Talk:European Union/Archive 6

message: I read in the CIA world fact book that there is provision to make 13 european half brigades (1500 men strong) between 2005 and 2010.
Should not be a military section?
Or even a link to the euroarmy?
or both?
--147.156.202.89 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military

message: I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum - I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the entire EU (among many other things). I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on the pros and cons: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance!  Medalstats 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to the "Sport" section of "Life in the European Union".--MichaelJBuck 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Olympic Medals of the EU? 

message: The comparison with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is irrelevant, as this was only a regional east European state with no european dimension. It cannot be compared to the Holy Roman Empire or the European Union. It has existed dozens of multiple-nation states like the Polish-Lithuanian one, like Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway, not to mention Austria-Hungary, and perhaps even Great Britain. But all these are only regional and have not the same dimension as the EU and the HRE. Also, the European Union originated in "core Europe" (Germany/France), and that's why the empire of Charlemagne and the HRE have some relevance, but regional east European history has no relevance.
:Depends on your definition of "core."  Also, if you are going to include the HRE, include the RE, Napolean's empire, Hitler's Empire, and maybe even the Hunnic Empire.
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 

message: How much of the information in the economic status section should be moved over to Economy of the European Union? And how much crossover should there be between the section and the article? -- Joolz 12:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic status section

message: Could some make all of the table styles consistent?  Either all of them with borders or without borders.  It looks rather shoddy to have such varying tables. 141.213.129.40 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table styles 

message: May I ask where does the population figure in the infobox come from? According to the Population Reference Bureau, a very authoritative source, the population of the EU in mid-2004, not forgetting the French overseas départements, which are part of the EU too, was: 259,900,000. That's more than what's currently listed in the infobox. The population in the overseas départements of France alone is close to 2,000,000 inhabitants. Were they forgotten? Hardouin 13:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of the EU 

message: To be factually correct, I think all the French overseas departments (not only French Guiana, but also Réunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe including northern Saint Martin and Saint-Barthélemy) should be highlighted on the location map, for example with green dots. What do you think of it?
:I'm not sure it's that important since they're far less than one pixel large, and aren't shown at all (even in light grey) on the map. But I'm not against showing them either, if you feel it would be better. → SeeSchloß 14:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Denmark's overseas territories are not displayed on the map as they are not a part of the EU and Portugal has no overseas territories any more, the Azores and Madeira are integral parts of the Portugese state. --Bjarki 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Maybe "3. Location of EU institutions" should be placed under "9.2 Institutional framework". I don't think the former deserves a main title. Taupe 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of EU institutions & Institutional framework 

message: The following text appears under Current Issues:
Major issues facing the European Union at the moment include its enlargement to the south and east (see below), its relationship with the United States of America, the revision of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, and the ratification of the European Constitution by member states. HAllo Fini und Mama
Is there any reason it says "HAllo Fini und Mama"?
:No.--Fenice 20:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random text 

message: In the 2nd para it says each of the 4 bodies listed have a president but does the "European Court of Justice" --Fabhcún 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)
yes it does Wild ride 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Court of Justice 

message: The Formation date has the forming of the EEC, but the first step was the formation of the ECSC.  Or one could look further ahead and state that the formation was the merger treaty to form the EC.  Either way, they are both more relevant than the EEC being formed as a formation date.--210.86.78.64 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The formation "kind of" started with the Benelux plan of 1944.
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation date 

message: The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code -  - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of Europe, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 08:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Scotland|Scotland Portal]] 

message: I find that the GDP Ranking is misleading since when you view the link that goes to the table it shows it as not counted (eg. -), so why does it have it listed on this article? Plus if you view United States of America it is ranked as #1 too, so why the two articles have the same rank? I would suggest it to be edited to something like "Not Ranked".
Well for economical reasons, you'd count the EU as a whole because of the institutions, perhaps it would be good to add a footnote to Not Ranked with something like "As an entity No1 place". I think there was a big dispute about this before too... --JDnCoke 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: US is behind EU. The GDP of EU is higher than the GDP of USA. -- Bonaparte  talk 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm reinserting the GDP rank (along with a #4 footnote saying "if counted as a single unit"). This way it is consistent with how population and area are handled in the infobox, and in my opinion it is not too hard to understand that the US still is the #1 ranked country if one does not rank the EU - especially since we link to the rankings. -- Marcika 01:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Ranking 

message: Does anyone else have a problem distinguishing between green and cyan on a laptop? I think pink would be a better substitute for one of the colors. Rudykog 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: YES! This gets brought up every once in a while in this discussion page. Pretty much every archived discussion page for this article has someone mentioning this since at least 2003, and I agree. Here's a better map:  —Tokek 13:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with other blocs/countries 

message: Macedonia needs to be added in the candidate countries.--85.49.226.45 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but in Wikipedia we use the neutral name Republic of Macedonia, which is the country's own constitutional name. The name FYROM shouldn't be used. I agree, however, that using the short form "Macedonia" may be controversial.  Ronline ✉ 06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So? A majority of UN member states use "Republic of Macedonia". It is Wikipedia consensus to use "Republic of Macedonia", since that is unambiguous and fulfills the WP:NC (self-identifying: check, most common: check, that's two out of three). Live with it until Greece and Macedonia finally come up with a compromise. —Nightstallion (?) 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the most common name, you have to do the search properly (when you search for "Republic of Macedonia" you get all the results for "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as well, for obvious reasons - you have to prevent that):  . It is also possible to argue that it is the self identifying name, as they consented to it, but whatever... --Latinus 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No; that's not what "self-identifying" means. They identify themselves as the "Republic of Macedonia" in their constitution, so that's their self-identifying name; and the most commonly used name for the country is "Macedonia", naturally. "Republic of Macedonia" as the article name seems like a fair compromise to me until the issue is resolved. —Nightstallion (?) 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia 

