Talk:European Union/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

UK and EU

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)

Three organisations

What does it mean that "These three organizations used to have separate institutions; but in 1961 they were merged, though legally speaking they are still separate organizations."? If they were merged how can they legally still be separate organisations?

As far as I know, CECA, EEC and EURATOM were established by treaties and never disestablished. However, their management structures are now totally merged. David.Monniaux 13:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Languages

I think we should just call this the European Union at the top of the template - this is the English Language Wikipedia, after all. I've made that change, though it can of course be undone. I also think we should only have the one (English) motto, though I'm less certain about this. Thoughts? Evercat 00:49, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If we have the motto in all languages, we should certainly have the name in all languages too. And in country articles we also have local names at the top of the same template. --Wik 01:07, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
I think we should keep all the names and mottos in all the official languages of the Union, given past form - see Switzerland for an example of what we've done before with countries (or, in this case, quasi-states) with multiple official languages... However, I won't revert without others' inputs, as I would prefer to avoid an edit war :-)
James F. 14:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It gets really quite ridiculous though, with 20 official languages. I suggest that info be put on another page. Morwen.
I agree with Morwen, put it on another page. -- Cabalamat 15:57, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree with James. --Ann O'nyme 01:00, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article on South Africa has a whole lot of languages, too. Maybe we should do the same here. Miguel 05:46, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

I (still ;-)) agree - on the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and South Africa pages, and probably quite a few other places, we list all of the formal versions of the name and languages of the country (indeed, in the UK, where there is no such thing as a formal language, we list the 5 most commonly used ones, anyway).
James F. (talk) 07:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The motto

I think that we should have the motto in English only, as the mottos in all present official languages consume too much space. When the languages of the new member states are added as well they will consume even more space. Given that this is the English language wikipedia, I think it makes sense to have the motto in English only -- we could have a separate page, if necessary, explaining the EU motto further, and providing examples in all languages. What does everyone think?

I agree, have the English motto on this page, and put the others on a separate page. With 25 countries, it will be unworkable to leave the mottos where they are. The same applies to the list of official languages. -- Cabalamat 19:27, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. We usually have motto in all official languages of the country, e.g.: Switzerland. We have to be consistent in the way we represent facts. So we should have the motto in all official languages of the EU. We should even have then in the "official order" (see EU website: order of languages is always the same) not with English on top. --Ann O'nyme 12:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It will get even more unwieldy once 1 May comes. I have removed them from the table; they are still available at European symbols. -- Kaihsu 11:20, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
Agree with Kaihsu. 20 languages after 1 May would make the presentation of the page terrible. I wouldn't mind a link to "Motto in other official languages" KevinC 14:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We should at least make it absolutely clear that english is by no means a more official language for the motto, and the all the languages have equal footing Dmn 22:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Country?

If it looks like a country, smells like a counry, tastes like a country, then why, specifically, isn't it a country? What makes it different from the USA, which is supposed to be a number of countries that gave up certain rights to a central government, which is pretty much what the EU seems to be? Scott McNay 08:38, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

