Talk:European Union
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
Q1: Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?
A1: The European Constitution would have enshrined them and given them legal status, whereas the replacement Treaty of Lisbon does not. However, they still exist and are still used without this status. The European flag was adopted in 1986 and will continue to be used even without constitutional status. The other symbols were also adopted in a similar manner.
The EU is not unique in this respect, many countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and only has its position de facto. Another example is the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E pluribus unum being commonly used as such. Q2: Why isn't there a criticism section?
A2: A separate criticism section would focus on overall criticism of the whole idea of the European Union. After much discussion it was decided that this is not a good idea. Note that there is no "support section" either; this is an encyclopedia article, not a pamphlet meant to persuade people whether the EU is a good or bad thing. When it is important to discuss the positives and negatives of certain European Union issues, these are mentioned in the paragraph dealing with that issue. Thus the style of the article is to deal with criticism on a topic by topic basis rather than in a separate section at a very abstract level. Q3: So, is there nothing wrong with the EU at all?
A3: Of course many things are "wrong"; but a neutral point of view on overall conceptual criticism does not work. Instead the editors involved do their best to write as neutrally and objectively as possible, neither taking a supportive or a critical point of view. An example where both positive and negative consequences are discussed is given here as an example (from the Common Agricultural Policies (CAP) section – the most important policy is that of subsidised minimum prices for agricultural products):
Q4: But is there no criticism about the whole idea of the EU?
A4: While in its implementation there can be, and is, much criticism of the European Union, it is simply impossible to address every possible area of criticism. Criticism of the EU is often subjective, depending on personal and political views; some may criticise the economic model advanced by the EU, whilst others may criticise the transfer of certain powers from a national to a European level, fearing loss of sovereignty. Some may simply criticise the institutional structure of the EU, the role of the European Court or even the EU's human rights policy. The number of possible criticisms are almost endless and it is impossible to address them all fully, in a balanced manner. Furthermore, there are already articles on issues such as Euroscepticism which cover many of the points which individuals may wish to add to the main EU article. Because of the multi-faceted and subjective nature of this criticism it has been decided that the inclusion of a criticism section is neither necessary or wise. Q5: Is the EU a country, a federation, or an international organisation?
A5: The European Union is a international organisation difficult. It is probably most closely related to a confederation .
The EU has developed from an international trade organisation aimed at improving the economy and thereby fostering peace in Western Europe. Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity, like an anthem, a flag, a common currency, but also representation among other countries in international organisations like the G8. However, other properties of countries, like a fully-fledged defence force, are not part of the EU's mandate. This means the EU can neither be described as a federation or country, nor as a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as any of these, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. Nevertheless, to promote consistency within Wikipedia, we borrow ideas from both the international organisation structure and the country articles.Q6: Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy?
A6: No, this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the European Union between them.
Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when writing about this, as it is basically speculation .
This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being treated as a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors.Q7: Why is there a sports section?
A7: In brief, the issue shares many elements with the previous question – whether to treat the European Union more as an international organisation or more as a country. Some editors believe that a country article ought to have a section discussing sport as an important aspect of national culture, and that the EU should be treated as a country and have such a section. Others believe that the EU as an organisation has a negligible impact on sport and that sporting culture varies widely from state to state, so the topic should not be mentioned in a summarising article such as this. Q8: Why is there such limited information on culture in the EU?
A8: Again, this issue shares many elements with the question whether the European Union should be considered more like a country or more like an international organisation.
There is, however, another issue here: a lot of the culture of Europe (literature, painting, music; or even Roman/Greek antiquity) originated long before the EU was founded. While this culture is undeniably part of the cultural heritage of the EU countries, it is just as much part of the culture of non-EU European countries: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the mini-states (Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City), the republics of former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Montenegro), and the eastern European Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Hence, discussing the culture of EU would at best mean duplication of the Culture of Europe article, which would be unwanted for reasons of maintainability of a consistent content of Wikipedia. At worst this may imply that the EU claims some rights to the shared culture of the whole of Europe, thereby denying this right to non-EU countries. Therefore it was decided to limit the culture section very much.Q9: Why don't the city sizes fit with my idea?
A9: Comparison of city sizes by number of inhabitants sounds easy. It is not. Different countries in the European Union have dealt differently with subdividing large cities. For example, many of the suburbs of Paris are independent, making Paris proper a relatively small city. Berlin has many fewer independent suburbs making it relatively much larger.
This makes comparison of cities on inhabitants irrelevant. Eurostat has realised this and in 2004 created the larger urban zone as an alternative metric which was developed to be comparable across the different countries. We use larger urban zone numbers to compare city populations across EU countries. Q10: What is the legislature of the EU?
A10: The European Union is not a state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure. The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority ["competence" in Eurospeak] to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise.It does not have a conventional legislature, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into a conventional model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is to police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio. Q11: Who is the President of the European Union?
A11: The official title President of the European Union (or President of Europe) does not exist, but there are a number of presidents of European Union institutions, including:
|
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | European Union is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Politics Top‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Trade Mid‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Humanitarian aid vs Development aid
There is a definitive separation between humanitarian and development aid within both fields as well as under the EU.
I just created New Pact on Migration and Asylum of the European Union. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"List of member states" Bottom Row - Correction Needed
The bottom row of the "List of member states" table includes totals for the columns. This row is formatted incorrectly. The first column lists the country, the next two list dates. The totals for the remaining five columns are offset to the left one cell in the totals row. It appears a space was not left for the "Accession to EU predecessor" column.
I don't know how to fix this myself. Can someone else please take care of this? 72.142.121.82 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hague Congress
Hello! In the chapter about the Initial years and the Paris Treaty (1948–1957) there is a sentence about the The Hague Congress/the Congress of Europe: "The ensuing Hague Congress of May 1948 was a pivotal moment in European integration". I think that it should rather be the The Hague Congress, as the article 'The' is part of the name of the city, coming from the Dutch Den Haag. Here's a link to the Dutch Senate's website with a pdf that confirms the spelling: https://www.eerstekamer.nl/nieuws/20180525/70_jaar_congres_van_europa. Have a great day and thanks for keeping this page in order (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2c40:200:b001::1:73b7 (talk) 08:53 (UTC)
- In English, the city is also called "The Hague". Unfortunately orthographic conventions collide! The text reads now as
The ensuing
Congress of The Hague of May 1948 was a pivotal moment in European integration, ... as that would be valid English orthography, but unfortunately the accepted name of the congress was "The Hague Congress", not "the Congress of the Hague". So I'm afraid we are stuck with it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)]