message: Under the issues that would probably prevent Turkey from becoming a member of the EU, I inserted in text that Turkey does not recognize the Armenian genocide about two months ago, and now it is gone.  What happened?  It is true.  Turkey refuses to acknowledge that such a genocide existed, even though it did happen.  There was a program on my local PBS station the other day about Armenia and it stated that the European Parliament told Turkey that it must accept the fact that the Armenian genocide happened before it could be an EU member; Turkey still refuses to believe that it actually happened.  Does this tell you something? -Daniel Blanchette 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says  here that, unfortunately, many EU states don't consider this an issue. - Rudykog 17:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Armenian genocide? 

message: I removed this paragraph from early on in the article - the topic is covered in suitable depth further down. Have kept the information here in case it is of use - some of it could be incorporated into Accession of Turkey to the European Union if the info is not there already --Cjnm 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra paragraph about accession of Turkey 

message: User Ronline updated the statistics around GDP, stating they are 2006 data. Surely he must be mistaken, since 2006 is just starting. How can the data be available now? −Woodstone 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is from the IMF, 2006 projections. See 1, 2 and 3. The 2005 data are also projections. The only real data is the 2004 one, but there before the 2006 update we were already using 2005 projections, so 2006 projections are actually more accurate and better in this case, since we're in the year 2006. 2005 projections were used on this page since about April 2005, before 2005 was over.  Ronline ✉ 03:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated statistics 

message: More financials can be found on the German Wiki.
English is not my native language, so if somebody else would update the section, please.
Mion 12:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financials 

message: -	==European Union Financials==	 
-	The European Union's income can be divided in 3 area's:	 
-	* EU-importtax leveyd on goods on the borders of the EU.	 
-	* Sanctions leveyd by the European Commission (Competition)	 
-	* Contribution of the Member States.	 
-		 
-		 
-	===Bruto contribution pro country===	 
-		 
-	===Netto contribution pro country===	 
-		 
-	===Contribution pro head of the population===	 
-		 
-	===European subsidies===
Sorry, English is not my native language.
Mion 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  +adding section about the financial side. 

message: Someone take this Goddamned cartoon of the page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
please explain what you're talking about Pure inuyasha 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this 

message: Evidenced by:
*Cyprus is a Mediterranian island close to three continents but politically and culturally associated with Europe.
*BBC country profile under Europe.
*Official website of the Cyprus Tourism Organisation says it is European
*It is a member of the Council of Europe.
*Member of European Broadcasting Union
The question here is how does the EU define itself? Not whether all of it is geographically limited to the European continent. The EUs own published view of itself should be given precedence and then later in the article it can be noted that some parts are outside the European mainland area. From the EU official website "The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries..."   . When the EU changes its definition of itself , then Wikipedia should change its principal description, not before. Lumos3 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyprus is in Europe

message: There is not 6 billion people in the EU!! There's only 6.5 billion people on the Planet!
Look As of Last Saturday!
and there 1 bilion in china and another billion in india! That adds up to 8 billion! Plus europes poplation when down big time after 2 world wars, find new population figures.
I place this up for Disupted Facts!HP465 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misreading the chart. In the section on comparison with other blocks it states that the UN (as in United Nations, not EU) has 6,411,682,270 people. At the top of the same chart you will see that the EU has 460,124,266 people. By the way the infobox at the top says 459,500,000 which is essentially the same in view of the uncertainty of such numbers. −Woodstone 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is not 6 billion people in the EU!! There's only 6.5 billion people on the Planet! 

message: i'm surprised that there is nothing about XAVIER SOLANA who the european representant of the foreign affairs of the UE.
There is something to do.
He's really important, really. My english is too bad to write something (i'm french) but i'm sure someone will add it.
:Javier Solana#Foreign affairs - Rudykog 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing XAVIER SOLANA? 

message: Given that some people regard the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community as the founding of the EU ( see the Schuman declaration for details), could somebody with the requisite knowledge or time on their hands please take a look at the request for expansion of the European Coal and Steel Community article ?  Thanks --jrleighton 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Coal and Steel Community 

message: Is it possiblr to fix this map so that it shows the mid ranking wealth members in a diffferent colour to the non-EU members?  Need someone who knows how to edit it.  (Stpaul 13:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map showing GDP 

message: Claims that the EU will have an international code: "A numbering policy for telecommunications" green paper from the european comission
http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9611/
Thewikipedian 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC+1)
Would someone be able to explain what exactly this green-paper suggests about an international code?
:Telephone_numbering plan also explains how the +3 code would have been implemented. Thewikipedian 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU wide dialing-code 

message: GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
(Deng 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. A better way to compare countries and their standard of living would be GDP (PPP) + amount of money spent by the particular country per year per person. This averages about 20,000 USD in Western European countries and about 7,000-8,000 in the US. Themanwithoutapast 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, this is complete nonsense, since state spenditures are already counted in the gdp statistics. Also, nothing is free, the diference of a private school and a public school is that public schools are payed by the money that the state extracts from people using coercion and cumpulsion and private school are financed by voluntary payments, so private schools tend to be better and, in my opinion, morally correct. So, if the per capita income of Europe is lower than USA's, is because they are simply poorer. Outside money income, it is impossible to compare living standards, since living standards are subjective and cannot be measured with statistics.--RafaelG 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard of liveing is not the same as GDP

