Talk:European Union/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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/Archive02 (Jan-Apr 2004), Talk:European Union/Archive03 (Apr-May 2004), Talk:European Union/Archive04 (May-Jun 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. Zoney 23:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC) [Updated Kitch 15:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

Contents

three pillars?

I couldn't follow this article. What are the three pillars? Where does the EC (EEC) fit in?

Hope it is clearer now. At present the article mentions a lot of obscure legal and historical points, which probably should be moved into seperate sections. E.g. an introductory article which outlines what the EU is, and a more detailed article with all the legal and historical technicalities. -- Simon J Kissane

right to reside

Someone wrote

Citizens of member states have the right to reside in other member states for up to three months. This can be extended by applying for a residence permit, which must be automatically granted in some cases, e.g., if the person is employed in the state or has means to survive without government support. Some states (only the United Kingdom?) waive the requirement for a permit or any requirement to report to the local police.

IIRC there is no need to apply or hold a residence permit for EU or EEA citizens. EU and EEA citizens are basically free to live anywhere in the Union they want, provided they can support themselves; they don't need permits. Only non-EU/EEA citizens need to. -- Simon J Kissane

No, you are mistaken, Simon. In order to get tax and social security status in Luxembourg, you need a residency permit. This applies to other EU countries (France, Netherlands are for sure). sjc

The principle of the EU rule is that any EU citizen can live and work in any EU country. Some EU countries still issue residence permits even to EU citizens, which are always granted because they have to be under EU law. The only reasons why EU countries still make EU nationals go through the tedious and bureaucratic application process are probably 1) reluctance to give up xenophobic national habits, 2) the need to check whether the condition that people can support themselves is met. By the way, under EU law, being able to support oneself does not necessarily mean you have to have a job. Every EU citizen looking for one is allowed to move to another EU country and to apply for unemployment benefits there (I know several people who did that). There may be a time restriction though (3 months?). -- Herman

But what happens to an EU citizen that doesn't apply for a permit? What can be done to them? I think the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence on the freedom of movement is rather liberal -- SJK

They can be fined at least. Maybe kicked out of the country too: I don't know. There was a court case in the Netherlands a while ago where a lawyer was prosecuted for giving an Englishman a false job, so he could get a residence permit. Without a job, obtaining a permit may be difficult, since "provided they can support themselves" in practice means that they need to prove that they have an income of some arbitrary amount (depending on the country) per year, or meet some other condition such as family/student/pensioned.

If I might weigh in with personal experience -- as far as I know, everywhere requires a residency permit, because everywhere requires an ID. Except, of course, the anti-EU UK. The UK doesn't have a national ID requirement, and it requires a lot more rigamarole than other countries, while pretending it isn't in the EU except when convenient. Case in point: I'm American (US), living in Germany (at the time), marrying an English resident of Germany in London, intending to return to Germany, where we both live and work.

At Heathrow, I explain I am there to get married. The Immigration (Customs?) agents says, "you know that doesn't mean you can live here..." I explain that my born-and-raised in England to English parents husband and I live in Germany, where we work. He repeats that he just wants to make sure that I understand I can't expect to be allowed to live in the UK. I explain that it's not an issue. He replies by telling me I will need to apply for a residence permit, but it's not guaranteed.

So, I get married. The marriage license is in English only (despite there being an EU regulation that legal documents have to be in several EU languages).

Is there? Can you quote me which regulation this is please? -- GWO

They are not available in other languages. I have it translated and notarized for the Germans, who demand that people follow the rules. I take it, 50 marks, my passport and new passport pictures, and my husban'd residence permit to the Immigration office in the German city where we live. The civil servant (normally unpleasant in the way civil servants tend to be) smiles hugely, congratulates me on my marriage and, 15 minutes later, hands me my residence permit. I mentioned my surprise at the ease of the whole process -- the civil servant replied that Germany was in the EU, my husband was an EU citizen, and legally, I was entitled to EU rights, despite being an American. Why should there be a question?

Every time I go to England, I get the same hassle, though. Funny thing is, I know a lot of UK citizens living in Germany. Many of them have lost their jobs, sometimes several times over. They aren't asked to leave...just given more training and stipends to get them through until they are employed again.

My point? I think you'll find that each EU country applies the rules somewhat differently, but that the UK tries to evade as many of the rules that threaten its insularity as it can.

