Talk:European Union/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT / POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

This archive covers talk from before 2004.

See also Talk:European Union/Archive01 (Pre-2004), Talk:European Union/Archive02 (Jan-Apr 2004), Talk:European Union/Archive03 (Apr-May 2004) Talk:European Union/Archive05 (Jun-Dec 2004) and Talk:European Union/Archive06 (Dec-2004 Aug 2006)

Please add new archivals to Talk:European Union/Archive06. Thank you. --Kitch 16:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Associate Member 2 Most powerful organization in history 3 Country? 4 GDP Graphs 5 Possible post-2007 enlargement 6 Section removal 7 Who's now in ERM II 8 Major new map version 9 Archiving 10 EU Overview Table 11 Removal of EU Membership boxes 12 Good-neighbour policy and Wider Europe 13 US category spelling 14 GDP table 15 significance of 1952/1958? 16 Origins of the EU 16.1 Nazi proposal similar to the structure of the EU? 16.2 EU undemocratic?

[edit] Associate Member

What's an associate member? The article says that Turkey is one, but makes no other mention of this term. Information on what an associate member is, and a list of current associate members, would be appreciated. -Smack 23:38 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

There's a page somewhere which lists them, but it isn't too detailed. They are mostly European nations who wish to apply in the near future, and also non-European members who want to join, but obviously cannot, so this is as close as they can get.

Also, regarding the marriage story above, the UK and Ireland are exempt from many such laws as they are outside the Schengen Area Grunners 03:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Most powerful organization in history

The European Union is the most powerful international organisation so far in history.

This seems like an odd statement to me. The United Nations is pretty powerful; as an example, if it wanted to, it could attack any country with the largest military force that could possibly be mustered. I'd bet the Roman Empire belonged to a couple of pretty powerful entities that could be called international organisations. Tempshill 00:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the Roman Empire (and the British and any other Empire) were, by definition, international organisations. Maybe "most powerful regional organisation". Atob 16:06, 2003 Dec 20 (UTC)

The UN isn't that powerful, note its failure to prevent the American led invasion of Iraq, or Indonesia's attack on East Timor. The UN has no economic power, and also no military power as there is no UN army. For peacekeeping purposes the member states 'lend' troops, and more importantly, the UN does not have the authority to declare war.

I also disagree that Empires are organisations. Organisation implies a body made up of member states, an Empire is simply one state occupying many others. Grunners

[edit] Country?

Pre-May 2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 00:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The EU is not a country in that sovereignty ultimatly lies with the member states, who can leave the union at any time. The Federal EU government also can only have powers given to it by the member states. Therefore it is a 'pooling' of powers, very unlike the USA which has a domianant central government. The idea that the EU is a 'country' would horrify most Europeans! In fact, it is closer in style to organisations such as the UN, or NAFTA, than it is the United States Grunners

---

Any claim that the EU is or is not a nation will be politically controversial. The European Union has many features that are normally only held by sovereign countries. Some of these are purely symbolic (a flag, an anthem). Others are more substantial (a currency, supremacy of its law over that of its member states, direct applicability of (some of) its laws in member states). Some features (its foreign policy, police and armed forces) are still embryonic, and can be used to argue either side of the point.

---

The EU currently resembles an alliance or maybe a confederation more than anything, and bear in mind that historically confederations either dissolve or become federations. And that federations either dissolve or become unitary states.--Tomtom 07:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The United States has managed to become a federation for over two hundred years without dissolving (despite the Civil War) or becoming a unitary state. RickK 07:08, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

The EU is of course not yet a country. It has separate armies and the EU has no way to enforce its rulings. Therefore it is not a state (state's are usually defined by sovereignty over a territory usually ensured by a monopoly of force, something the EU does not have) - CJWilly

Good grief, I certainly hope it's not the definition for a country; not only does it make an outrageous emphasis on brutal force, but it would also mean that countries like Island, or the Swiss Confederation before the Sonderbund war, don't exist. Countries are defined by a set of powers, notably legal power, the right to produce currency, political law-making, ... among which force is a very minor and optional one. Rama 07:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GDP Graphs

I do not think we need both graphs since by definition they have to look identical. Why do we not just place the scale of the right graph to the right hand side of the left graph? Get-back-world-respect 18:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll get onto this on Monday when I'm supposed to be doing work. (The Excel files are there). I suggest either sorting the second graph (the percentages) or removing it and labelling the columns in the first graph with the percentages. What do people want? Zoney 01:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I think people can see themselves which country comes after which other. If it is difficult to do as I suggest I would favour just leaving the percentage graph and giving the medium GDP with a date when it was measured. Get-back-world-respect 02:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I think either would look good: two graphs, one sorted, one alphabetical or one graph of percentages with the mean EU GDP at measurement. Nice work, Zoney! -- EuroTom 17:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

i think you should change colours on that percentage graph and leave it there. i mean, it is important for european union policies to know what countries (or regions) have their GDP less than 75% compared to the EU avarege. so, what about add red to those countries?

