April 13

Is the European Union only for countries in the European continent? Is it open for any country? Can the United States, Australia, Canada, China, India, South Africa, etc. join the European Union? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria and Greenland used to be part. Maybe they'd want Iceland and Norway before they'd want the US, Australia, Canada etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria and Greenland were part of the EU because they were parts of countries that were part. Just like how French Guiana, Reunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Ceuta, Melilla, and Mayotte are part of the EU. They weren't non-European countries that were admitted to the EU, they were part of European countries. I think the answers you're looking for are here:

Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#States_outside_Europe --Golbez (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Although it's not mentioned in our article, I get the impression that a large part of the motivation for the EU is to provide a counterweight to the United States. So for the US to join the EU would seem a little like Russia joining NATO. --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a counterweight? Why not make the United States super powerful in terms of military size, technology, and economy? Can the United States, China, India, Japan, etc. form their own "Union" to counterweight the European Union? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The geopolitical goals of the United States and Europe are closer to each other's than either's is to China's. I don't have a citation for that but I doubt anyone will really disagree. However, within that commonality, the Europeans still want to protect what they perceive as interests distinct from those of the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may ultimately change when China becomes more economically and militarily powerful than the US. At that point a combined EU-US alliance (and toss in Canada, Australia, and any other democratic nations that want to join) may be needed to balance the power of China. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get this. Why don't people want to merge countries together and form one global country that unites all of humanity? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the case of letting China in the EU. They are non-democratic, don't much care about global warming, and are building military bases on islands they are forming in the South China Sea to take naval territorial rights away from their neighbors. They are also propping up the dangerous regime in North Korea. Should we really work hard to improve their economy ? Or should we work to improve our own and exclude them ? Similar Q for Russia, which is sliding back into dictatorship, murders anyone who criticizes them, annexed Crimea militarily, and is sending rebels into Ukraine to try to topple that nation. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are parts of American counties that don't see eye-to-eye, you think every country could possibly join together under one set of laws? --Golbez (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. So, countries really do hate each other, but can't change each other, because that can lead to war and devastation for everybody. Well, I suppose all the countries are formed to preserve national identity, culture, and ideas. These ideas just happen to clash, but a peace treaty is better than going to war. Huh... it's like a bunch of prehistoric tribes but on a global scale. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate the importance of common culture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See World government. Loraof (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Copenhagen criteria. The geographic criteria are set forth in Article 49 (formerly article O) of the Maastricht Treaty: "Any European State may apply to become a Member of the Union." This briefing from the European Parliament states that "There is no unequivocal interpretation of that criterion. It can be read equally well in geographical, cultural or political terms." Morocco applied to join the EU in 1987, but the European Council rejected the application on the grounds that Morocco was not a "European State." However, Turkey's geographic position (mostly in Asia, part in Europe) is not an absolute bar to its hypothetical accession to the EU. So the European Parliament briefing says that the "European State" requirement "is at all events a criterion subject to political assessment." Neutrality^talk 05:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem like they could make strong arguments for being European culturally and politically, and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the nations in the Americas could. But, of course, any such clause could be changed, should the situation warrant it. StuRat (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in 2004, the European Union admitted an Asian country in violation of the Copenhagen criteria specifically the Maastricht Treaty. Cyprus is geographically Asian but inhabited by Europeans. In 1987, Morocco was refused admission to the European Union because it was an African country. But Morocco is inhabited by Europeans like other countries in North Africa, Russia and former members of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and countries in Western Asia.
Sleigh (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exact boundaries of Asia are disputed: "Geographical Asia is a cultural artifact of European conceptions of the world" acording to our Asia article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which tectonic plate it is on.
Sleigh (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleigh: So what about countries on the Eurasian Plate?  :-) Also, it's a bit of a stretch to describe Arabs and Berbers as Europeans. Rojomoke (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. The Treaties of the European Union (functionally the European Constitution) can be amended and renegotiated at any time, and the matter of who gets in and who gets rejected is a political question, not a question of immutable physical law. If the existing members wanted Morroco or Turkey or Mongolia or Paraguay to be members, they'd find a way to make them members. If they didn't, they'd simply refuse to. They make the rules, and they can change them any time they want. Politics is still politics. --Jayron32 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sick man ... of Europe: Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article about it Sick man of Europe.Hofhof (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a doubt. Do any of you know why the artist Le Barbier wrote in German in this painting while the painting was related to France and French Revolution. I couldn't find answers in the related articles. Thank you. 180.151.18.232 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think he did? Our picture in Wiki Commons appears to be in French. Rojomoke (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rojomoke: This [1] did. It is printed in a whole lot of books. 180.151.18.232 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Barbier appears to have painted several versions (or there were several copies made of his original). This one for example from the

