Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Purpose

This discussion is meant to clarify whether the European Union constitutes a special case that merits inclusion in such lists and graphics as (but not limited to):

[edit] Arguments

Basic arguments for and against this include:

Not a country
  • Contra: It's simply not a country. It may be different from other international organisations (sui generis) but it has no legal personality, no other country recognises it as a country, it is not a UN member state, nor does not qualify as a state under the Montevideo criteria. It has all of the bells and whistles of country, including a flag and an anthem, because some people would like it to be or become a country: that does not make it so for the time being. Whether it has some of the outward attributes of a country or not, it remains that it is not a country. There can not be two countries covering the same territory. In the end, the EU is closer to other international organisations than to any actual country, therefore it remains that the EU is not a country and should not be included in these lists.
  • Pro: The EU is a sui generis entity, which has many of the characteristics of a country: a common market, common legislation, many common policies, common institutions, bodies, agencies, common elections every 5 years to a common European Parliament, common EU courts of justice and auditors, a common currency (not used by all member states, but all except two are required to adopt it), a common Europe Day, a mostly common standard design of EU license plates, a common anthem, common EU citizenship, a single voice in the WTO, and so on and so forth; thus, the EU is as close to a country as any other international body currently is, therefore meritting its inclusion. No other organisation is even close to the amount of integration the EU has achieved, most notably the fact that it speaks with a single voice on many topics; therefore no others should be included, while the EU should. While the EU does not have a legal personality, the European Community (a part of the EU's organisation) does, and the Reform Treaty would (once ratified) transfer it from the EC to the EU.
Furthermore, while the EU is not a country, many authors and analysts (most notably Leonard, McCormack, Reid, Rifkin, ...) state that the EU is, or is about to become, the world's second superpower next to the US -- and how can we not include what many analysts consider to be a superpower?
  • Not a country, but a supranational entity: EU is not a country in the context of 19th century public international law, but it fulfills a lot of functions traditionally associated with countries. The EU is something new, acts like a country and should therefore be included, as it is a subject in public international law (International Court of Justice) as a country. Supranationality can be based upon the independence of the EC (e.g. independence - Art 7 TEC, majority decisions - Art 251 TEC) and the common binding legal framework (e.g. immediate validity - ECR 26/62 Van Gend & Loos, primacy of community law - ECR C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich).
  • A de facto state: The EU is a de facto state. It may not be recognised as one, but you have a political entity which has been granted sovereign powers by its states to carry draft, amend, vote on, pass and enforce legislation. Limited areas, yes, and does not have the power to force more areas, but that is like in any federation. It isn't called a country simply for political reasons. You look at the draft constitution, the word federal was used to described the method currently used in the European Community pillar. The UK eliminated this word and replaced it with the old Community term – without changing anything else at the same time – so the UK would be able to ratify it. The level of integration is that of a loose federation, and getting closer. Whatever you call it, this is important, and nothing like any other supranational organisation. Hence, it ought to be listed, albeit not given a rank. - J Logan t: 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Against - Not a country, not even a de facto state...if you consider it one then remove all of its sonstituent members from the country list.--Tomtom9041 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:C, WP:V
  • Contra: All the other entries in such lists are countries or territories universally acknowledged as such, so including it could constitute a breach of the above policies. We could include the EU in fields where it has taken on the former roles of EU members (such as for trade or the Euro), but adding it to other lists (especially the list of countries) would mean double counting.
  • Pro: The EU is treated as a single entity in many studies, reports, essays and books on economic, political and other topics; it is also regularily ranked in several notable and well-known media and statistics, such as the CIA World Factbook, IMF data sheets, and so on. Double counting could be avoided by not adding the EU into the tables itself, but including it separately with a footnote explaining its sui generis status.
Precedent
  • Contra: If we include the EU, why not other supranational organisations? ASEAN and CARICOM have many characteristics of the EU, and plan to introduce others in the future. The East African Community even plans to merge into a single state by 2020. With sufficient arguments, one could include lots of other supranational organisations. It is much more consistent and easier to maintain the integrity of a list if a clear line is established, and one that included all counties AND just one unique entry is inconsistent, and begs for abuse. Adding the EU to lists in the past has been seen as an OK by other users to add other supranational entities beyond the EU.
  • Pro: As has been argued above, the EU is a special sui generis case which would not set a precedent for the inclusion of other organisations, as there is no similar level of integration anywhere in the world. Inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder in this case; one could argue that not including the EU in a table on economics is inconsistent, as the EU is regularily compared with the US in economic contexts. Besides, as we are having this long and detailed discussion about whether to include the EU or not, it is evidently apparent that this is *just* about the inclusion of the EU, thus not by any interpretation setting a precedent, but simply deciding a single case.
Overlap
  • Contra: Most of the lists mentioned above have each entry's respective attributes (area, population, etc.) listed once. Adding the EU (or any other supranational organisation) means that information for some countries is listed twice, which is inconsistent. It is doubtful anyone would argue for the removal of the of the EU's component countries in favor of a single EU entry, and the reason no one would argue their removal is the same reason why the EU should not be one any of these lists.
  • Pro: Not an issue, as they often include continents and such for comparison, as well; no harm done in adding the EU for comparison as a special case. Additionally, if it is still an issue, the EU could be noted outside of the table with a special note; overlap will not be an issue at all then.