The UK is specifically exempt from some of those rules because of the fact that it is an island, and probably the most sought after EU locations to live and work in (for some reason). Freedom of movement in continental Europe relates to the Schengen Pact. --Sam

EUobserver.com: Moving within the EU to get easier --Ann O'nyme 00:44, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The right of abode and work and freedom of movement are two different issues. EU citizens have the right to settle and work in any EU country as long as they're not public charges, that's one thing. Whether they have to show passports/ID when crossing borders is another. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The right to settle would be liberalised somewhat by the commission's proposed directive COM(2001) 257 (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/printversion/en/lvb/l33152.htm). The EU Parliament voted in favour of it in early 2003, with various proposed amendments, including that the date of introduction is delayed until 1 July 2004. See http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?L=EN&OBJID=10629&LEVEL=3&MODE=SIP&NAV=X&LSTDOC=N for the parliament's report. Hans Zarkov 11:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as the EEC is concerned I thought it was the European Economic Community which is what the UK signed up for after its referendum. The EEC was (and I'm a bit too young to know this all) basically a free trade zone with now tarrifs and a common agricultral policy. Since then the EEC has evolved into the EU (The European Union) and moving to more political union (social chapter, central bank, euro etc...). Of course I await my correction :-) -- Alex.

The United Kingdom agreed to these evolutions, including by signing the Maastricht Treaty. You may of course disagree with those actions of the elected British government. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alex: IIRC, the UK joined the European Communities (the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and EURATOM) in 1973, before the referendum, under a Conservative government. Then Labour was elected, who at first said they were going to quit the EEC, but then said they would hold a referendum and let the voters decide. In 1975, the UK electorate voted to remain a member.

The European Union (and the social chapter, the euro, etc.) was established by the Maastricht treaty in 1991. But moves to political union weren't new -- the European Defence Community and European Political Community were proposed in the 1950s, but they never got off the ground. And Jean Monnet, the originator of the plan for the European Coal and Steel Community (which started the whole process off), always intended it to be the first step along the road to political union.

Of course you might say that is not what the British electorate was told, and you are probably right. The attitude of European governments towards the EU has always been ahead those of their electorates: constructing something like the EU is inherently an elite project, not a popular one. -- SJK

Eob: the figure you gave for the European Union, is that the whole EU or just the metropolitan EU? Some, but not all overseas territories of its member states count as part of the European Union: e.g. French Guyana is part of the EU, but Greenland isn't. -- SJK

sui generis

What is "sui generis"? Could we have a definition or a link for this term please :) - MMGB

"sui generis" is legal jargon for "in a class of its own"

Members section

Just testing out layout for the section on members. Is this clearer than the current formatting? -- Tarquin 00:40 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

At present, the European Union comprises 15 member states. In 1950 the six founding members were:

Nine further states have joined in successive waves of enlargement:

Negotiations are currently underway for the enlargement to a further 12 member-states: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus; the initial admission of new states is expected around 2004.

Yes, that is a bit clearer. Don't forgdet to keep the Turkey bit as well. -- SJK
ok. I'm putting it on the article. -- Tarquin

Map

Hey all, do you think the map is too big? I also have a smaller version as image:Europeanunion-small.png, but the text isn't as clear. --Brion

I think the current size is fine, as long as the image isn't floated: that makes the text to one side far too narrow to read. -- Tarquin
I think the colors are not good: The three colors are not easily distinguishable. They are too similar. Why not use a soft green, red, ...?

Applying Country template

I have a crazy idea: How about applying the template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to this page?
Think about it, the EU has a flag, a capital (Brussels), a national anthem (the "Ode to Joy"-bit from Beethoven's ninth), a currency (well, more or less..), and it's ranking in population and area is already given in the article. Granted, it is not by any definition a country per se, but it still has a lot of things in common with large, federalized countries. Is this (the template) a good idea? Would it be highly inappropriate? --Gabbe 15:27 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Not crazy at all, I say go for it. --Brion
Go for it! --Kaihsu 17:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

it needs to be re-worded abit, i know one dya Europe will become one big super sate its al;ready beginig to happen, but the wording of the table make it look to much like a country. -fonzy

I would say I'm against trying to force applying the template on something it was not meant for. The EU is not in any way, shape or form a conventional country nor is it a federation, a situation likely to remain for quite a few years to come. The work so far on the table (now moved to European Union/Temp) demonstrates this, many fields are incorrect or misleading. We can certainly take certain elements from the template and use it in the article, but trying to force the template on it is a bad idea, IMO. -Scipius 19:47 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Accession votes