I think the defining factor is that U.S. states do not maintain diplomatic representations in other states, whereas EU member states do. Morwen 08:42, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Be nice if someone could put a definitive statement about it in the article. Scott McNay 08:45, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)
I don't think it's as simple as whether or not the EU states maintain diplomatic representations. I'll go back and check my international law books and try and come up with a more nuanced text.
KevinC 11:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What about putting the arguments why the EU can be regarded to be more than just a international organization but less than a country in a seperate section? 143.50.212.84 10:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the existence of diplomatic relations between EU member states is not the cause but the result of the EU being less than a state. I would add some points to a possible section which I proposed above, but since English is not my native language I am going to post it in the discussion page during the next couple of days. If you think it is correct you could copy it in the proper article. 143.50.212.84 10:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The answer is simple. What's a country and what's not is
  • defined by whether it considers itself a sovereign country;
  • defined by what other countries recognize as a sovereign country (with some substantial nuances when it comes to tricky questions such as that of Taiwan).
The EU does not fit either. The EU, at this point, is not a federal nor a confederal state. Foreign countries conduct relations between sovereign countries with the member countries of the EU, not with the EU itself (which is merely recognized as an international organization). David.Monniaux 12:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Except that for an 'international organisation' its pretty unique, as well as having traits more usual for a country. E.g. parliament, citizenship of a sort, pseudo-national symbols (flag, anthem, motto), currency (yes with exceptions, but its the EURO – a currency for Europe) and common market.
I agree its not a country – far from it – but to merely call it an 'international organisation' is misleading. Who in the EU considers it an 'international organisation'? For us its another tier of government and linked to a specific place (Europe) which we hold to as next to our own country in importance (if I'm in the US, yes I'm Irish, but I'm also European, and proud to be so. Being part of the EU is the political representation of that).
Zoney 13:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That we agree on – the EU is pretty much sui generis. David.Monniaux 19:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Federal?

The current text, when explaining why the EU is not federal, says

Also, the Member States remain the Masters of the Treaties and the Union does not have the power to transfer additional competencies from the Member States onto itself.

In federal states, the federal government usually does not have the power to (de)centralize competencies unless expressly allowed by the constitution. This is the case in the US, where the federal government is not allowed by the constitution to have any competencies not explicitly given to it in the constitution itself. In Spain, which is quasi-federal (see Autonomous Communities of Spain), the constitution does not allow the government to devolve certain competences, but everything else starts out at the national level and can be decentralized by agreement between the central and regional governments. How is it in Germany?

So, I wonder if the fact that the Commission, Council of Ministers or Parliament cannot centralize competencies is an argument against the EU being federal. Miguel 03:12, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Some points about federation/non-federation. This distintion can be based on the following criterion:
The parts of some federation cannot leave the Federation, but the Federation cannot abolish its own parts.
Spain is not a federation, in spite of the fact the Autonomous Regions have more powers (in certain senses) than US States. That's because Spanish Central government can suspend autonomy for any region (although this is legally very difficult). US cannot suspend State's autonomy.
US is not an International Organization because States cannot leave the Federation.
EU's Member-states cannot leave EU (at least theoretically), since there are no provisions for that in the present treaties (which are binding until all member-states decide that they shouldn't be - that's the reason the Constitution needs to be approved by all States). However, the Draft Constituion specifically allows states to leave EU. So, if we use this criterion, EU is a federation until the Constitution is approved (which is kind of ironic).

--Marco Neves 22:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Map

We ought to think about updating the map of member states ready for May 1. Morwen 21:30, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's Brion's; I've left a message on his talk page asking if he can update it, as requested on the image description page.
James F. (talk) 04:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We have. — Sverdrup 11:55, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Err, no we haven't; right now, the map shows the EU-15 in one colour, and the acession countries in a variety of colours depending on 'band' of joining. What I assume Morwen means is showing the whole of the EU-25 in one colour.
James F. (talk) 04:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some days ago I uploaded an updated map showing the 25 member states EU. Have a [Image:Europeanunion 25.png]]look and post coments if possible.

The world map needs to be changed on 1st May, too.

GDP billion / trillion

The expression of the GDP has been going back and forth a little over the last couple of weeks. The figure we're using is 8,447,000,000,000 euro. I'm not sure where this comes from - it's a little lower than the linked Eurostat data.

This is now expressed as 8.447 x 10^12. I see two problems with this. First, I misread it as 8,447 x 10^12 which I know would be wrong scientific notation but is still an easy misreading. The other problem is that many countries use "." as the thousands separator and "," as the decimal separator, making that misreading more likely. (And though this is the English language encyclopedia I think we should allow for non-native speakers reading this.)

Traditionally one billion in English English was one million million (10^12), I think these days most English English speakers would think of one billion as one thousand million (10^9). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion .

I'd therefore propose to change this to the following:

\x{20AC} 8,447 billion (US$10,840 billion)

This links to the wikipedia entry on Billion, which makes clear the wikipedia usage is 10^9. Thoughts ? KevinC 14:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eurgh. Given that ',' can mean a radix point, €8,447bn is evidently terribly ambiguous. Of course, €8.447tn is also ambiguous, but it has the advantages that it is the most common way one would write the amount in English, and that, were it interpretted as just over 8x10^15 euros, that would be some fifty fold greater than the total value of all of the Earth's natural resources, realised or otherwise, and so would make people pause. "8.447 x 10^12" is the least ambiguous concise way to write the value (honestly), but most people are not wholly au fait with scientific notation, so we can't really use that either.
In short, I think we should go back to the way it was :-)
James F. (talk) 20:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well at least I've learned what a Radix point is :-). Thanks for that. I'll give this a little more time before making any changes to see if anyone else has views... KevinC 09:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We could write
&euro 8 447 billion (US$ 10 840 billion)
replacing the thousands separator with a space. Miguel 02:57, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
I rather dislike using spaces as triple-orders-of-magnitude seperators, and I think (TICBW) that there's an MoS policy about using ','s...
James F. (talk) 04:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why not allow us to reduce the accuracy and make it unambigious? \x{20AC} 8.5 x 1012 is clear, regardless of ,/. — Sverdrup 11:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Scientific notation is only clear if you can understand it, and I'm sure that most can't (sadly). As to the accuracy, we seem to have a standard of quoting GDPs to the closest million/billion dollars...
James F. (talk) 04:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Number of citizens?

489 million citizens in EU after 1. May?

I would expect a number about 440-460 million.

Martin Olufsen

this was an early estimation from a website I checked. If you have more acurate data, feel free to update the wiki. Obviously, population density will have to be recalculated with the new numbers,

80.58.50.44 Is citizens the right word to use? Dmn 14:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Strange figure, indeed. Enlargement_of_the_European_Union agrees with your guess. — Sverdrup 14:36, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think citizen is the right word. I'm a EU citizen atleast. On my passport it says European Union <br/> Sweden <br/> passport — Sverdrup 14:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The draft constitution says
Article 8: Citizenship of the Union (edit by Balfron - it isn't Art 8 it is Art 17. It was 8 before the renumbering. Art 17 gives citizenship of the EU to every person holding the nationality of a Member State (MS). I therefore am a citizen of the UK and of the EU. Also a MS can require a passport to be shown. Directive 68/360 states that all that is needed for an EU citizen to enter another MS is a passport/identity card.)
1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.
I don't know about the legal details as of right now (one of the reasons for the new constitutional treaty is to avoid the need to navigate all the past treaties). I think so far EU documents refer to "citizens of EU member states" only, but we indeed have EU on our passports, and we have freedom of movement without passport, the right of work and residence throughout the EU, plus political rights (local and European elections) and the right to consular protection by any EU member. This is citizenship except possibly by name.
Of course, by that wording, I'm not a citizen of the EU, as I'm not a citizen of my country - I'm a subject... ;-)
James F. (talk) 01:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The wording is "every national", not "every citizen". What you point out is probably the reasons why that wording was chosen.
Isn't it nice not to have a written constitution, by the way? :-) Miguel 02:42, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
Oh, utterly. ;-)
James F. (talk) 04:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

msg box

{{msg:EU_countries}} Does anyone know how to convert the date cited there to European standard (i.e., from May 1 to 1 May)?