[edit] Opinions

Please state your opinion on this case. Suggested stances would be:

  • "include with exceptions" — generally include the EU in such lists and tables, but make a note outside of the table if it is controversial to include the EU (such as the list of countries itself, e.g.).
  • "make notes or include" — generally make a note about the EU outside of the table, but include it in the list in special cases (e.g. in matters of economic or defence).
  • "exclude with exceptions" — generally exclude the EU completely from such lists, but include it in special cases where excluding it would remove sensible information.

Of course, you're free to state other opinions, such as e.g. "always include, without exceptions", "never include, without exceptions", etc. pp. We'll gather opinions on this issue until 21 August, after which we'll try to find some kind of consensus on what to do. Thanks for participating!

[edit] Include with exceptions, or similar

  • Include in general, but make exceptions if the usual editors of a list or table think that including it without a lengthy statement would be too confusing or misrepresentative. —Nightstallion 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Include if it's pertinent to include it: On one hand the figures and facts concerning the European Union as a whole are intersting in lists based on comparison between different countries. On the other hand, the European Union is not a country and mustn't be presented in the lists as a country. I'm always displeased when, for example, I hear or I read that California has the 7th highest GDP in the world; it makes no sense since California is not a country but a part of the USA. So I would say that the European Union can appear in the lists, but clearly presented as something else than a country. For example:
    1. by using a different typography,
    2. by not numbering it if the list is numbered,
    3. by clearly stating before the list that the European Union has been added to the list for comparison. Švitrigaila 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include if it makes sense, but always make a short note about it, use different typography (italic maybe), not number it if the list is numbered. --Jklamo 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Always include as supranational entity which is the equivalent of a country under public international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gego (talk • contribs)
  • [...] Hence, it ought to be listed, albeit not given a rank. - J Logan t: 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include in general--ŞtefanIaşi 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include in general, without a rank number, for reference purposes. Rossenglish 17:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include in general, without a rank number, for reference purposes. Lear 21 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Always include 87.194.30.240 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Include in general, without a rank number, for reference purposes. Arnoutf 19:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Always include, without a rank number, for reference purposes. Imperium Europeum 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Include if appropriate, EU should be included in matters where it has independent acting power (economy, politics), excluded when it doesn't, or has only an insignificant amount of independent power (eg. military).--Xargy 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question to all who say include it in general: Should the EU and only the EU be included in lists for comparison purposed? Should the ASEAN or the Arab League, for example, be *always* excluded in such lists, even just for comparison purposes? --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Include with exceptions: It should be clearly set off (by colour, layout etc.) from sovereign states, and a footnote should be provided. It should be included in those lists where there is an implied criterion for inclusion: one can talk of the GDP, area, or population of the the EU, so it should be included in those lists. List of countries does not have such a criterion; so I would tend to omit from that list, or make it even more separate from the other entities. Whether to include the EU in other lists may also depend on whether the implied criterion is a total (e.g. GDP), an average or similar (e.g. life expectancy) or an absolute value (e.g. minimum wage). --Boson (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make notes or include, or similar