Carnavalet Museum in France, as is the one from the BL website, see here where you can see both versions hang side-by-side. Here is a copy from a book, in French. Here is a black-and-white lithograph. It is a WELL copied picture, reproduced by later artists countless times in other media. If there are German-language versions as well, I would not be surprised. Le Barbier did not write in German in either of his original versions (on display at Carnavalet) however, as the image of the two paintings on display there, and the details thereof, can confirm. I don't know the provenance of the German versions, but they are clearly later copies. --Jayron32 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• That German picture is unfortunately very fuzzy, but it appears to me that the body text could be in Optima, a typeface published in 1958. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the

The article does not say United let him. It merely says he did reboard the plane and return to his seat, before being removed a second time (on a stretcher). People sometimes do things against the wishes of others. --Jayron32 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they didn't let him, but he managed to come back. Wasn't enough attention and security personnel on him to block him from doing it? --Hofhof (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the security personnel involved were probably beginning to realise that, for no defensible reason, they had just beaten up and injured a completely innocent customer of their own company who was quite legally demanding the services for which he had paid, and that they themselves had very likely broken both their own company regulations and the law, they may have been less than clear headed and decisive at that point. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds plausible, but the article could benefit if non-speculative details were found and included. BTW, the security personnel were not removing a 'customer of their own company' since they were 'police officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation.' Hofhof (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting piece of information not known to me when previously posting (I'm the wrong side of the Pond to be seeing every local update on this debacle, even if I wanted to). So the Police Officers were essentially acting on apparently misleading information given to them by the Airline. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Demetrio [Dao's lawyer] said Dao had no memory of trying to return to his seat a second time. "He has absolutely zero, nada memory of going back onto that plane. Not a lick of it," Demetrio said'. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about a hypothetical person who earns $9 per hour at an entry-level part-time retail or food service job. If such a person earns $9/hr and works 6 hours a day, 4-6 days a week, then that person makes at least $540 per month to maybe $1,000 per month. This may not be enough to rent an apartment, let alone buy a house. Living on the streets is too dangerous, because wild animals may be lurking, and even worse, violent human gangs may roam the streets. Can this person walk to a police department and treat the police department as a temporary home? Do police officers mind? What about sleeping in a locked public restroom stall inside the police department? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically they would direct you to a Homeless shelter or some other form of Supportive housing.

In a town or village so small there was no shelter they might try to help you out. But there's no general rule that police departments will operate as homeless shelters. I'd say the general rule is the opposite, it would impede their primary purpose.

I guess you could get yourself locked up if that seems like a good idea to you.

ApLundell (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between homeless shelter and supportive housing? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to tell you to read the articles linked, but I realize they don't actually make it clear. Supportive housing can be anything from an apartment, to a house shared by several people, to something resembling a college dormitory. A homeless shelter, on the other hand, is generally more like a vast number of beds inside a vast gymnasium-like room. All types will have other amenities available to residents besides beds. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In small towns of yore, or at least in fiction, police would sometimes accomodate people in their drunk tank if they got stuck overnight. Trying to camp out in a modern big-city police station might be a good way to get beaten up. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earnings suggested may well be inadequate to rent an apartment (I presume multi-roomed) or buy/rent a house solo, but are they inadequate for

Social housing available? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The OP may find this of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]