message: The largest city in the European Union may be London or Paris depending on the criteria (boundary, source, census year, etc.) used.  I have edited to reflect this. – Kaihsu 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boundaries are notably easy for these two cities, no?  London is Greater London, and Paris is the Paris Department.  Looking at the 2004 estimates, which ought to be compatible, London is quite clearly much bigger.  Obviously, this doesn't include the Paris suburbs, but these would properly be included in determining the largest conurbation in the EU, not the largest city.  Paris would seem to be the largest conurbation, though, since Paris+suburbs is bigger than Greater London. john k 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Greater London is mainly made up suburbs. It even includes another city (Westminster). It's mainly because the City of London is so absurdly small that Greater London is used for population instead. In actual fact Greater London is one of Englands 9 regions. So you could just as easily class it as a conurbation. I think this needs a definitive/offical source but the EU tends to get vague on these sort of points in order not to offend. josh (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The swedish city Kiruna is the bigest city on the world if you only look at area size :D (Deng 07:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest city

message: In CBC Canada news on the March of 24 to 26 ask the EU put a Offical Language: Engish !--Brown Shoes22 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not! The EU has 20 official languages, and soon even more! Pmaas 13:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 1 official language, but many (Deng 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, true. English, German and French do, however, have a slightly more important status as they are "working languages".  Ronline ✉ 11:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: English should be the official language. We don't need 20 official languages cos that's ridiculous. Skinnyweed 20:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the EU we're talking about. What makes sense has nothing to do with it.  josh (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on! As much as I would like to see English spreading in Europe, it's tendentious to say that English alone should be the only official language. Having 20 official languages makes sense and perpetuates equality throughout the union. To answer Talous - the "working languages" refer to languages that are used for things like signage, some websites, some documents, etc. These are the languages that the EU uses for most of its affairs, with the official languages only used for things like the translation of treaties, resolutions, etc. However, any of the 20 languages can be used in the European Parliament, and I believe that it's also possible to address any EU agency in any official language you want.  Ronline ✉ 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language is now Engish ! 

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: Shouldn't the map include Melilla and Ceuta, Spanish exclaves on the African coast?  I don't see them on the map. <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">Starry</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Eyes</FONT> 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map missing [[Ceuta]] and [[Melilla]]? 

message: This article is currently being considered for removal of its Featured Article status. See the debate at - Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union. All contributors need to take part. Lumos3 09:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of featured article status

message: Why is Sakhalin island colored blue on the map?
:Sorry, I don't see Sakhalin on any of the maps, nor would I expect an island next to Japan to be mentioned in this article.—Tokek 13:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sakhalin 

message: Quit reverting this back and forth and please discuss this issue here. Otherwise I will be forced to protect the article. --Bjarki 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I find sorting by the GDP (PPP) per capita to be the most suitable for this. -- TimSE 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm really not understanding your reasoning as to why it should be sorted by total GDP. To an extent, it is useful to classify it that way because it shows the "components" of European GDP, and which country "contributes" most to the European economy. However, it is much more useful to look at relative economic power and "standard of living" in the different member states particularly since this determines things like transfer payments and EU budget contributions.  Ronline ✉ 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what is the conclusion now? To order by GDP (PPP) per capita? (and add a note that the order is not random, but on purpose) Alinor 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, although it can be argued that full consensus has not been reached yet, it seems that the option of sorting by GDP per capita is favoured, 4-1. Thus, it should be ordered by GDP per capita, with the accompanying text saying that it is ordered by GDP per capita. The subtitle should also be changed from "GDP/Country" to something like "Economic variation".  Ronline ✉ 08:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should proabably be arranged by per capita, it's more useful for comparison purposes. --Bjarki 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP ordering 

message: There are only 24 countries in this chart!
* Someone has corrected this now. Alinor 17:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Rep. missing in the GDP/country table  

message: I notice there is alot of switching back and forth of the map in the infobox. There is a map that shows the location of the EU in a global perspective and there is a map that shows a close-up of Europe and identifies which countries are members. In my opinion, the map in the infobox should display this global perspective and serve the purpose that these maps serve in any country article, that is to display a location of an entity. We do have another map in the article which displays only Europe and identifies the member states and we don't need another. --Bjarki 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current map doesn't show the European Union. It has Norway and Switzerland as members. --Larsw 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone changed it, I've reverted back to the correct one. --Bjarki 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: "The European Union has land borders with 20 nations and sea borders with 31."
I have two questions about this sentence. Are the countries that share both a land and a sea border with existing EU members counted twice (included in both figures)? What exactly is a sea border? Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a country's coast and are considered a sovereign territory of the respective state. EEZs extend up to 200 nm from the coast but states do not excercise sovereignty over that area, only an exclusive right to manage resources. In my mind, one can only speak of sea borders when territorial waters of different states meet (if there are less than 24 nm between them). I haven't managed to find a single country that borders an EU member only by sea border. --Bjarki 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea border? 