  • The EU is not a country and is not considered a country by its institutions, the member states' governments and people's. So it should not be included. But at the same time it differs from other international organizations that the member states brought part of their sovereignty to the EU. Therefore (in Dutch) is is labelled as a supranational and not an international organizations. It can be useful to include the EU in lists to compare the combined results of this economic super power. Electionworld Talk? 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is not a country. Indeed, some of the problems with the 'European Union' article stem from our attempts to follow the 'country' template or to pretend that our sections are about the EU when in fact they are about Europe as a whole. However, it is the only supra-national body to which substantial sovereignty (including binding legislative powers) has been delegated and there are therefore some cases when it should be cited with the appropriate reserves.Raggio 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I find considerable difficulty choosing which table is supposed to be the neutral path. Include if EU activities are relevant to the table, Exclude if they are not, without any initial presumption to include or exclude. EU entry should not affect the otherwise ranking order, since it is not a country, but it is only useful to have an entry if there is also a note of where it would have come in a ranking. The reason for including it is presumably so it can be compared to actual countries. Sandpiper (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclude with exceptions, or similar

  • The only way to insure current and future consistency and integrity in the respective lists is to exclude the EU (or any other supranational organization). However, it is more difficult to argue against the addition of the EU in economically oriented lists because its common currency in the vast majority of member states and its common market make it an immutable factor regardless of its country status. But, I do worry that it's inclusion in economic lists would be used as an argument by others for its inclusion in unrelated lists of countries. Malnova 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are only a couple of lists which the EU should form part of, most obviously those regarding currencies (where a common EU currency which has replaced many national currencies) and trading data (though it could then be argued that other customs unions should also be included). In this lists it should be noted rather than included, unless the title of the article is changed from '...of countries'. The EU is patently not a country (yet/whatever). This is an encyclopaedia. DSuser 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's really quite amazing how amorphous "country" and "sovereign" and "de facto" and "independent" have become in all the related endless WP:OR (some of it based on objective scholarship, some of it based on pushing illegitimate POVs).
        A country (before such unions, EU or otherwise) was some combination of territory + recognized sovereign authority, above which there was no other authority claiming sovereignty.
        In the case of the EU, it's more accurately viewed as a cooperative with clear rules and regulations regarding laws, commerce, taxes, etc. The ceding of aspects of powers usually associated with sovereignty (e.g., economic policy) by the member states is a voluntary action; the litmus test is that the EU could disappear tomorrow and not a single individual country would change.
        The EU is certainly a "multinational authority." It is most certainly not a country. The Wikinsistence on the need to call things "countries", "de facto" fill-in-the-blank (country, state, sovereign... the last, de facto sovereign, being a complete oxymoron), et al. is rendering those terms meaningless in the context of any kind of precise definition or rigorous scholarship. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    P.S. I would add that explicitly investing an authority with personhood under international law does not make it country, even if there is a notion of subordinate territory (over which the sovereign authority itself has not changed). "If A is treated like X and B is treated like X" does not mean "A is like B." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a country. Systemic bias. Joelito (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The EU is not a country, hence it does not belong in any list that is supposed to list sovereign states. The EU is composed of 27 sovereign countries. No matter how much the Eurocrats in Brussels and successive U.S. administrations have wished that it was something else; the EU remains a trading association of independent countries, not a nation. Ultimate sovereignty still rests in the national parliaments and national constitutions. Related organizations like the CIS, EFTA, OECD or similar don't belong either. Valentinian T / C 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have little new to contribute that has not already been well said, however user:Lear_21 has been counting up the number of "include" editors who have commented in favour of inclusion as evidence that a consensus exists. Therefore I feel forced to chime in just for the sake of not allowing this voting consensus approach to be used to railroad changes to other articles. I do think we should be able to reach unanimous consensus using sources that an entity possessing all of the usual trappings of a "country" is not a sovereign state if it does not otherwise meet the defining qualities of a sovereign state. Various sources can be brought in if there is no consensus on this important point to show in fact that other "country like characteristics" are irrelevant to the definition of a country and therefore to an entities status as a country.Zebulin (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This system has been a bit of a debate killer, all everyone is doing is stating their opinion without any exchange of ideas. I'll just say that I am not going to argue that the EU is a soverign state as others are, however it does have the importance of one.