Colours changed on percentage graph, line added at 100% level. So. What about the values graph? (And yes, these values aren't much use but for comparison, due to the conversion from US$ - we still have the original values of course in page history). Here's another thought - surely the EU has more up-to-date information on the website? Zoney 12:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I insist it is useless to have the same graph twice and I dislike colouring poorer countries in red as if they were somehow less important, honourable or whatever. Get-back-world-respect 13:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

One would think that the colouring of red for the "poorer" countries would simply give the message of "needs attention" rather than anything else. I also do not like the demarkation of those below average/above average GDP. For some reason I assumed that this was wanted.

GBWR, I agree also about not having the same graph twice - but as yet, we have no agreement as to how best to present the data. (GDP per capita actual figures, and as percentage of EU average). Moving to graph format was an improvement over an almost screenful of tabulated data.

What we really need is some more comments, can we RFC this issue somewhere? (It seems no-one is visiting the talk page anymore! (Way too many of the comments here are mine!)

Zoney 14:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I perfectly agree that your graph is a great improvement, I just think that one would be sufficient. If others do not comment it is just because they do not regard it necessary. If you do something people really cannot accept they will revert it, so just try what think makes sense. Get-back-world-respect 19:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

New data concerning the economic standing of the 25 EU member states was published today [1]. Gugganij 18:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still think at least one of the two graphs should be sorted by rank. This adds valuable information to the display. Please? Miguel 00:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible post-2007 enlargement

I have doubts about the sense of that list. I would propose that only those countries who have already - at least - applied for membership should be mentioned there (i. e. Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia). (I know Switzerland has applied, too, but this application is frozen, as it is stated correctly in the article.) Otherwise one would have to list all European countries because all are 'possible post-2007 members'. Especially Moldova seems to be odd in the list because Ukraine is not listed, for example. (I know Switzerland has applied, too, but this application is frozen, as it is corrected stated in the article.) --EBB 10:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, Switzerland has since withdrawn its application and the unionist politicians who tried it have been removed from office. Us Swiss like our independance and neutrality.--68.80.223.233 07:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Section removal

The section Legal history and governing treaties, along with the section about the three pillars has been removed to European Union Law (not by me). It is fair to say that there is some need for the main European Union page to be more streamlined and generalised - with the specifics on seperate pages. In this case, a much smaller section is needed to replace the missing bit. It should cover the most important points and give an overview to the treaties and 3 pillars.

European Union Law is also messy now, the aforementioned sections should perhaps go to their own page, or European Union treaties (does it exist?).

Finally, I would say that the missing history section is a similar case - a summary is required from the seperate History of the European Union page.

Considering the time I put into the treaties section, I will get around to doing this eventually - but I would absolutely love if someone else could put some work into it! I would say to the user who removed the section - you've created a heck of a lot of work - hope you realise this! :o)

In conclusion - there's also other loose ends in the article - the role of the community in the Union is once again obscure in its seperation from the main bit on the 3 pillars. Also some other areas are now discussed in a greater level of detail - they may need looked at. Thinking intergovernmentalism vs supranationalism particularly - it's not as sensible without the previous sections - and is obviously longer despite its being a less weighty subtopic!

ARGHHHHH - help please!!!!! Let's get this article back on track!

Zoney 11:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who's now in ERM II

Zoney, can you explain your last edit regarding the list of currencies? — Miguel 23:26, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

The new EU members are all now in ERM II, see the reference link added [2]. GBP and SEK are not in ERM II. Zoney 11:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

That just says they are party to the ERM II agreement, not that they are actively participating right now. Morwen 11:13, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

That does make more sense! Whoops. Well detected. Some dates, statuses of member states, etc would be nice for the page on the Euro. Yes, I edited that too (though perhaps only saying the above - i.e. being party to the agreement).