message: Add any references if possible, especially if they are Internet sources. Skinnyweed 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Would someone like to champion this as a good article? Or shall we put this in peer review? Skinnyweed 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination/peer review 

message: >GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
Agreed. I sincerely believe this.
>It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
The price difference within the European Union is incredible (i'm not from there but spent many years travelling there). If it was considered as one country  or economic unit it probably would have the largest gap between rich and poor and standard of living in the OECD by a long shot. It's a truly phenomenal gap.
And you cannot simply divide the average wage or PP GDP to get the average price of goods. By the GDP  per person say, a packet of cigarettes ($2 USD) in Vilnius, Lithuania is much cheaper per average dollar earned (over $30,000 US pp GDP) than in England, where it's $7-8 USD a packet at least, and certainly not 3-4 times the GDP per head. A can of coke is the same difference.. a big mac is less difference (you'd pay more of as a percentage of your wage in the Baltics for a burger than in London).
I don't know where people get off thinking GDP is the be all and end all indicator of living standards. Is it really a conclusive indicator of lifestyle and living standard? no.
>Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
Actaully, no you wouldn't. Norway has a higher GDP per head than the United States of America, so I'm really not sure where you get this argument from. Per person Norway is universally considered a richer country than the USA, which a parity GDP to match. So measuring solely on the basis of parity GDP, you'd have to come to the conclusion Norwegians have a better living standard than Americans.....right?
::Remeber that PPP scales GDP up or down to reflect differences in prices across countries. Even that doesn't make GDP (PPP) per capita a perfect indicator for standard of living, but I would probably argue it is the best, most comprehensive indicator we have for that concept. Remember that standard of living is by definition a material concept, different from quality of life, which is more subjective and general. I think you're mixing up the two a bit. It's quality of life that looks at lifestyles, and things like rates of crime, etc. These are subjective and cannot be really be measured (the Economist has tried, producing what is IMO a very different but highly controversial ranking). The fact that a country has more police officers per capita doesn't show better standard of living, it may however reflect lower crime and hence a better quality of life. Sure, standard of living does include things like the quality of education or healthcare services, and these are measured more comprehensively in the UN's HDI. But even the HDI tends to correlate quite well with GDP per capita (at least in terms of general trends). In the EU, the countries with the lower GDPs per capita tend to have poorer results for other standard of living indicators, and also lower HDIs. Your argument is sound to an extent, though - many people say that living in Europe is much better than living in the USA (I would agree), even though US GDP per capita is more than 25% higher than average Eurozone GDP per capita. Then again, happiness indicators have shown that low-income countries like Nigeria are happier than some higher-income countries, thus showing the subjective nature of any quality of life measurements.  Ronline ✉ 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard of liveing is not the same as GDP

message: Here are two maps, one is the currently used map, and here i present a new map showing the imminent partition of Serbia and Montenegro. I have retained seperate borders for each country to show that they are sovereign states. plz choose which one to display in the article as and when partition occurs.
WoodElf 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First or last I think. - RedHot 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: How do people feel about making the Infobox looking more like this one, used on most country pages. On the UK page, for example. Due to the EU being more unique than a country, I suggest we just copy the code from the template, not use it. I have edited so it contains the data of the one now, but looks like the current country ones (saved in Notepad for when/if the time comes). One downside is that it is much harder to edit and makes the page a couple of KBs bigger. So, if anybody wants it just say and I'll change the page to have it. MichaelJBuck 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great (Budapestonline 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: (I am unsure exactly how its calculated, so this suggestion may not work)
Would it be possible to estimate a HDI of the EU as a whole, by multiplying each state's HDI, by it's population, and adding them, then divide the answer by the population of the EU? I may not have the formula right, but if you know what I mean, would it work as an accurate estimate? If so, working on the most current population ESTIMATES, as stated in their respective articles, I have worked out that the EU's HDI, is approximately 0.922101021. Is this accurate (or as accurate as can be)? Anyway in the meantime, I've added it to the article in this format as an estimate. If anyone wants to see how I calculated it, I can send the spreadsheet. - RedHot 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither did mine. What did you use as population? I used the most recent estimates on the pages. If you have Excel, I've uploaded the spreadsheet I did it in, to Tripod http://sonotboring.tripod.com/eurohdi.xls, so you can check the figures. BUT, they don't allow linking from other sites, so go to Tripod first, then copy the link into the browser. BUT you'll notice, I didn't use the estimate for the EU's population, as given on the EU's article - I used the sum of the rest. The reason for this is, as I used their individual populations to weight them, if I used the EU's total as given here, it would skew the results. - RedHot 11:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you've got it wrong (what was it)? I could've made a mistake, I  didn't use the best method for entering the data (I copied it manually as opposed to copy-and-paste) - RedHot 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDI 

message: I think the 9th place is more accurate. Shouldn't we discount the EU Member States from the HDI list? Typelighter 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think your explanation isn't satisfactory. I'am not sure if we don't discount EU Member States from the other lists. When I analyse that lists, I always discount the EU Member States. I think it's like what happens with US States and with the USA, I don't see Texas or California along with the US in the lists. The if means a list where EU Member States are combined as a single unity - the European Union. So, I am conviced that the right place should be 9th. Typelighter 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be 22nd, as opposed to 9th, because when you think about it, using a list where the members are discounted, then you're not using the same list as is being used for all the other countries/states/territories on the list (i.e. you can't compare them accurately). Also, for example, the CIA World Factbook always counts the members and EU for ranking. - RedHot 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDI ranking 

message: See the resolution. All languages of the EU are also working languages. French, German and English are working languages of the Comission.  In the Parliament all languages are allowed and there are interpreters for each cabin. Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language. Regulations and other documents of general application shall be drafted in the twenty official languages. The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.
See also: .
So we should get rid of the "working languagesk always counts the members and EU for ranking. - RedHot 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working languages