  • The majority of laws in the EU come from the EU institutions.
  • The single market and currency is central to the economies of its members.
  • Borders have opened up creating a single space for movement of goods and people - major infrastructure developments are often EU projects.
  • Hence in this space moves a single workforce, with common rights, citizens, votes who are allowed to live, work and study across Europe with language the only major barrier, although English is defacto across the bloc and its institutions.
  • Foreign policy already in action towards some such as Russia, the Balkans, developing world. Major player in aid and membership in a number of organisations - impact at UN inc. at the Security council where the EU often presents its joint foreign policy position. EU speaks as one at the WTO.
  • A number of military forces, some standing and under control of the European Council, deployed around the world. Spending etc. is co-ordinated through the EDA and there have been common development projects such as the Eurofighter.
  • Internal co-operation on police and justice - common arrest warrant, police office, fraud investigatory office, paramilitary police, border patrols and visa - with the common external frontier.

Whether this makes it a country or not is debatable, but it clearly has the importance of one. It takes on many state-like duties and simply cannot be confused with other organisations - nothing has come this far and nothing will for well over a decade at the most optimistic plans. Hence, it ought to be mentioned due to this importance. Reply? - J Logan t: 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I agree. —Nightstallion 10:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This could motivate editors to include it in their country lists certainly but this sentiment should not be allowed to be used as some sort of policy consensus that editors must accept the unranked inclusion of the EU in all country list articles.Zebulin (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If it has the characteristics and importance of being a country, why is there no push to have it included in List of countries. All other lists are just ranked lists of countries. If the EU is in the main list, then the rest of the list will follow. --Polaron | Talk 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

@Polaron: You are right. There is no reason not to include it in the lists of countries. Hongkong and Macao are listed as well as Mainland China. Even more important: The EC (part of EU) acts sovereign and acts on a common binding legal basis. It is a juristic person and be considered a state. Lear 21 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this focus on whether the EU is sovereign or not is completely irrelevant. After all, "Earth" or "World" appears on most of these lists, and that's not a sovereign state. It is, though, rightly included, because it's good to have a comparison available. Also frequently included are Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Isle of Man, and Gibraltar, amongst others, which do not fit all the criteria set out to fit into the "country" lists. Also frequently omitted are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, again amongst others, though they are sovereign to a degree. It's all very, very confusing, and can't possibly be fixed by drawing up a list of criteria to meet. I, personally, would go for anything relevant being included. I'd include Wales and England, because it'd be nice to see how much of the UK is comprised by Wales or England. I'd include the EU, because it'd be interesting to see how much of the EU's landmass or population is made up of Germany. These entries would not be ranked, because they're not countries. But they should be included. People adding any sort of political spin to it are compromising the very spirit of an encyclopaedia. My wish to include the EU does not necessarily make me a pro-EU person. My inclusion of Scotland would not be because of a desire to see the UK split up. To deny Taiwan a ranked place would not make me pro-China. We need to strip all the politics out of this, and get on with making these lists informative. 62.49.22.228 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

