Talk:European Community

message: Please note that it is not technically correct to describe the EC as the EU. The EC will remain until all three pillars are amalgomated under the draft constitution.
---
Are you sure Sweden is a member of the European Community? It was not a member of the European Union when it was established, and the other 'new' EU members are not on the list.
----
Yes, Sweden is an EU member -- every member of the EU is in the EC, and every member in the EC is in the EU. The EU and the EC are basically the same organization. (Techincally, only the EC is legally an organization, and the EU is composed of the EC and also wider non-EC responsibilities in areas such as foreign policy, security and defence, policing and crime co-operation.) Also, all the the 'new' EU members are on the list -- your not thinking of the candidate countries are you? (They are not yet members.) --- Simon J Kissane
----
I expect there is some good Wiki reason why there isn't a list of country names here.
----
In regards to the date change... from the EU website: http://europa.eu.int/abc/treaties/index_en.htm
"The Treaty on European Union, which was signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, entered into force on 1 November 1993. The Maastricht Treaty changed the name of the European Economic Community to simply 'the European Community'."
I think that the entry into force date would be the appropriate changeover moment for the EEC name to the shortened EC, despite any preceding signings/ratifications.
-Mike Hollis
----
I think that the redirect from the European Communities to "European Community" is wrong. Here is a short summary to go with. "The European Communities" used to mean three European Communities: the European Economic Community (which was changed to "European Community" by the Maastricht Treaty), the European Steel and Coal Community (which does not exist any more) and the European Atomic Energy Community (which still exists). Now, the European Communities legislation always refers to "the Community" (which used to be, as necessary, any one of the three Communities which was issuing the respective legislation, and now means one of the two remaining Communities) while "the Communities" used to mean all three. Therefore, reference to "the Community" could mean any one of the three while reference to the "European Communities" used to mean all three and nowadays mean the two left (EC and EURATOM). Hence, the European Communities are not the same as the European Community. The European Union includes the Communities but has some additional "ingredients" (pillars). Basically the Communities are becoming more and more a thing of the past while emphasis is laid on the term "European Union". E.g. the Council of the European Communities was renamed to "Council of the European Union" some years ago etc.
As for information regarding this quite complex structure, I find the information contained in this article quite poor. I hope that someone with better editing skills than mine could fix this. -Anonymous Commenter
: I concur. European communities and European community are two different matters. Leonr (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: (old comments)

message: *Article rated--if there are sources it should be nominated for Good Article Candidate (WP:GAC). →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rated

message: "For legal reasons the European Union is known as the European Communities in WTO matters."This is nonsense. The EU ist _not_ a WTO member, but the EC is. I'll delete this, okay? Henning Blatt 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union and WTO. 

message: Are EEC/Euratom treaties going to expire just as ECSC treaty ? Siyac 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiry 

message: I think it would be a good idea to merge the two articles, as flagged on the article page.--Boson 14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to the first, why that article is there I don't know. We should also try to expand this, it is way to limited. But to the second, the current name is "European Community". That is the formal name of the pillar, the plural is an old and/or informal term. - J Logan t: 15:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of articles explaining the relationship of "European Community", "Europea Communities" etc. to EU 

message: FYI: In the same manner as the European Coal and Steel Community article, I've put together an infobox to be used here post-2009: User:JLogan/Sandbox.- J Logan t: 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Writing about the EU will be much easier once the various communities and pillars are gone. - \mathrm{S} \mathrm{Solberg} \mathrm{J} 11:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I've been thinking about this for a while, although we don't have much separate data I think it might be good to have individual articles for European Economic Community, European Communities and European Community. For a start, the nature of the pillar is different from that of the EEC which was a direct predecessor. Having them all link to the same page might sound good from a continuity point of view but it may confuse some people who need to understand the differences better. The European Communities page would be small, just explaining the three different ones, the term and how they were interlinked. The EEC page would show everything pre-1993 of the individual development, members, institutions etc. while the EC page would concentrate on the pillar system, policies etc. Sticking them together gets a bit messy, like talking about members as post-1993 we go into repeating EU information.
Any objections to this proposal?- J Logan t: 10:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good idea, if people know enough about the different things to actually write three separate articles. - SSJ ☎ 12:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft EEC article: User:JLogan/Sandboxa. Communities would be small by nature. The only thing that might be hard to get the proper amount of data is the EC one but time will build it.- J Logan t: 12:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Done, I know I should have waited but it takes ages for anyone to notice things here unless you actually edit it.- J Logan t: 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Presently this treaty is dead and irrelevant. The text regarding it was written when it was under serios consideration. May we agree to delete speculation about it until there is some real prospect that it will come into force? Raggz (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says its dead? Arnoutf (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto, ratification is still continuing. It is the full intention of the leaders to continue with the ratification (and failing that, a treaty doing exactly the same).- J.Logan`t: 16:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Raggz (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty of Lisbon

message: The article starts with the note that "...three defunct European international organisations (the EEC, ECSC and EAEC),...", but this applies only to ECSC (lapsed in 2002) and EEC that transformed into EC and was then "integrated in the EU" by the Treaty of Lisbon. The EAEC is still functioning as before. Alinor (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, might just be the redirect note but best be accurate.- J.Logan`t: 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euratom is not defunct