  • Done. The page to edit is Mediawiki:EU_countries. Dmn 12:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Reverted (rv [[May 1|1 May]] -> [[May 1]]; this should be set in preferences, not forced on any page. ). Setting this in preferences and leaving the link as May 1, everybody will have their correct format. — Sverdrup 14:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But that's just as much forcing May 1 format on everyone, as putting it 1 May does! - MPF 15:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually it is not. See this link: March 15. I see it as 15 March, since I set my date preference in Special:Preferences. Try it! I'm not fooling you! — Sverdrup 15:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why should 'May 1' format be the default? Surely the engine can switch '1 May' too if user's preferences do not agree with it? '1 May' format should be default used on European topics. Zoney 15:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the policies behind it, but this is how it works, and I stick to it. — Sverdrup 15:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Besides, it should be 'forced'. Even if user preferences are to keep May 1 as is, that's not correct for this page. Unlinked text is appropriately written in '1 May' format. Zoney 15:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ack! I'll have to change my stance on this. It seems the date-preference thing does not work with msg-elements. :-(. Go ahead and force it, even though it's ugly. — Sverdrup 15:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done! - MPF 16:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yet it still appears as "May 1" in the main article! - I guess there must be a bug in the msg-elements? (way beyond my abilities to deal with!) - MPF 16:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Capital

I removed the following section from the table: European Union is still not formally a nation so that understood them a formal Capital has not been prechosen. The European Parliament works in France, Belgium and Luxembourg. The monthly plenary sessions, which all MEPs attend, are held in Strasbourg (France) - the main European Parliament's seat. Parliamentary committee meetings and any additional plenary sessions are held also in Brussels (Belgium), whilst Luxembourg is home to the administrative offices (the "European General Secretariat")

  • I think this section might be a bit to large for the "capital" row of the table.
  • Furthermore it's right that the main seat of the European Parliament is Strasbourg. But the two other important institutions of the EU - the Commission and the Council of the EU - have their seat in Brussels.
  • The vast majority of EU officials (the "bureaucracy") is in Brussels.
  • Foreign diplomatic missions to the EU have their seat in Brussels.
Thus, although the EU is not a country, I still think that it is appropriate to say that the EU's "Capital" or main seat is Brussels. - Gugganij 23:00, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about adding: Strasbourg (Seat of the European Parliament), Luxembourg (Seat of the European Court of Justice) - or is it still to bulky? Gugganij 23:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope. Stick with Brussels. It's what everyone recognises as the capital. The Muscles in Brussels, the Eurocrats in Brussels, etc., etc.
What is the standard for places with seperate administrative,financial, etc. capitals (e.g. South Africa? or am I mistaken?)
The EU may not be a 'country' but it's not merely some kind of vague organisation. It's in its own category of 'super-country' / union. In fact, it would be so much easier if the US renamed itself the North American Federation (NAF, heh heh!) and we got to have United States of Europe (USE, less or ful?). After all, State this side of the Atlantic usually means country. We always talk about State bodies, State companies, semi-State companies when talking about the government in Ireland.
Zoney 23:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you nut? European Union isn't a country (for now) and Brussels is the capital of Belgium, do you know what is Belgium? Belgium is a country, a country has a capital. Even if in future the European Union will be a country the capital will not be Brussels: for a simple reason: Brussels is not capital of Europe but of Belgium, and Belgium isn't Europe: Belgium is in Europe. Ok?

Are confused about anything? tell me, I will be happy to explain you better but if you wish to insist on the theory that this or that town is the capital of Europe you should explain why and WITHOUT PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS. Prove what you write before writing garbage on it.

PS: for the bulky: Europe is an exception in the world. Europe was and will be the most historical and political power in the world Anything on this planet it is or has been related to Europe Europe is the hugest economy on this planet and when in future there will be an European army(also with Russia) the European Union will also became the most powerful military power in the world (OF ALL TIMES) uncomparable to others before. The 90% of what mankind knows, it knows it because Europeans has discovered it in the thousand of years. Europeans has colonised almost the other corners of the planet more than anyother nation in the history. The most of the money circulating on the planet is European and it has always been so... European has always been superior over the ENTIRE rest of the human race in the following fields:

 painting
 sculpting
 architecture
 culture
 science
 music
 discovering the rest of the planet and of what you can see in the sky
 (nut I can't say "Civilization" because Europe made too many wars to define thyself more civilized than others...)