So, what do we conclude from this debate? Any proposals? —Nightstallion 11:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. We should open a sub-sub-section to discuss it... Švitrigaila 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That is was a huge waste of time as everyone has just stated their position and gone to bed. I did try to get a discussion by responding to some points and hoped we could get talking and minds could be changed but now it has all died down again. Perhaps if Lear would like to vandalise the pages again it might get people back. Otherwise there is no conclusion that can be drawn, except we disagree. - J Logan t: 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a surprise, if you have been around the "list" pages, the adamant positions of the two sides is palpable. I primarily edit the list of countries by area article, and for months there has been a compromise that puts the EU in the explanatory notes at the beginning but not in the list. It is not optimal, but there is no optimal choice with such strong opposed stances. Malnova 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough as a compromise, especially in those fields where the EU can not be said to have any synergetic value as its own entity. —Nightstallion 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This example of "vandalism" by Lear has brought me here. Strangely, he is claiming this discussion page as his justification for adding the EU to List of countries by English-speaking population. I have no problem with listing the EU in a footnote or preamble as suggested above, however. - BillCJ (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Lear has indeed been using this discussion page to suggest that there exists a rough consensus that the EU should appear unranked within all country lists to make country lists more consistent. I came here to throw in my two cents but I see most of my important points have already been made and I'm very puzzled as to how Lear construes any sort of consensus to exist here. The only thing I would want to add is elaboration on the point that *none* of the trappings of a country (not directly connected to the definition of a sovereign state) are sufficient to confer some sort of partial sovereign state qualification. If there is not consensus on that point at least then there would be a great deal I'd like to say here such as a variety of counter examples and authoritative sourcesZebulin (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the way it currently looks like (included in the table, not ranked) is fine, actually, but feel free to propose a different way to implement it. —Nightstallion 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My take on this is
  • WP:V requires citation of supporting sources. Any entries (supranational, subnational, or national) not supported by cited reliable sources should be expunged or presented without asserting unsupported information and tagged with {{cn}}.
  • An article with a title of "List of countries ..." should contain a list of countries. However, "List of countries, supranational entities and subnational entities ..." being such an unwieldy title, such an article might be titled simply "List of countries ..." and might footnote entries for supranational and subnational entries; explaining that the inclusion of these entries, though not strictly in keeping with the article title, was done as a convenience to readers of the article.
  • WP:OR might be tolerated to some extent if that seemed useful for purposes of the article — e.g., in an "Areas of U.S. States" article adding the cite-supported areas of California, Oregon, and Washington and listing the computed sum, with an explanatory footnote, as the area of "Pacific coast states". This same reasoning applies to accretion of figures of individual EU members into an overall figure for the EU. However, that's a bit more complicated to do and a bit more complicated to verify by inspection than my earlier contrived example — a judgement call is needed here, and I'd say that this case is complicated enough to need citation of a verifiable supporting source, rather than an unsupported "trust me, I've got it right" assertion.
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just list the EU without a specific rank! Does it really need to become such an issue?! Imperium Europeum (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult not to smirk when I hear such arguments out of people with "Europe" in their User name (IMPERIUM Europeum no less!). It is obviously a HUGE issue with you. I could click on your name to find the EU .gif, but why bother? The editors who are against putting the EU on some of these lists come from all spectra, the pro-EU editors arguing here and elsewhere have only one issue when it comes to these lists. By and large, every editor pushing for the EU entry in these articles is there only to get the EU in, not for the good of the article. I look forward to the day when I hear a pro-EU editor in these lists with a User name like User:Listsofcountriesrock!. Alas, the wait is in vain. Malnova (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Right you find one person with Europe in the name, what about Rossenglish? You can hardly say he is obsessed with the EU. Further more you can't use an editors background like that to dismiss their argument, such a tactic is cowardly. Have you considered that the people with an interest in the subject might actually have information and a grasp of the subject that others may not?
The importance of the EU should not be excluded here, it is not going to be ranked just shown in comparison rather than as a "country". There are reliable figures in many cases, such as from the IMF etc, and at least in Economic issues it should be included as in that area the activity of the EU is primarily federal.- J Logan t: 09:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that everybody who supports EU entries in these lists has Euro in their name or on their user page, nor anything similar. Admittedly, I pettily (though not cowardly) jumped the gun, having been jaded by edit wars in these list with Users who have names such as Eurocoptre, who assume everyone against having the EU in these lists is American, and who never make an edit to these lists EXCEPT to add the EU. If the above User had not said, "What's all the fuss about?" I would have left his username out of it. And most importantly, simply saying a non-ranked EU is the solution doesn't do it. I have seen edit wars over EU inclusion in these lists for years now and the reason that such a long discussion such as the one here ensues is that a large number of people oppose the EU's entry whether it's ranked OR unranked just as adamantly as others insist on an EU entry. I have no problem with the EU being listed on economic lists as it is essentially one entity economically. The other lists are a different story, and a lot of people agree with me.Malnova (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.
Well I'd agree that others are a different matter. Economic ones would include the GDP, HDI and exports for sure. Semi economic you could argue would be rail transport network size, as there is work on things like that. Population I think could also be an economic point, as you are talking about workforce as well, and a lot of other issues. Plus with things like free movement, immigration, citizenship, elections. I think one could argue for that. Density though, same point can't be made. Area is another borderline as you could state there are common policies on environment, agriculture and so on but probably not worth it. English-speaking population, well in terms of it being interesting language wise, and language is important to the EU, but it isn't something I'd fight for. The List of countries itself is explicitly a list of countries, I don't see any advantages to the EU's inclusion here. Who put it up? Military expenditures probably isn't worth it as there is no co-ordination so to include it would be misleading. There is a lot of waste on duplication, so it isn't as comparable as other points. - J Logan t: 12:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think defence expenditure is also a valid area, because there *is* coordination -- ever heard of ESDP? ;) —Nightstallion 13:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So long as NATO is given a place on those defence expenditure lists it's not easy to justify denying a space for other defence alliances calculated the same way. There has to be a sharp dividing line or no dividing line at all.Zebulin (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that NATO should not be on a list of countries, regardless of the nature of the list. Malnova (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JLogan. @Malnova: It is likely that rather Europeans are informed about the EU status and it´s degree of integrated policies. Because of the EU´s recent developments (historically spoken) like the Maastricht treaty 1993, Euro currency issued 2002, several enlargements (latest 2007) and many others, the knowledge about these facts has not yet become globally spread. The semi-sovereign nature of the EU still remains and leads to the special inclusion in the Wikipedia lists. Lear 21 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the developments you speak of Lear, and admit the EU is unique. I, and others (who are generally well-informed about such things which is why they editing these lists) still do not feel the EU belongs on most lists. And once again, if the people arguing for EU inclusion on these lists had any other input/feedback/editorial work/ideas to add to these lists besides "add the EU", I would be more open to finding a way to accommodate them. In my experience the only other input a pro-EU inclusion editor has had was to change the name of an article to "list of territories" to make it sound more "inclusive" and in turn increase the legitimacy of an EU entry. Malnova (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Nightstallion, it is only minor though, just a bit of co-ordination. The vast bulk of expenditure and operations are still independent. In the future maybe but the state of the EU military is dire right now. If if was co-ordinated it would be far more effective, we have more troops than the US but look at the capacity for deployment. Speaks for itself.
@Lear, in a lot of areas that is true, yet I think the core basis for inclusion should be its relevance for informative purposes rather than comparison to country, Hence we cannot argue for its inclusion by default. If you support any areas past those I supported above, please argue for them, maybe I missed something. - J Logan t: 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@Malnova: Your general statement can´t be attested. The pro-inclusion argumentation line on this article and the respective Country list articles is detailed, thoroughly and based on sources. It encompasses a multitude of approaches why or how the EU entry has to be included. This is backed and approved by at least 13 editors, who understand the rationale and are able to articulate it. Lear 21 (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can your general statement about Europeans above be attested Lear? The pro-EU editors here, many of them very informed and diplomatic, have no monopoly on articulation or on a rationale for their position. Malnova (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