My Euro-enthusiasm evidently got the better of me :o) Zoney 11:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major new map version

I produced this new map by editing the Europe map and the existing EU map (for the further east bit). I hope that this is clearer - the paler background on the EU countries is done to show up the text more. Unfortunately this is slightly at the expense of a clear difference between Romania/Bulgaria and Turkey, but it's distinguishable. I added the names of the EU neighbours. Yes the font is VERY small, but as they're not as relevant to the topic, it's no matter. They are recognisable. (I don't relish the prospect of trying to fit all those Balkan countries in the EU countries font!!!)

Please let me know your opinions. Unlike the old map, I have one on my PC at 300% of the size, with no anti-aliasing, which makes changing things easier.

I hope those who have put such effort into the old map are not annoyed. I did spend about 2.5 hours myself doing this new version!!!

Zoney 00:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Your map shows the UK as part of the EU, which it is not.

Don't be ridiculous, anonymous, ofcourse the UK is part of the EU. Aris Katsaris 13:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We all (the other EU countries) wish it wasnt, but unfortunately it is :) You could also say the UK is part of USA as it does everything USA tells it to.. --HJV 22:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

This talk page was HUMONGOUS (or however one is supposed to spell that!) – so I archived everything back to 3 weeks ago. Everything from about the 10th May should still be here. One or two topics above have been discussed some time ago, but with recent comments. I've archived the old comments too (in the cases above, the headings are enough context for the comments). I hope no-one has any problems! (man it took longer than I thought!) Zoney 01:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EU Overview Table

In Mozilla Firefox (0.8) the table with all of the information about the EU does not display correctly. It overlaps the text, and moves the text over to the left- doesn't let it spread out through the page. It works fine in IE and Safari, though.

I've the same problem with Firefox in XP and 2K. It seems to be a site-wide problem (I've had it on some other pages, also thumbnail images doing the same, floating centre rather than right) though indeed page-specific in some way (goodness knows what!) see Republic of Ireland for a similar table that works fine! I would suggest reporting it to m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports as is suggested on the Wikipedia:Village pump page. I've already done so actually, but perhaps you want to add to my report there.

Zoney 22:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of EU Membership boxes

Currently, on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, they're discussing removal of footers, such as EU membership boxes, as they are thought to be aesthetically unpleasing. They'd be replaced by Category:EU countries at the top of the Country page.

What do people think?? -- EuroTom 16:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The EU footer is helpful as it can be easily skimmed and in my opinion looks asthetically pleasing. Just a thought...maybe the applicant countries should also be added (eg. Croatia, FYR Macedonia) -

There is already an EU countries and candidates footer, the above footer is just for current member states - Zoney 09:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I love the footers. Please don't remove this one Dmn

As long as there are not too many footers, I think they are quite convenient. Gugganij 16:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite a fan of the footers, they're a really useful navigational aid OwenBlacker 20:37, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good-neighbour policy and Wider Europe

These are not currently mentioned and there are certainly no pages created to explicitly explain them. Would it not be a good idea to create a page on these issues as enlargement is one of the fundamental properties of the EU and these two areas play a key role.

[edit] US category spelling

Anyone know how to alias international organisations to the international organizations category? The page is quite appropriately written in British / International English. But this category heading at the bottom is a problematic Americanism that introduces inconsistencies. See also Category talk:International organizations. Zoney 09:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to American and British English differences#... -ise / -ize the Oxford English Dictionary uses the version with 'z'. Edward 09:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GDP table

What's the source of the GDP data? There are some differences between this table and recent published data of Eurostat [3]. The GDP index (EU25=100) in the case of Cyprus shows for instance a difference of 18 (sic!) points.

For comparison

Member states' GDP per capita - Comparison to the EU average

	GDP per capita
Member state	Figures published by Eurostat	Figures in the article
Austria	121	122
Belgium	116	127
Cyprus	83	65
Czech Republic	69	67
Denmark	123	126
Estonia	48	48
Finland	111	113
France	113	113
Germany	108	114
Greece	79	83
Hungary	61	58
Ireland	131	128
Italy	107	110
Latvia	42	39
Lithuania	46	37
Luxembourg	208	213
Malta	73	75
Netherlands	120	119
Poland	46	42
Portugal	75	85
Slovakia	51	54
Slovenia	77	84
Spain	95	93
Sweden	115	113
United Kingdom	119	111
EU-25	100	100

Gugganij 11:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The data in the article was copied across from the enlargement article, I think; that was created some time ago (before the latest Eurostat figures) and was an agglomeration of various data sources.

