Talk:European Union/Archive 2

message: As far as the EEC is concerned I thought it was the European Economic Community which is what the UK signed up for after its referendum. The EEC was (and I'm a bit too young to know this all) basically a free trade zone with now tarrifs and a common agricultral policy. Since then the EEC has evolved into the EU (The European Union) and moving to more political union (social chapter, central bank, euro etc...). Of course I await my correction :-) -- Alex.
: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: UK and EU

message: What does it mean that "These three organizations used to have separate institutions; but in 1961 they were merged, though legally speaking they are still separate organizations."? If they were merged how can they legally still be separate organisations?
:As far as I know, CECA, EEC and EURATOM were established by treaties and never disestablished. However, their management structures are now totally merged. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Three organisations

message: The current text, when explaining why the EU is not federal, says 
:Also, the Member States remain the Masters of the Treaties and the Union does not have the power to transfer additional competencies from the Member States onto itself. 
In federal states, the federal government usually does not have the power to (de)centralize competencies unless expressly allowed by the constitution. This is the case in the US, where the federal government is not allowed by the constitution to have any competencies not explicitly given to it in the constitution itself. In Spain, which is quasi-federal (see Autonomous Communities of Spain), the constitution does not allow the government to devolve certain competences, but everything else starts out at the national level and can be decentralized by agreement between the central and regional governments. How is it in Germany? 
So, I wonder if the fact that the Commission, Council of Ministers or Parliament cannot centralize competencies is an argument against the EU being federal.
Miguel 03:12, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
: Some points about federation/non-federation. This distintion can be based on the following criterion:
:: The parts of some federation cannot leave the Federation, but the Federation cannot abolish its own parts.
::: Spain is not a federation, in spite of the fact the Autonomous Regions have more powers (in certain senses) than US States. That's because Spanish Central government can suspend autonomy for any region (although this is legally very difficult). US cannot suspend State's autonomy. 
::: US is not an International Organization because States cannot leave the Federation.
:: EU's Member-states cannot leave EU (at least theoretically), since there are no provisions for that in the present treaties (which are binding until all member-states decide that they shouldn't be - that's the reason the Constitution needs to be approved by all States). However, the Draft Constituion specifically allows states to leave EU. So, if we use this criterion, EU is a federation until the Constitution is approved (which is kind of ironic).
--Marco Neves 22:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal? 

message: 
Does anyone know how to convert the date cited there to European standard (i.e., from May 1 to 1 May)?
*Done. The page to edit is Mediawiki:EU_countries.  Dmn 12:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just as much forcing May 1 format on everyone, as putting it 1 May does! - MPF 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is not. See this link: March 15. I see it as 15 March, since I set my date preference in Special:Preferences. Try it! I'm not fooling you! — Sverdrup 15:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should 'May 1' format be the default? Surely the engine can switch '1 May' too if user's preferences do not agree with it? '1 May' format should be default used on European topics. Zoney 15:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the policies behind it, but this is how it works, and I stick to it. — Sverdrup 15:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, it should be 'forced'. Even if user preferences are to keep May 1 as is, that's not correct for this page. Unlinked text is appropriately written in '1 May' format. Zoney 15:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Ack! I'll have to change my stance on this. It seems the date-preference thing does not work with msg-elements. :-(. Go ahead and force it, even though it's ugly. — Sverdrup 15:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! - MPF 16:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet it still appears as "May 1" in the main article! - I guess there must be a bug in the msg-elements? (way beyond my abilities to deal with!) - MPF 16:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: msg box