message: Why has "Capital" been removed? I think this has been discussed several times before and each time it was agreed that "Brussels (de facto)" was the best choice, wasn't it? - Рэдхот 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.... Well I saw SOMEWHERE on Wikipedia, at SOME point a discussion where it was agreed to use capital, but don't know where. Maybe I didn't and I'm just goin crazy thought :) ......... but still, I can remember it so well! But also, why change it all of a sudden when it's been as capital for ages now, and not even discuss that ?! - Рэдхот 20:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital 

message: This page seems strangely anodyne and devoid of critical thought, yet in recent years the EU as an institution has had many severe failures and is widely critiqued. To name but a few, the recent constitution proposal failed; the eurozone economy is stagnant or even declining; the european institutions appear out of touch; the auditors have once again refused to accept the accounts; I could go on. Isn't there room on this page for a serious criticisms section? MarkThomas 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: European Commission estimates economic growth in the eurozone this year will be 2.1%, I dont think a delevoped economy like the eurozone can be said to be stagnant or even declining with that level? Fabhcún 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As you surely know, the European Union Constitution was approved and signed by the heads of government from all the 25 member states. Although France and The Netherlands rejected the Constitution in a referendum, the majority of EU Member States pursued the ratification process. So far, 13 countries have fully ratified the constitution, two of them by referendum; two have very nearly finished ratifying it, one is likely to ratify it in the next few months; and two have rejected it. That leaves seven countries where the constitution is on ice. Moreover, as official candidates for EU membership, Bulgaria and Romania already approved the new EU Constitution. Typelighter 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and as the Dutch (which I am too) rejected the EU constitution, does not mean that they want to leave the EU. Still the majority see the EU as good/beneficial for our country, although the number used to be higher. What the majority of the Dutch don't like it the further and fast enlargement of the EU. Most are willing to let Croatia join (according to a recent poll), but for the other countries, especially Turkey, there is much resistance. A referendum on such an enlargement would most certainly result in a no. A majority want to slow down or stop a further enlargement. More transfer of power to "Brussels" is also something the majority dislikes. Although I fully support the EU and support further intergration, I think there must be room here for some criticism, as there is also some in reality, especially in the western (old) European member states. But the criticism must be based on numbers, like polls, etc. Not someone's POV. Peter Maas 07:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just on a very basic level, I would have thought that quite a few people in Europe regard the vast EU budget of 862 billion Euros with some apprehension, particularly since large tranches of it are spent without accountability by an unelected and authoritarian commission, and in the past substantial segments of it have apparently gone to the Sicilian mafia. We have the Democratic deficit page to handle some of the critiques on that, but I'm just puzzled that on something as important as the EU, there appears to be no critique at all on this page. In fact the current WP page reads like it was written by commission propagandists. I suggest we have a "problems and criticisms" section or something similar. MarkThomas 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't consider myself particularly eurosceptic but I have always wondered about the lack of a criticism section on this article while I keep finding these criticism sections in the strangest places here on Wikipedia. The EU is heavily controversial and this article should reflect that if someone is to take it seriously. Democratic deficit, stagnant growth, bureocracy, centralization, loss of national sovereignty, corruption etc. etc. are all points that have been raised by many people and it should not be hard to describe these concerns in a neutral manner while citing appropriate sources. --Bjarki 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is indeed true! It is indeed simply explaining the EU, not promoting. And everything needs indeed to be NPOV, as I wrote earlier. Peter Maas 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come off it. Zillions of pages on Wikipedia have perfectly acceptable criticisms pages. I suspect motives here. MarkThomas 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on a second I said go for it, and that is what i got from what Peter Maas said, Write the criticism rather than criticise that there is no criticism Fabhcún 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, sorry and thanks, was getting confused in mid-rant there. :-) MarkThomas 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism 