I am checking the related pages to Hungary's vote for joining the EU on April 12, 2003, and just realised that there is no "status" about the future members, which one voted already, which said "NO" (and how many times :-)) and what's the next step and when. (In case of Hungary, for example, the next step is signing in 2004 since both the country and the EU accepted the deal.) --grin 12:28 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've added a status list on the referenda. For Hungary, Slovenia and Malta I think the issue is now a done deal, as the treaty has already been signed on April 16. It's true that the treaty won't be valid until ratified, but that's a technicality if the referendum was in favour. -Scipius 14:55 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Mangled Map

The list of members by the map is slightly mangled on my computer(800x600 resolution). Can anyone fix this? Thanks. -netcrusher88 1:17 Jun 9, 2003 (UTC)

Territories not in EU

I'm going to delete this bit: Spain: Balearic Islands (Majorca, Minorca, Ibiza, and Formentera) in the Mediterranean, Canary islands in the Atlantic Ocean, Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa. All these territories are integral parts of EU, with no special status. Marco Neves 13:57, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

Ceuta and Melilla are mot part of the EU. [1]. --Ann O'nyme 14:31, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Cheers! Sorry, but they are: the map you've linked to shows little lines which indicates that Ceuta and Melilla are part of the EU. But that's not the proof, of course, that's an informal map. In fact, nothing in EU treaties excludes those two Spanish cities from EU, contrarily to what happens to other territories (none of them Spanish). I've been in Ceuta and European flag is everywhere, just as outdoors anouncing the use of EU money and declaring that Ceuta is a part of EU (even if it is in Africa). Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Spain and there is no reason to exclude them from EU - in fact, the Spanish Constitution would forbid such exclusion, since there is no difference between mainland Spain and those two cities. If you have any legal basis to declare those cities as being excluded from EU, please, indicate them. I base my opinion on these fonts: EU treaties (which do not exclude Ceuta and Melilla from EU), Spanish Constitution (which treats them as Spanish territory) and on-site observation of the actual effects of EU membership in one of those two cities. Thanks, and cheers! :) Marco Neves 00:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves
I think you're right. [2]. --Ann O'nyme 09:28, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gibralter

Bearing in mind thes sections of the EC Treaty:

'Article 299' 3. ... This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list [annex II of the Treaty]. 4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible. [...] 6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs: (a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands; (b) this Treaty shall not apply to the sovereign base areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus; (c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

Wouldn't Gibraltar be considered a part of EU? Because: (a) In spite of being excluded since it is not mentioned in the list of Annex II quoted in the above section 3, it is included in EU by section 4 (in fact, Gibraltar is one of the few territories that this section seems to apply). (b) Gibraltar is NOT mentioned in section 6., which excludes some European territories from EU membership, which would be granted under section 4. So Gibraltar is considered part of the EU by section 4. of art. 299. Moreover, Gibratarians will vote in the next European Parliament elections. So, why is Gibraltar considered not part of EU in this article of Wikipedia? If no good answer be posted here, I'll take the responsability of changing the article my self in a few days. Cheers to all!

Marco Neves

Gibraltar (like Ceuta and Melilla) are in the EU, but not the custum union. [3] [4].
--Ann O'nyme 09:30, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, Gibraltar is not in the EU. Ceuta and Melilla, IIRC, are integral parts of Spain(that is, they function not as external territories, but just a part of the same country. The same applies with French Guinean in South America).
--Joe
Please, Joe, read my comments above about the treaty treatment of Gibraltar and try to find legal sources proving your assertion that Gibraltar is not in the EU. Cheers to you! User:Marco Neves
Okay, I do see what you mean. However, I assumed that as it was not part of the UK, it was not part of the EU, considering no other UK territory is part of the EU.
-Joe

FYI: JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MATTHEWS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999, that force the UK to organise vote for EU parlement in Gibraltar. --Ann O'nyme 02:51, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

History of EU

How about moving past enlargement, European Coal and Steel Community... to History of EU or in a new section of History of Europe? --Ann O'nyme 05:15, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Isn't there already History of the European Union?
Be bold ;-) Fantasy 08:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've added a link to History of the European Union. I'm also creating a separate page Enlargement of the European Union which will include all the current stuff about enlargement plus some more details. -- Cabalamat 19:37, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuropean_Union_Archive01_16b4.html"