From the discussion here so far I would guess that many editors have differing opinions about the manner in which the EU should appear in list articles depending on which particular article is being discussed. Rather than attempt to hash out a one size fits all approach for all such articles with respect to the EU why not just simply continue to let it be worked out on the discussion page of each individual article case by case? The arguments for inclusion of the EU appear to hinge most strongly on it's proposed sui generis status. Since it's status is so unique wouldn't it be logical to assume that it's resemblance to a country will vary depending on what trait the countries are being compared on? The very nature of a sui generis status would appear to argue against formulating a uniform approach to the EU as a country. Furthermore, while it may seem convenient to decide once and for all how to treat the EU on this page but it's hardly fair to the editors interested in the various articles that will be effected by such a consensus to do so. I propose that any further discussion of this issue continue separately in each related articles discussion page.Zebulin (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


I saw this page as an attempt to hash out all the EU disputes that have been going on for some time on many of these pages. It was a worthy intellectual exercise, but the debate, and most likely edit wars will indeed go on in the individual pages. Malnova (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics of the EU

Personally I am neither anti-EU nor pro-EU (at best I might describe myself as pro-peace and pro-regionalism). However, having looked on the debates, it seems that a lot of the arguments in favour of including the EU on lists of countries or for calling the EU a country at all, rest on the assumption that the EU’s characteristics are unique. This seems to be due to a lack of knowledge about other international institutions as well and the degree of integration that other regions of the world have undergone. Some of the characteristics cited are also irrelevant for defining a country (such as holding elections – that is only relevant for defining a democracy and even then China and Cuba hold elections. But not all countries hold elections and before the advent of representative or consultative government elections were found in only some places). Below I have listed all the characteristics put forward (that I have found in browsing this and some other pages) in support of adding the EU to various lists. I’ve also attempted to include examples of other regional or international organizations to which these characteristics apply:

    • A common market – also found in the European Economic Area (which includes more countries than those just found in the EU), CARICOM Single Market and Economy (and by extension the members of the OECS), Gulf Cooperation Council and Mercosur. In addition a number of other organizations have a customs union – some people may argue that this is irrelevant since a customs union and a common market are two different things, but in fact a few countries don’t have a common customs across their entire territory but are still considered countries: Germany ( Büsingen am Hochrhein and Heligoland) and Italy (Campione d'Italia and Livigno).
    • Common legislation – common legislation in and of itself isn’t anything particularly special. A number of countries (especially in the Commonwealth or those with other common heritages) have near identical constitutions which are the ultimate laws/legislation in the countries. In which case the OECS countries might well have even more common legislation than the EU. In the EU this common legislation is made by the EU institutions (but not by the European Parliament which does not have legislative intiative like even the inhabited dependencies with the least advanced form of self-government or even many local government areas) which leads to the other characteristic:
    • A Common Parliament – There are also the Latin American Parliament, Andean Parliament, ECOWAS Parliament, the Central American Parliament (which according to its own website has the objective of uniting the Central American countries and can formulate motions, agreements and treaties that advance Central American integration and its deputies are also directly elected like the European Parliament) and the Pan-African Parliament (which is due to have legislative function in a year’s time – which leads to the question of whether editors will then include the AU in various lists). There is also the East African Legislative Assembly. And as I outlined previously, the European Parliament (just like every other parliament for an international organization does not have legislative initiative and is unlikely to be given that power in the near- or medium-term).
    • Common Institutions, Bodies, Agencies – All found in many other regional organizations including the AU, CARICOM, the EAC, OECS, ECOWAS
    • Common elections – not every country has elections, for instance Myanmar. Saudi Arabia had no elections at all until 2005, but that did not mean that before 2005 it wasn’t a country. Even now the elections in Saudi Arabia are only for municipal elections and not for any national legislature.
    • Common EU court of justice – there is also the East African Court of Justice, Caribbean Court of Justice, Central American Court of Justice, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Andean Court of Justice, ECOWAS’ Community Court of Justice and there are plans to establish the African Court of Justice. And of course there are the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
    • Common EU court of auditors – which isn’t really a judicial court but an audit agency.
    • Other common EU courts – there is a European Court of Human Rights, but there is also an Inter-American Court of Human Rights and an African Court on Human and People’s Rights.
    • A common currency (not in use by all members of the EU) – there are also common currencies in the OECS (in use not only by all full members but also by one of the associate members), and in UEMOA and CEMAC (again used by all members of those two associations). In addition UEMOA is a currency union in ECOWAS, so in essence ECOWAS has a common currency used by some of its members and there are plans for a new currency zone and the unification of both common currrencies in ECOWAS.
    • A common Europe Day – There is a CARICOM Day, an ECOWAS Day, an OECS Day and an EAC Day.
    • A common EU standard licence/registration plate design – some countries don’t have a common licence/registration plate design. The most prominent examples are the United States and Canada.
    • A common EU anthem – Comintern had an anthem and the UN and AU have unofficial anthems.
    • A common EU citizenship – The Commonwealth had (and still has) common citizenship long before the EU did. And in the OECS and CARICOM this essentially functions as OECS and/or CARICOM citizenship (since most Commonwealth citizens have a lot of the same rights as local citizens in these states and now due to the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, the citizens of these countries (only some for now) can move freely).
    • A common passport – there are common passport formats for the Andean Community, EAC, CARICOM and for four countries in Central America.
    • A common visa – There is also a common Central American visa and there was a common CARICOM visa (with plans to reinstitute it) and there are plans for a common EAC visa, a common SADC visa and a common SAARC visa (for the cricket world cup in 2011).
    • A common flag – almost all international organizations have a flag. Some such as the EAC even have an specific emblem which functions rather like a coat of arms (something the EU doesn’t have).
    • The European Community has a legal personality – likewise ECOWAS and CARICOM.

Many would get the idea that no other regional organization has achieved the same level of integration as the EU, however its not hard to see how that idea would come about since Wikipedia is woefully lacking in information on the other regional organizations which contributes to the continued lack of awareness/knowledge about these organizations and their achievements - for instance the EAC has plans for form a new country called the East African Federation between 2010 and 2013 (with 2020 as the outside maximum date for achieving this). The EU has done much, but it would be stretching it believe that the EU has plans to form a Federation of Europe by even 2020 (there are no such plans even today). Also can anybody provide a reference for the classification of the EU as sui generis? I’ve only seen this description on Wikipedia and its copycat sites. It also seems strange that something that is sui generis should be categorized at all (if the EU is unique enough in the world that it shouldn't be categorized with regional/international organizations how can it be considered and categorized as a country at the same time?).208.138.28.64 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)