message: This might be worth mentioning in this article: many people in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere [i.e. France, Russia, those Europeans countries that refuse to join, many others]) believe that the EU is nothing more than a 'German ploy' to 'control' Europe both politically and economically (given that Germany is the most economically powerful and populous member of the EU).  They say that the success of the EU obliquely fulfills the Third Reich's burning desire for Germany to become "The Undisputed Masters of Europe."  Should this hypothesis be included in the article or simply written off as a deluded conspiracy theory?  --152.163.100.74 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more commonly described as a "French plot" or as a "mad fulfillment of Napolean's ambitions" but it is true that many see it as essentially a victory for European rule from France and/or Germany, usually with the Gaullist agenda or Napoleonic laws and governmental model thrown in for good measure. I think a critique section should refer to some description of these views, as they are so often aired. MarkThomas 06:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I think the common belief is that the EU is not so much a solely "French plot" or a "German plot", but rather that it is led by joint Franco-German "continental" interests, as opposed to the more "Atlanticist" orientation of the "New Europe", UK and, arguably, the Nordic states. In any case, the view is pretty much ridiculous, IMO. The EU is, in fact, moving away from Franco-German influence (many people like to say that the French reject of the EU Constitution was because of this loss of influence for France).  Ronline ✉ 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed Ronline, and wasn't the French rejection also to do with attempting to defend the French Model, eg, massive state intervention in working life patterns, etc, which result in FR having highest unemployment in developed world, coupled with riots by rich white students fearing for their comfy civil service positions. France is the only country in the western world whose young people put "civil service" as their no 1 job choice. Unfortunately, the EU reflects this backwards neo-socialist mentality with it's slavish adoration on public expenditure and an ever more bloated and corrupt "civil" "service". (better name for it might be Arrogant Plutocracy. I used to wonder why Brussels is only rarely shown on UK TV - a quick visit, with the insanely over-priced restaraunts full of lounging overpaid secretaries, is enough to see why. MarkThomas 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but that phenomena, sad to say, isn't exclusive to French students. I am sure here in Portugal most youngsters dream with a civil service position. The difference is the reasons of the Portuguese are very different. Portugal is a relatively small country, a small market to the eyes of multinationals, and don’t have strategic natural resources. Everybody in Portugal likes the EU because they know about the millions euro received in Structural Funds since the 1980s. Among other recent developments, we have better, hospitals, roads and highways now. Many civil engineering firms, large farmers, and politicians profited wonderfully during all these years, but the economy remains stagnant, the wealth of the average citizen is low, and there is little innovation capacity or entrepreneurship. It is a centralized elitist country, where Lisbon Region appears as the only region with a GDP per capita at the average European level. Lisbon is also the only developed metropolis in the country, with small evidence of world city formation. So, without a strong and competitive industry, and having a tradition of excessive public expenditure, moreover in a context characterised by rising unemployment, most Portuguese just see an option and a goal for their lives, joining the generous and comfortable large public service sector. The truth is that we (like many other countries and depressed regions of the entire continent) wish a stronger, imaginative and dynamic EU to save ourselves from this disgraceful condition. We do not have imperialistic ambitions or a xenophobic sense of self-superiority. We just want a better Europe to live in this increasingly globalized world, where military, economic and political emerging superpowers are as big as the USA, Russian Federation, India, Brazil, and the People’s Republic of China, never like an isolated Germany, France or United Kingdom. Page Up 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume "imperialistic ambitions or a xenophobic sense of self-superiority" is a dig at the UK, but it's a misplaced one - Britain has a long history of fighting for democracy and liberty within Europe. Your story of Lisbon reminds me of medieval China - decaying regional cities of serfs ruled over by a stunningly wealthy bureacracy, indifferent to their wishes, in far away Peking. In fact, the EU is nothing more than a plot to re-introduce Holy Roman Empire serfdom, something which intellectually and culturally/sociologically, many French, Germans, etc are emotionally content with, as there is no really profound history of liberty on the continent. "The bureacrat knows best" should be the motto of the EU. But it's all modernised so that really - and essentially secretly - it serves the interests of international big business and the class of footloose world shareholders. Hence enlargement, which is about extending the cheap labour pool into Poland and Hungary. My advice to poor Portugal is to return to your roots; maritime capitalism and entrepreneurial ability; shake off Brussels, even leave the EU, as should many other countries. The plot, which goes back pre-war and even to the Nazis, to hegemonise Europe, is unravelling. We had a Holy Roman Empire already - it dissolved in flames. We don't need another one. MarkThomas 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, ok.  That wasn't at all crazy. john k 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you to suggest a country leaves the EU, return to your roots; maritime capitalism and entrepreneurial ability; what does that mean? The EU has loads more benefits for poor Portugal, as you put it, than negatives. Fabhcún 11:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably it's wiser to ignore the crazy guy than to engage him. I like the "no really profound hsitory of liberty on the continent" bit best myself.  Also the "Holy Roman Empire serfdom" bit, whatever the hell that means. I can't even tell if this is a crazy left wing paranoid fantasy or a crazy right wing paranoid fantasy. john k 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that a stronger, larger Europe will become a better partner, not a bigger rival, to the United States in international affairs, creating social and economic development. And this is good both for rich and for poor citizens living in Portugal and the United Kingdom. Typelighter 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello, crazy guy here again. :-) Totally agree that EU can counter-balance US power in key areas like competition, but does that mean we need a federal superstate with a bloated EU "new aristocracy of bureacrats" living the high life from our taxes? Of course not. The comments above by the way tend to prove my point - many continental europeans are apparently quite happy to be tax-farmed like grazing cattle for the benefit of the New Eurocracy. Many in England and elsewhere are not so happy. And on the liberty issue - those who disagree with me - where is the history of liberty in Europe? Germany had about 60 years of freedom in the last 400. France about 10 - the revolution was soon crushed and the current France is ruled over by Napoleonic ENA-aristocrats in the Gaullist hegemony, which Brussels itself is modelled on. Spain has only just shaken off Franco and before that was a catholic plutocracy. Only the Netherlands and Denmark had anything resembling liberal democracy for any length of time. MarkThomas 08:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EU -- A 'German Ploy'? 

message: Hey. Over at the Superpower talkpage, we're having a bit of a row about whether the European Union qualifies as a superpower. As you guys are the EU experts :P, if you could contribute to the dicussion your views would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "superpower"? Surely in this enlightened world it implies nuclear weapons, which the EU does not have and a bullying, threatening attitude toward other countries, which the EU also does not in general do a lot of. Therefore the EU is not a "superpower" unlike the US, China, Russia, and maybe to some extent India? Also the UK and France might qualify on the edges of superpowerdom, with a little more emphasis on the UK, which does like to go to war now and then still and is currently substantially increasing naval force strength for example by building new aircraft carriers. Another contender might be Israel which has nuclear weapons, powerful armed forces and goes to war against neighbours periodically when it feels threatened, and so far, has always won those fights. But not the EU per se. MarkThomas 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not nuclear weaponry, certainly. It's more an ability to influence world affairs on a massive scale. Which the EU does kind of fulfil. Depending on whether everyone agrees of not. Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: in what way the EU don't folow this definition Confederation???--Ruber chiken 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some institutions are federal, some supranational, some intergovernmental. Maartenvdbent 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU sui generis???? 