And those aren't considerations!

Due to those reasons: Shall I could expect to waste some additional space in the Capital cell in the case of the European "exception"? what do you think? Maybe there are so many other countries in the world, at moment, that are still choicing their capital among the most beatiful, rich, and ancient towns of the planet??? (and Brussels, even if quite pretty, isn't in this list) Thanks

Maybe Americans recognise Brussels as a capital but since Europeans will not think so (and for Europeans, apart englishes, the town name is "Bruxelles") that Brussels is capital of Europe will be a fantasy dictated by ignorance. That's all

Gasp... :-/ Miguel 06:01, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)
Sorry, not convinced. Brussels is regarded as the executive seat by folks here in Ireland - and judging by British TV, over there too. But perhaps people on the continent are more educated about such things (quite likely :o). I entirely admit that saying Brussels is the EU capital is dumbing it down and generalising a lot, not to mention the fact that it's Belgium's capital! But hey, what do you suggest - it does make sense to have something there!
As you pointed out, having anything other than Brussels in the capital box is probably too detailed for those in the US, who would be hard put to find any European State on an unmarked world map! (No, really - I only know where US states are through delibrate effort on my part to learn them)
Zoney 10:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is fairly simple to explain. In many countries, journalists and politicians have started to use "Brussels" (meaning: the bureaucracy under the EC) as the source of all European decisions, imaginary or real – the same way US politicians blame "Washington" or those "inside the Beltway". David.Monniaux 19:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok I understand your point of view, but you have to admit that's a British point of view Europe and it is slightly different from the continental one.
It's natural to expect a more distant feeling of the Union from your beatiful island than, for example, a continental nation like France or Germany! We have all to admit that the Celtic/Gaelic-AngloSaxon culture and the Germano-Latin one are still uncompatible, even if I believe things are beginning to change.
Brussels was designed at the beginning of the Union reforms as focal point because of it's 'relative' neutrality in the middle of the two European main powers(Fr&Ge) but we are not anymore in the 80's!!!
Entering more into everyday lifes in the 90's the EU felt to much tightened the thin Belgian neutral site, also because while Franco-Germans doesn't like Belgians so much other Europeans simply consider Belgium a very anonymous country... (of course is ABSOLUTELY NOT my case!!! :-) ) maybe because compressed by some of the most importants cultures of the world all around his borders.
But one thing is certain: there are many Europeans, and especially Germans, that felts offenced by claiming: "Bruxelles capital of Europe", also because in Germany there is the true historical capital of holy roman empire!!! (Aachen the ancient FrankReich capital where perhaps there is a church famous for the most beatiful Dome on the planet, more than Taj Mahal one...)
And while for an American or an AngloSaxon or an GaeloCeltic is undifferent claiming Brussels capital for a continental is between the riduculous and the offencing!
PS: I think that it should be in future a sort of WorldExtended petition (not only for Europeans) for selecting the capital of the Big-Little Continent when the Union should be ready to became Nation!!!
User:Aytharn 21:36, Lun 29 Mar 2004 (CET)
I must wonder where explain why and WITHOUT PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS went. It's a good start, you know. To me it seems Brussels is accepted as 'capital' (use whatever word you want, but don't come saying that Firenze cannot both be the capital of toscana and renaissance, etc..), both from the American point of view, as from various vantage points inside the EU, including mine. — Sverdrup 19:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Personal I'm not convinced the EU has a capital city, but who cares about my opinion. Can anyone find anything on the European Union's website about a capital city? IF nothing is mentioned, then I would suggest this means there is no capital. Dmn 20:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is no European capital and there is no need of one. The European Union tries to balance out the seats of its organizations, with the Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg, the Court in Luxembourg, the Central Bank in Frankfurt, and so on. Evidently it makes sense to place the seats of main organizations in the center of Europe in order to minimize travelling.
NO: it make sense because it is the political and economical center and because European Union born from the Fanco-German reconciliation after WWII and because France and Germany are the two main actors in Europe
OK, Aytharn, I can easily beleive that the whole thing is taken more seriously over on the continent. I am fully aware of the spread out nature of the EU bases of operation - but most Irish and British I suspect would most certainly not have a clue where the parliament, courts, central bank, etc. are! That's where I was coming from, but if it is controversial to those on the continent, even Belgian, then it should probably be left as 'Undefined' (none is kind of misleading - there's seats of power alright!) with a link to an article about the spread out EU institutions. (Surely quite interesting - and informative for those in Irl, UK, US etc.!)
Zoney 22:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, tomorrow I'll write a link
User:Aytharn 02:39, Lun 30 Mar 2004 (CET)

I don't know what the whole fuss is about. Look at South Africa. Why can't we say "Brussels - executive; Strasbourg - legislative; Luxembourg - Judiciary; Frankfurt - Monetary". Note that the European Central bank is constitutionally independent of the other EU institutions, and is charged with Eu-wide monetary policy. It seems that separation of powers means four separate powers in Europe. Miguel 05:41, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Agreed. See also The Netherlands (though I prefer the formatting on SA).
James F. (talk) 07:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this does look like a sensible option.
Zoney 12:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. — Sverdrup 13:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mee too.
but I believe also that we could add also other important future yet activated and proposed seats like the European Food Security Agency (Parma,Italy by 200x?), the European Space Agency (Paris,France Metropolitan and Kourou,France DOM) and the ERRS2 military European Forces (rumors: Paris,France Metropolitan? by 200x?) and the temporary Euroforce HQ? (Florence, Italy yet active but secondary) also an eventually European Foreign Affaires Minister in London(rumors) and an European National Industrial Commissariat (hypotetic: Berlin, Germany by 200x?)


We should mark on the main table the main seats while adding a "further" link to other present and future seats in the table itself, Ok? User:Aytharn 19:32, Lun 30 Mar 2004 (CET)

Hi, although the discussion concerning the capital is already quite advanced, I would like to answer to Miguels first reply to my statement:

  • You are certainly right, the EU is (still?) not a country, but since it is also more than a mere organisation, I think both notions ("capital" and "main seat") can reasonably be chosen to reflect a certain importance of a city within the EU (in the sense of harbouring important institutions).
  • As Sverdrup already pointed out, it is in fact possible that the capital of a country is the capital of another, lower administrative entity (e.g. Rome is the capital of the Italy AND of the region of Lazio), thus - in principle - it is perfectly possible to refer to Brussels as the capital of Belgium AND as the "capital" of the EU
  • I am a native Austrian. If my fellow coutrymen refer to the EU (e.g. during demonstrations, in newspapers, in letters to the editors) they quite frequently use the word "Brüssel" (and, by the way, not Bruxelles). We are certainly aware of Brussels being the capital of Belgium, but since the EU influences our daily lives much more than Belgium, we associate Brussels in the first place with the main seat of the EU (even if it is legally not correct).
  • Concerning my statement of "foreign diplomatic missions to the EU": Many countries have two diplomatic missions in Brussels (e.g. the United States, Japan): One of them is the embassy to the Kingdom of Belgium, the other one their country's representation to the EU. Thus, foreign countries regard Brussels (and not Strasbourg and Luxemburg) to be some sort of a focal point of EU policy. Furthermore, offices of European regions, offices of lobbies are located in Brussels.
  • Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to stick to the solution in the South Africa article. I'd just like to say that referring to Strasbourg as the legislative capital is not entirely correct. Since legislation on EU level is shared between the Parliament (main seat in Strasbourg) and the Council of the European Union (seat in Brussels), thus I'd be happier with my proposal (or something similar) above: Strasbourg (seat of the European parliament).

lg Gugganij 13:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)