Talk:Politics of the European Union

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Why is this link incuded at bottom of the page? It has nothing to do with the subject matter - as do so many references to the USA in so many other articles.

I'm not sure I understand. I don't see a link to USA Politics at the bottom (perhaps it was removed already). Though I disagree with your point; the article is entitled Politics of the European Union. Having links to politics of XXX organization seems to have enough relevance to have a link-to. But that's simply my opinion. --Novaprospekt 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody tries to expand this article (there is a request for expansion), what is this article intended to be about ?

It is either one of two things:

The politics of the EU (i.e. the article title), in which case, the article needs expansion in respect of European Council politics between EU member states and discussions on the inherant faultlines in the EU - those between a "social Europe" and economic liberalism, and the fault lines between those favouring a deepening of supranationalism versus those in favour of more intergovernmentalism.

or

The politics of the European Parliament. This seems to be the content of the article at the moment.

Therefore, either there is significant room for expansion on other matters (option 1), or the article needs a change of title.

Personally, have no preference except a wish not to have the politics of the EU described only in terms of politics at the European Parliament.--jrleighton 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the German Wikipedia article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politisches_System_der_Europ%C3%A4ischen_Union Well structured just anything you need to know. --195.93.60.71 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that this was originally a redirect page. (Unless someone translates from the German article). 213.202.155.91 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why this article should focus on either the Commission's, the Council's or whosoever policies. Like the user before me, I like the German article for it simply decribes the process of European politics with respect to the institutions involved. Isn't this what the article should be about? Since I am a native speaker of German, I could translate this article in English but then someone would have to make it more idiomatic. C.U.

I'm a student of EU law, politics, and European political economy; and I am a native English speaker. If you are willing to translate the German version, I can clean it up and add my own information and sources. I just don't have the time to write a whole article from scratch. Invidus 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the content of this article so far, I propose that either:

- the article be renamed to either of:

             Politics within the European Union, or
             Politics of European Union institutions

- or

- the article be bulked out with other politics concerning the EU, such as the pro and anti EU debates and all the rest of it

--jrleighton 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but come on! Look at the others, most of the deal with less than what is in here. Are we supposed to rename Politics of Sweden "Politics within Sweden" because it doesn't discuss anti-Sweden debates? "Within" seems even broader anyway. This is a starter, it's meant to be bulked out to discuss other issues. Better than leaving it with the rather limp information that was there before. I've already put a bit on foreign affairs and the constitution but was trying to avoid repeating what is elsewhere.

"Politics of European Union institutions" would be misnaming (the institutions do not live in a bubble of politics separate from the wide environment, just as Westminster doesn't) and would restrict further development of the article (perhaps you might like to provide some examples??).

Sorry but the idea that the name should be changed from a standard used by all others because of some trivial definition of what EU politics should be is preposterous. We should stick with the normal title and instead concentrate on expanding it. -JLogan 15:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JLogan, it's rather ridiculous. —Nightstallion (?) 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous - the point is being missed here. This isn't an issue of semantics, it's an issue of whether or not the whole gambit of EU political issues concerning the 'pro EU' and 'anti EU' is to be included here. As it stands, this article looks as though it's missing a hefty portion of what should be its content.--jrleighton 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then include it. Because an article is thin on the ground doesn't mean you rename it, you expand it. That's the point of Wikipedia! - J Logan ^t/_c: 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems to be acknowledged that the current title suggests inclusion of a lot more than the current content ? Then I go back to my original proposal to rename this article so as to clarify that that content isn't within the scope of the article - those issues are listed elsewhere. Any more comers on the rename issue ?--jrleighton 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about the politics of the European Union, similar articles talk about the same issues here, some times more. And you still haven't clarified exactly what it is that is missing, vaguely stating pro and anti does not help matters and how many other articles talk about pro anti of that country? This idea is insane, just talk about the issues, there is no reason to lose the a main politics article just because you want to pick at something you haven't even talked about. - J Logan ^t/_c: 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"insane" is it ? Well, J Logan - I suggest you read the articles concerning 'pro European' and 'Eurosceptic' views. Those are political issues relating to the EU. If an article concerns EU politics, there should be at least some reference to these issues. Can I make myself clearer ? Maybe not if I am insane though. Yours in insanity...--jrleighton 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro and anti views on it are not vital to EU politics, yes it plays an important role but if it isn't in there it doesn't mean it is no longer EU politics and you should get rid of the article. If you really want it in there then write it in there. What I find insane is that you want to change the name of an article because it is missing a small element rather than simply adding that element. Nothing more. So please, go ahead and write about it, that is the point of an encyclopaedia. - J Logan ^t/_c: 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this paragraph from the intro:

"In contrast to nations such as the

It looks like it was written by someone with a poor understanding of the European Union. Kagan is a mid-ranking US conservative; why his interpretations should take such prominence in the article is a mystery.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the paragraph is a mess, but on Kagan: the info state is generic, Kagan is just to give some backing to it - hence it is not necessarily him which is taking precedence but the contrast with the US. And Paradise and Power is a major theoretical book on comparisons between the US and EU, even if it has had some holes poked in it.- J Logan ^t: 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kagan's book was about Europe, rather than the EU. Subtle but important difference.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the EU! Joking, the principle of it was about the EU.- J Logan ^t: 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; EU states practice socialism at home, and liberalism abroad ("abroad" being other EU states), but the EU as an institution is a big promoter of liberalism at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.170.253 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Politics of the European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Parliament's powers":

• From Council of the European Union: "Codecision procedure". European Parliament. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
• From Institutions of the European Union: "Parliament's powers and procedures". European Parliament. Retrieved 2007-06-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has legislation granted 'competencies' to the EU or is it just some buzz word which has taken on new meaning. It reads like something out of a school exam and seems a strange word to use in this context. Why not 'authority' or 'responsibility' or some other less jarring word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am terribly mistaken, the "European Council" in the diagram of the institutions should be the "Council of the European Union", not to be confused with what is called the "European Council". 2604:2000:6A90:3000:BC2F:C827:A1DB:A519 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. The Council of Ministers is the Council of the EU. --Boson (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]