message: Hi, on the map in the middle of the page, some "not on the map" countries, like Franch Guayana are marked. Note, that French Guayana & co. belong to EU member countries, but they themselves are not part of the alliance. This is extra mentioned in the Maastricht Contract.
:But they are on Euro notes that is why they are included. Fabhcún 09:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map failure 

message: Here are two contenders to be the map as one of the is the current map and a new map that was not previously included.Lucy-marie 09:11, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
<BR>
:I like :Image:EUmap.png Fabhcún 14:16, 18 June 2006 (GMT)
::I agree with Fabhcúen, I think the current map is best. The second map, with inserts, gives the reader no perspective as to the location of the areas which are not on the European continent.   theKeith  Talk to me   14:22, 18 June 2006 (GMT)
::Also for the current map showing EU location in the World, not in Europe. Alinor 19:21, 20 June 2006 (GMT)
::Both maps are obviously defective in that they do not show Britain's Antarctic bases. Neither for that matter do they fully explore Denmark's grip on territorial Greenland. MarkThomas 09:23, 23 June 2006 (GMT)
:Greenland is not in the EU (having left the predecessor of the EU, the European Community, in 1985) and I don't think that Britain's Antarctic bases are part of the EU Fabhcún 22:25, 23 June 2006 (GMT)
::It's no good Fabhcún, I cannot accept any map that does not show each and every British posession. Where is Rockall for example, and Tristan Da Cunha? St Kitts Nevis and Anguilla? Belize? Christmas Island? The Falklands? Your maps are nothing more than piffle. I deprecate your shabby indrawn Euro-maps, they are merely the field maps of Bismark and Napolean! They are worthless, as nothing to our glorious Ordnance Survey! MarkThomas 22:31, 23 June 2006 (GMT)
:Rockall is not part of the UK! My understanding is that Gibraltar is the only overseas territory that is part of the European Union. ps I can do with out sentances like "They are worthless, as nothing to our glorious Ordnance Survey!"Fabhcún 08:05, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
::Rockall is so part of the UK!! See BBC report on Rockall for a totally NPOV view on the matter. I'm fine though if you continentals don't want it in the EU, as it can be the last bastion of what was once a great nation. Lots of bat guano and seagull dung for mining there, so we will not be poor. If you hate my reference to the greatness of the Ordnance Survey, what can you throw against it? The pitiful efforts of the French cartographers? The German maps which only show highways suitable for tanks? MarkThomas 08:57, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
:Firstly I am not a "continental" and that link you gave doesn't say rockall is part of the UK try reading it again. I don't understand what the next of that comment means! Fabhcún 14:12, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
::The Island of Rockall Act 1972 states that Rockall is part of the county of Inverness-shire. In the view of the UK government then, it's an integral part of the UK, and hence part of the EU. Dmn € Դմն 14:24, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
:But Ireland, Denmark and Iceland all dispite that, any way it is way way to small to be seen on the map but accourding to the BBC when Greenpeace activists landed on the island, stayed for 42 days, replaced the navigational beacon with a solar-powered one and declared Rockall the sovereign territory of Waveland, announcing that it was now, 'two steps closer to freedom from oil development and industrialisation'. The status of Rockall remains unresolved to the present day. Fabhcún 14:28, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
::Rockall is as British as cricket, beer and Wimbledon. Anyone who says otherwise is a knave and a fool and we shall be annexing their territory shortly, as they deserve. MarkThomas 15:20, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
:Oh right I never realised just because you said it, it is true!! Fabhcún 15:41, 24 June 2006 (GMT)
::Falkland islands etc. are part of UK but not of the EU, EU law does not apply there. See Special member state territories and their relations with the European Union for more info. There are many territories of members states that are not part of the EU. Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are two Dutch examples. Maartenvdbent 21:43, 28 June 2006 (GMT)
::No no no no no. Rockall is part of Invernesshire, a county of the UK. This case has nothing whatever to do with the Falklands or ex-colonial territories. Rockall should be on the map of the EU, but hey, they left the whole of Wales off a recent map. so evidently somebody in Brussels knows something we don't! I expect the UK will be renamed "EU offshore immigrant holding facility 1B" any time soon and placed on maps as a small dark square with the legend "not part of the EU due to failure to agree to the currency and the Napoleonic / Hitlerian Federal Superstate Plan" or some such. All kind of puts Rockall in perspective, doesn't it. MarkThomas 22:21, 28 June 2006 (GMT)
:Mark are you an Internet troll,  Fabhcún 13:33, 29 June 2006 (GMT)
:And you are I suspect an EU Commission plant on Wikipedia "Fab-prune". Thank you thank you for defining "internet troll" for me, I would never have known what it is without your help. MarkThomas 15:12, 29 June 2006 (GMT)
::If you can't have a civilised conversation you don't belong here, the fact is according to the BCC (which you pointed out), the status of rockall is in dispute, this conversation is about the map, which is too low res to show the rock so it is pointless having this conversation. ps I would apricate it if you did not mock my name Mark Fabhcún 22:18, 29 June 2006 (GMT)
::Then don't be so quick to declare people trolls. The facts are against you - it is completely clear that Rockall is a part of mainland UK and so should appear on EU maps. The fact that it doesn't is in the opinion of many, suspicious, just as it is suspicious that Gibralter is never shown separately. These appear to be covert rendering of secret policies held in the EU Commission, which as we have seen many times in recent history, will eventually be issued much to everyone's surprise. I am just pointing out the facts. other people with their own pro-EU motives may query them and attempt to blacken my name. This also goes with the basic point that at the moment this page reads like a piece of propaganda fluff for Brussels rather than an objective page; where the heck are all the criticisms that people have of the EU and it's "institutions" (actually just huge instruments for wasting money on a stunning scale) - not here. There should be a sign on Wikipedia sometimes - "facts not here". MarkThomas 07:36, 30 June 2006 (GMT)
:::OK, Mark, you're clearly a eurosceptic and you've proven your point, but don't you think this discussion about Rockall is a little bit ridiculous. Where I come from (a country frequently labelled as small) an area of that size (80 by 100 ft or 40 m²) isn't even named, in fact the lot on which my house is built is larger. If you want to prove that the EU is plain wrong because it doesn't put a rock on a map, then you are indeed a troll. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but try to keep your criticism of the EU confined to the relevant things, such as the budget or the democratic deficit (admit, the real thing you want to see displayed here is a map of the UK, right?). You've got to admit, Rockall (no matter whether it is British, Irish, Faroese or Icelandic) is way too small to be included on a map of this scale. I judge by your rhetoric (Anyone who says otherwise is a knave and a fool and we shall be annexing their territory shortly, as they deserve) that you are the kind of person who resorts to threats, if you can't win an argument. About annexing territory, I doubt the UK will ever annex new territories as the UK hasn't yet been able to restore British rule to a derelict dry dock construction (HM Fort Roughs, also known as the Principality of Sealand), right off the British coast. As far as the British Antarctic Territory is concerned, the Antarctic Treaty stipulates that not an inch of Antarctic soil belongs to a country (all claims are suspended or as the Wikipedia article states: Antarctica has no government). If you want to write a section about Criticism of the EU go ahead, but don't include Euromyths like "the EU wants to introduce legislation that bans milk from British schools"--84.26.109.69 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: In the section listing economies per capita my computer displays this for France:  
" [[France 
France has been a top tourist place for years and still is. Here are a few sites to use to find out more: www.franceforkids.co.uk
www.teachmefrench.com
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
Image:France'sflag@enchantedlearning.com
Please feel free to use these!|France]]
 1,900,467  "
However when I clicked to edit the article the text wasn't there, but then I preview you the page and the text is there.  Is this just my computer or is it also there for other people? and If so it needs to be removed.
Kyle sb 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France spam 