We should update the data, unless anyone has an objection? The only think I can think of is that the figures are (and will be yet more so) out of sync with the data in the infobox, kept at 2002 levels due to not having an up-to-date set of global PPP GDPs...

James F. (talk) 11:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm in favour of updating - I searched on Eurostat recently but couldn't find what I was looking for. Also -

not having an up-to-date set of global PPP GDPs...

Can this not be calculated from the individual PPP GDPs?

What's the situation with a table or graphs? I really think the table takes up too much space on the page and looks ugly. As regards the graphs, I have no particular preference as to the format or data to be displayed (values vs percentage).

Zoney 13:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definitely agree - chart(s) are better than a table anyday. If people actually wanted to use the figures for economic planning or something equally improbable, they'd be better off going straight to Eurostat anyway. For casual browsing, charts are much more attractive and provide superior understanding. -- EuroTom 06:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I created a new table and new graphics with data from World Bank. I hope everyone likes them. --Cantus 21:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] significance of 1952/1958?

From the section "Member states and successive enlargements": "In 1952/1958 the six founding members were..."

Can someone explain the significance of these dates? They aren't referenced anywhere else in the article.

--Wasabe3543 08:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The ECSC was founded in 1952, the EEC in 1958. john k 09:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the EU

A new edit suggests German economists' ideas as an early origin of the idea of a European Union. Problem is, the date mentioned is 1940. Is it just me, or would they have envisaged quite the EU we have today. I was under the impression that other views on uniting Europe prevaled in Germany at the time.

These lines may be perfectly valid, and my skepticism unwarranted, but I am seeking some other opinions.

Zoney 23:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi proposal similar to the structure of the EU?

To which respect was the European community proposed by Hitler-Germany similar to the current structure of the EU? Gugganij 16:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please specify which aspect. I've tried to include the point by pointing out the similarity to the single market.

The EU has a lot of similarities to lots of political entities. Some of these may be viewed negatively - Warsaw block economies (no tariffs) - and some positively - similar liberal democratic laws as the US.

Most of the features of the EU, right from the start, represented the 'weak willed' internationalism and tolerance of diversity that were very anatemic to Nazi ideology.

A perhaps closer predecessor was Napoleon's idea for a continental customs union, (he claimed to share some of the concepts of liberty) but even that was basically an instrument for furthering French influence. -- EuroTom 19:30, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well... if the Atlantic rift widens, maybe we will arrive at one of Hitler's wishes, namely the chance of even competition with the United States. Like the Coal and Steel Union, Hitler's Neuropa was intended to cement the positive result of war, and to take up competition with the Soviet Union, but nevertheless, I see no reason to include this reference to similarities in structure when the differences (democracy being only one of them) aren't mentioned at all. It's not very relevant to the later creation of the European Union.
--Ruhrjung 19:46, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Currently commented out is:

Following the catastrophe of the First World War some thinkers and visionaries began to float the idea of a politically unified Europe. A European community was proposed already in 1940 by German economists, and several German politicians, among them the German foreign minister, spoke for the creation of such an institution, with a structure rather similar to the modern EU.

Is this accurate? I'd prefer some structures similar to rather than a structure similar to given the very large number of critical differences as well as similarities. Elizabeth_A would this be acceptable? It points out that there are some similarities, but doesn't imply they were necessarily very similar overall. Do you think it'd be okay Ruhrjung or do you think there were minimal similarities if any? -- EuroTom 00:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem with any attempt to discern the origins of the EU in Nazi policy is that regardless of truth or falsehood this will be interpreted as a slur: the term "Nazi" is now used to mean evil more often than it is to describe the National Socialist German Workers Party, making any rational identification of similarities (and of the limits of those similarities) difficult. In short, any conclusion that the modern EU is in any way similar to NSDAP intentions for post-war Europe is quite literally taboo.msahutty 10:37, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

Whatever... the problem here was that the similarities were being mentioned, and that the limits of those similarities were not. --Shallot 12:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how much inter-war thoughts were reflected in the development from Coal and Steel union to European Union, but the first sentence seems correct to me. The second sentence, however, ...what I've stumbled over when reading on World War II and Nazi policies does not at all warant any emphasis on similarities. I guess Elizabeth has some source to lean on. The question then is, if that source represents a scientifical mainstream view or something else.
--Ruhrjung 01:49, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Stop trolling, Ruhrjung. The structural similarities are described in the main article, and you are constantly trying to delete them. A lack of democracy is irrelevant, EU isn't particularly democratic in any event, and has always been more about economical structures, which we are discussing. Without Germany and a genuine German interest, there had been no European Union today, so the original German impetus for what now is the EU cannot be underestimated. Note for instance that the German proposal from 1943 have much, much more in common with present-day EU than what Churchill proposed in his speech in Zürich. Elizabeth A

@EuroTom: Note that I wrote "rather similar", not "similar". I do however agree to "some structures rather similar". Elizabeth A

Many apologies - I didn't mean to misquote!

