU corruption? The fact their accounts have not been signed off for the last 11 years. The fact that any political offical who does not agree with the EU is removed. The fact that the EU is eroding democracy and civil liberties through its un-democratic laws. The fact that is has a secret agenda, like passing the constitution without a democratic vote in most countries. Barrosso's bribes to keep him as EU president. The fact that anti-EU parties across Europe are being destroyed. Parties like UKIP who are unfairly treated. The fact that the EU is forming secret police units. The fact the EU is creating an army to rule over an empire. The fact that an EU ploice force is immune to prosercution if they shoot you illegally. The fact that the EU is introducing ID cards and interviews for passports to track where people are, and see what they do; therefore resulting in a loss of freedom of movement and freedom of thought/ speech ect. The list is endless, and all of it has failed to be mentioned here. I bet there is an avid europhile who wrote this article who says to himself at night "the EU loves everyone, they can do no wrong". Thats what people thought of Lenin and Hitler. Dont repeat the mistakes of history, for what we do now, echoes through eternity. Freedom is'nt free 10:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these issues link in with the previous ideas about euroscepticism; which has been discussed but not yet written. If you think these are all facts linked with corruption; and you can support that these are indeed facts and not speculations, write the section but be sure that for any such statement such as The fact that any political offical who does not agree with the EU is removed., you provide a reliable source; otherwise this is asking for POV forks all over; and your edits will be removed. Also please be advised that opinion articles (e.g. by a politician of an anti-EU party) are NOT considered reliable sources. Arnoutf 11:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it was one before, the user added under his/her own account (so not anon): THE EU IS CORRUPT, HELP UKIP DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE. I did not see that and thought the idea was completely in good faith. However, adding stuff like the line above is blatant vandalism. So to User:Freedom4korea; don't do that again, or you may be blocked from editing. Arnoutf 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention Corruption...

message: Where military data about European Union: European Union Force, European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps and Eurocopter Tiger, Eurocopter Group, Eurofighter Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH, military mission from EU, European Security and Defence Policy, European Security and Defence Identity etc, etc. PS. See: Military of the European Union. LUCPOL 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these articles read like military fan-club material. They need editing for a more realistic perspective, and until then they should be treated with caution.Paul111 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Paul111; IMHO this seems often a problem with many of the articles on contemporary military units and structures; much adoration and little place for critisism. So yes, there maybe some info, but treat with caution. Arnoutf 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where military data about European Union?

message: Why does the EU stub template use the line "This article about the European Union operations is a stub." when most others like this say "This (whatever)-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I know it's a small thing but I find the phrase "about the European Union operations" a weird phrasing. JLogan 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: Congratulations to Bulgaria and Romania for joining EU in 2007. Hopefully next joining are the West Balkan countries: Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Albania..Good Luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro will join, Slovenia may join, but Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzigova will not join the EU. 83.135.148.33 16:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, you are the one to judge that? Furthermore, Slovenia has already joined the Union on May 1, 2004!! Maartenvdbent 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulation Bulgaria and Romania 

message: These numbers were all outdated. But even more serious. They considered the ranking of EU on a list containing also EU states. That would be a bit like comparing US figures with those of California. If we want to imagine the EU is a single entity, its position on lists should be on 'cleansed' lists, where the separate member states are not mentioned. I adapted the numbers accordingly. I think this issue may lead to some controversion, but that is IMHO the direct consequence of treating EU as a single entity; and the desire to link a rank number to that. (Note that on the List of countries by population density the EU is not numbered and only given a position, hence that problem does not appear there.)Arnoutf 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If counted as single entities numbers 

message: Differences between member states are also significant. GDP per capita is typically 10% to 25% above EU average in the older western member states, but only one-third to one-half in most eastern member states, and in possible accession candidates such as Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. For comparison, United States GDP per capita is 50% above EU average: Japanese GDP per capita is comparable to western European levels at 10% above EU average.. [29]
I suppose that this is the begest nonsense ever.............older western member states do not have typically GDP from 10 to 25 above EU......Portugal, Italy, France, Spain, and Greece have got lower GDP......Portugal about 80 percent something.......
only one-third to one-half in most eastern member states???????????? shouldn't there be defined what is a eastern european state???? Slovenia is definitely not the older western member state and does not seem to have GDP ranging from one-third to one-half of EU average....It is actually quite rich
I have read the resource 29 and the data says more things just than that.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.136.52.81 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps North-Western is the better term. Italy and Greece are definitely not western states. Typically means that on average this is the case, not that this is always the case. I agree Eastern European state is ill defined; we should do something about that. For this article the division maybe 'new' member states vs 'old member states' but then again; in that case you are right with mentioning Greece. Perhaps use 'former Warsaw pact EU members'? That would exclude Cyprus and Malta and as far as I know also Slovenia. Arnoutf 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP economy 