message: What are we going to do about this? Somebody has inputted figures, but offered no sources to back them up. Should we just cut the GDP in half for each country and leave a reference saying that this does not represent the true GDP of each state, but represents the combined GDP of them both before independence? That way we get rid of another "[citation needed]" and offer technically factual information. Of course, this can be updated as soon as figures are released for the separate countries. Agree? MichaelJBuck 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stats have already been released for Serbia, and Montenegro, by the CIA World Factbook, which is where I took the GDP info from. See  and . Thanks,  Ronline ✉ 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia/Montenegro GDP/GDP per capita etc 

message: I removed the European Ombudsman & the European Data Protection Supervisor from the list of "institutions", because they are not institutions. There are only five institutions, as listed in the text of the treaty. I know this sounds strange to some people, but "institutions" is a technical term of EU law, and has a more precise meaning here than it does in ordinary language. The Ombudsman & Data Protection Supervisor are indeed EU bodies, but they do not have institution status. People have to stop adding other things to the list of five. All those other things belong latter on in that section. --SJK 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institutions of the EU 

message: As I said I would earlier, I have created a new Infobox that is more similar to new country Infoboxes, so it may be preferrable. View it here.--MichaelJBuck 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Change 

message: I don't understand why do you support accention of Turkey in the EU. By my opinion Turkey is an Asian country. You should give them an ultimatum to cede Constantinople to Greece and abandon North Cyprus and feel happy. Better I prefer EU to accept Iceland, Norway, Balarus, Ukraine and then some parts of Russia step by step.--Verger 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't live in Greece and I think the Turks should be transfetrred from Constantinople just as Germans were transferred from Koenigsberg.--Verger 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea yea. It's only Azrebaijan - that we all need! --Verger 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Um guys, just in case you didnt know, Wikipedia is not a political forum/soapbox. This talk page is reserved for discussions on the content of the European Union page. Let's keep to that--Cezz 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: The article states that the MEPs are "directly" elected by the citizens of the EU's member states.  I'm not sure this is so: aren't a significant number elected indirectly, through party list based PR systems?
Countersubject 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in refernce to the situation before 1979 when MEP's were elected by National Parliaments. --Wild ride 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the context, but a different, more accurate phrasing would be preferable. Party list based PR lets political parties choose at least some of their parliamentary representatives, on the basis of the proportion of the vote received by the party, rather than the individual.  This inserts an element of indirection into the election. One can observe this as a matter of fact, without passing judgement on its desirability.  Countersubject 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its is what is refered to within the EU and the member states. Read anybook on it and it will refer to direct elections. Even using PR list systems you are voting directly for the party rather the parliament selecting the representatives. --Wild ride 09:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, the article didn't say that there are direct elections.  It said that the MEPS are directly elected by the people they represent.  This is subtly different, and could reasonably be taken to imply imply more than the facts will bear.  I think this is one of those cases where it's good to say less :-) Countersubject 12:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Parliamentary Elections