In the UK (generally), "rather" often implies polite suspicion or distrust when used as a qualifier: "he was a rather shady character" meaning "he's very suspect", and similarly for the usage of 'quite'. (However, this might just be my usage of the word.)

I agree - West Germany's support was very important in the formation of the EU. However, I'd previously believed that support arose from the same sentiments as Churchill's call for a "United States of Europe": that a shattered Europe needed to rebuild together in the face of poverty and the Soviet Union.

In terms of economic planning, the EU's lack of tariffs is like WW2 German occupied territories, but it is also similar to the much older plans of Napoleon and akin to the internal economics of the pre-War British empire.

In terms of political similarities, I also do agree the EU could be more democratic, but it has always been composed of democratic governments (a condition of entry that kept out Franco's Spain) and commits itself to diversity, quite unlike Nazi ideology.

Have you got a link to the German 1943 proposal? I have heard of it before, but have only seen short details about it and it'd be good to look at the similarities and differences. -- EuroTom 14:00, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I rewritten the whole section to include multiple possible influences. -- EuroTom 04:15, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EU undemocratic?

It's false to imply the EU is not democratic. Yes the parliament is the only DIRECTLY democratic force, but the other parts are controlled/elected by ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS. Bah! I hate this "undemocratic" Euroskeptic argument - you hear nothing but it on British news! It's much better than only directly democratic institutions IMO. Democracy can be pretty screwed up sometimes! Look at the US! Wow, a lot of choice there! Zoney 11:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

European Commissioners may be appointed by democratically elected national governments, but once appointed are not answerable to them and are, indeed, sworn to independence. As the Commission is in many respect arguably the most powerful branch of the European Community, this makes the "undemocratic" charge more than mere abuse. More contentiously, I would argue that national governments often push European legislation that they can agree to in the Council of Ministers when they are unable to achieve such legislation through their own national legislative process (whether due to political, legal or constitutional impediments), which is then present back home as "Europe made us do it"; this tactic is known as "policy washing" and arguably supports a charge of being undemocratic in that it is a deliberate end-run around national democratic checks and balances. Msahutty 14:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that the European Commission is, once appointed, not answerable to anybody is not correct. 1. The democratically elected European Parliament has to ratify the appointment of the Commission President, it holds confirmation hearings of the possible Commissioners and decides whether or not to appoint the Commission by a vote of confidence. 2. Furthermore, it has the right to dismiss the Commission anytime. Gugganij 16:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, wasn't the parliament going to exercise this power a couple years back, during some budget fudging allegations, and the whole commission resigned? Zoney 18:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. In 1999 shortly before the European Parliament introduced a motion of no-confidence the Commission of Jacques Santer resigned. Gugganij 19:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Still, most decisions are taken secretly in the council of ministers. The EU lacks transparency, that is why most people regard the institutions as undemocratic.

Who wants to vote for representatives that will have no say over important matters for the EU (foreign policy, defence, fiscal policy...) in the following five years?

The average citizen will not be able to elect candidates for the european comission.

thewikipedian 22:37 UTC+2, 22 June 2004

Except that it's one thing to say that "the EU is undemocratic" and a whole other thing that to say "the CoM is not directly democratically elected". --Shallot

Well, actually, are not all CoM members directly elected members of national governments? (equiv. of MPs, TDs, whatever?)Zoney 10:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aren't members of government usually appointed by the directy elected representatives? I have never seen a direct election of a minister, and ministers are not always required to be elected members of parliament although if they are not they usually acquire speaking (but not voting) rights in the parliament on account of their position.

I agree. Since the council of ministers can't seem to agree on a candidate for president of the commission, they should just submit a slate to the European Parliament and let them elect (rather than rubberstamp) the president. Miguel 04:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Leadership of the Commission is accountable, the vast majority of are not. I don't think anyone should deny the EU, is *currently* undemocratic and very technocratic. They are slowly attempting to repair this, notably with the EuroCon by strengthening parliament. CJWilly