message: Out of curiosity, how does one measure the size of a political entity?  The article only cites GDP and population to support this claim, and China and India would both be larger entities by population. Triphook 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, probably the conditional  "one of the largest....." would be better. Arnoutf 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Political Entity 

message: Was it just 20 years of EU on13th March? wasn't their a big football game at old trafford?
: Well, yes, but the game at Old Trafford was to celebrate 50 years of the European Communities (incl. the EU).
82.35.213.226 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 Years 

message: This article http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865 speaks of many similarities of The EU to The USSR and I tend to agree. I think a section should be added comparing such similarities. Personally I'm apposed to the idea of a single organization governing several countries, idividual countries have their own idividual governments for a reason. Black death 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the article is a Blog, of the interviewer. This hardly counts as an authorative source; in any case not enough for a separate section. Nevertheless there maybe some things that are noteworthy. I would say, if the critisisms and skeptics section ever gets written, a very brief metion of this (about one line or so) in that section, maybe in place. So no to a separate section; perhaps to mentioning in another critisism section. Arnoutf 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not a criticism and is simply a comaprison between The EU and the one other organization in the world that's so similar to it. And why is there no ciriticism section to begin with? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased and present everyone's views?Black death 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in there worth putting on the page. Just a lot of nonsense. Comparing the EU to the Soviet Union is idiotic to say the least. His main argument is that many ethnic groups are combined into a single 'nation.' What about the US? South Americna countries? What does he think about the UN I wonder. When one thinks about the Soviet Union one usuelly thinks about gulags, the millions of people killed, communism, Stalin, etc. Not a multi-ethnic state. Voodoo 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it is not very similar (except for the multi-ethnicity which is far more pronounced compared to the US). Why there is not critisism/sceptisism section. Well simple. Because no-one has written one. Arnoutf 15:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But states and provinces are quite different from actual countries. And I'm not saying The EU kills its own citizens or is a communist organization or anything like that I just want to compare the structure of the governing bodies of The EU to the structure of the governing bodies of The USSR.Black death 04:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest the Sovjet Republics within the USSR (don't confuse with the Warsaw Pact), where probably closer to provinces than independent countries, especially in comparison with the US states. The USSR was the follow up of the Tsaristic country; which was mainly Russia and its imperial conquests. That these conquests became 'independent' sovjet republics within the USSR did nothing about the dominance of Russia, and they were actually not much more than satelite states; and were basically still part of the Russian empire. While some of the official rules may resemble that of the USSR, the EU is completely different. First of all, there is no single super-dominant state/country (just as in the US there is no single super-dominant state). Second, the decision to become part of the EU is vouluntarily (this is again closer to US compared to USSR). There may be some resemblance in the structure of bodies, but than again there are probably only so much ways you can structure a federal union..... Arnoutf 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah the beauty of capitalism, everything is voluntary and you are free yet everyone knows some things you have to do to survive like get a job, you don't have to get a job it's completely up to you but eventually you'll die of starvation if you don't. And in the same way if most of Europe is joining The EU the few smaller countries left have no choice but to join as well if they wan't to have any sort of economy. So while they may not have been forced in the same way to join as The USSR they certainly are being forced now but in a less obvious way.Black death 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words not similar. Arnoutf 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is ridiculous. The fact that he still lives and is talking about it, is proof that there is no "conspiracy". This guy is paranoid, and sees a Soviet Union in every uniting attempt. The EU does not kill people. The EU is not authoritative. The only ones who are "forcing" EU membership are the country's own _elected_ politicians (unlike common people, they know what's best). "certain ideologies" - I don't see communism anywhere; "the plans, the direction" - Uncertain, but likely a new superpower, and a country (whatever that means); "the inevitable expansion" - Gee, a superpower needs land, population and lots of resources, Mr. Clever; "the obliteration of nations" - Nice way to exploit the indoctrinated nationalism of people. Frigo 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities to The Soviet Union 

message: It is EU policy to create a single market. The EU and its predecessors have been working on that for 50 years, but the EU is still not comparable to a nation-state in that respect.Paul111 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lear 21 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the definition of single market. Voodoo 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU is not a single market 

message: It says under the joining history table:
:Note that Gibraltar is part of the EU, while the The Isle of Man, The Channel Islands, The Faroe Islands, Aland Islands and Mount Athos are not.
Alandia is part of the EU, but not of the common VAT area.  AFAIK, Mount Athos is also part of the EU, but not of the common VAT area (and maybe not of the common customs area either).  IM, GG and JE are not part of the EU, but they are not the only dependencies of EU countries that aren't part of the EU.  Greenland, French non-DOM non-European parts and numerous British and Dutch dependencies aren't part of the EU either. Maybe the quoted section could be rewritten into something better. (212.247.11.153 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong data