Talk:European Union/Archive 12

Map with member states !!!
I don't understand why this map of Europe is used. It is true that in the south of Slovakia something like 500.000 Hungarians live but it is STILL Slovakia, not Hungary. So, on the map the southern part of Slovakia is cut off and added to Hungary. The area of Slovakia is 49.000 km2 and the area of Switzerland is 41.000 km2 but on the map Slovakia seems to be smaller than Switzerland. Could anyone replace the map, please?

Language in Europe...somethings wrong!
Well, ok,. i was reading about the European Union and i read the official languages. But their is sometihng wrong. they said that English is the most foreign language people speak there. French is, also, pretty much every country now will teach French as a second language in School. In Enlgand, French is the most foreign language spoke. France is the main country of Europe, having Paris as the center of economic. FrankFurt is second (in Germany, Students learn french, and then English). Also, there is a big anti-American feeling in Europe, so why would they make English they 'official' language. With time, French is becoming more and more used in Europe, while english sits after French. Their is big chances that German language knocks off the Enlgish language also.


 * So i feel that the statemnt is untrue, and it was biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.168.10 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * But surely the idea that "France is the main country in Europe" a bit non-NPOV? And if not, your own research? We need a citation for that. Again, with your following statements, we need a citation PROVING French is the most commonly-spoken language in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Students in Germany can choose wether they want to learn French or Eglish as the first foreign language. Though it is common to learn French at the elementary school in regions near the French border most students choose English as their first foreign language at secondary school. Grmpf 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Another point; anti-Americanism doesn't relate to the English language. It is from England, afterall, and not America. Again, a POV point. And to add to that, English isn't the official language, it's just the most commonly spoken one (per the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * Coming back to the original point - France is not the "main country" of Europe. London is the rival financial capital of the world with New York - dealing with over 31% of all monetary transactions in 2006. Paris is a city of culture, not of commerce. Frankfurt is technically the economic capital of Europe - as designated by the EU - but it doesn't even begin to deal with the amount of commerce that London does. In terms of European politics - France itself has an equal amount to contribute with Great Britain and Germany. The European Parliament is generally based in Brussels, with Strasbourg as a "second" seat of power. Just because you believe that English is not the most widely spoken language in the European Union doesn't make it so. As a foreign or national language, it is superseded only by Spanish and Mandarin globally. In the EU, official EU figures state that English is the most spoken/understood language throughout the bloc. English, amazingly enough, is not American, but ENGLISH - it originated in Britain (England) and is heavily influenced by languages from The Netherlands (Fresia), Denmark and Germany (Saxony) - all countries within the EU. There is no obscure Eurocentric reason that would prevent English from becoming the lingua franca [ironic isn't it?] of the EU.--JavaJawaUK 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That English is the most widely spoken foreign language is a claim based on European Commission,  (6.77 MiB), European Commission website (published online only). See also the  (485 KiB) of this survey. This survey is the only with a EU-wide scope, i.e. it gives comparable data. In this article no claims are made about any future tendencies. So, everything is all right. --Michkalas 20:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

May I guide you all to these images:
 * Image:Knowledge_English_EU_map.png
 * Image:Knowledge_French_EU_map.png
 * Image:Knowledge_German_EU_map.png

Now then, they are all more or less equally spoken across Europe. Emperor Jackal 11:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but would like to disagree with a fundamental detail. The densest colour gradation for non-native speakers of English is 80%, whereas the densest colour gradations for German and French are both 50%. Sure, there is a similar amount of coverage of densest colour regions, but when we correlate them with actual numbers, it looks like English should have a decisive advantage.samwaltz 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another important issue: (I am from the Netherlands hence this example). Thee maps state nothing about the level of control. The Netherlands score 50+ for all three languages. However, although I agree over 50% of Dutch have some control of all 3 languages (compulsory for medium and higher high school levels) the Dutch are clearly far, far more affluent in English compared to German and especially French. For myself (and I am pretty good compared in all 3 to many people I know) I would rate my command of Dutch at 5 (native) English at about 4 (good, both spoken, listened and written), German and French both at about 2 (can make myself clearly heard in both countries, can even make some jokes, get the general idea of most conversation even by locals among each other). Would I be comfortable to debate with French people in French; No, I'll switch to English. Do I debate in English, No problem there, done that been there. Is French equal to English for me. No; by a very very long distance. Will I rate among the 50% in the maps; Yes definitely. Hence these maps do not show enough. I agree, English has become the general language (and I am not a fan of it as it favours native speaker in international scientific journals, but that's just how it is). Arnoutf 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but from what you've written above I would put your English at at best a 3, perhaps a 2.5. "Affluent" means "rich", not "capable of communication", for example (the word you want there is "fluent")...and "both" can apply to only two items (as opposed to "all" which applies to more than two), so "both spoken, listened and written" is clearly <4...and that's not even taking into account the fact that in English one would say, listing these three qualifications, "spoken, understood (or "heard"), and written" without "all" at all... you make yourself "clearly understood", not "clearly heard"..."clearly heard" means you don't mumble, it has nothing to do with your grasp of the language.  Nobody says "done that been there" unless they're trying to sound silly.  (The idiom is "been there, done that"... there's a word for this concept, it's not coming to me at the moment...but there's even a wikipedia article which I can't find split licketty, unfortunately... this is the basic linguistic phenomenon outlined in Siamese twins (English language)...) I could go on and on, but I think the point is made...multilingualism in Europe pretty clearly isn't as widespread as people pretend.  Tom e rtalk  05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the correct English in this context would be Oral, Aural and Written, so maybe you should also be down on a 3 as well. "spoken" would be considered correct, if a little simple, but "understood (or "heard")" is just daft and shows you are also not a native English speaker.(80.189.121.40 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, what I said was "one would say", not "in the highest form of literary English, one would write". Note, I did not say "correct English", I simply addressed what a native English speaker would say.  Far <1% of native English speakers even knows how to properly use the word "aural", since, while it is perfectly proper English, it is not part of the vernacular outside the scientific community.  Even that notwithstanding, the use of "aural" here is hyperpedantic, since "aural" would indicate that one has the ability to make oneself heard properly, which is quite different from making oneself understood.  I could continue to lambaste your pedantry, but I think it's sufficient to say that your frivolous and disingenuous assertion of daftness is, given what I've already said, judged "lacking", and summarily dismissed, with well-founded prejudice.  Tom e rtalk  02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point was that you were correcting the sentence: "I would rate my command of ... English at about 4 (good, both spoken, listened and written)" to substitute the word 'listened' with either of your suggestions 'understood' or 'heard' would still make the sentence nonsensical. Obviously this is disregarding the incorrect usage of the word 'both' in the original sentence.  The use of aural in this instance is correct, otherwise the National Curriculum, which calls for the use aural examinations in modern languages, would be incorrect.  This also highlights the fact that at the very least all children who study a modern language to GCSE level, which until recently was compulsory, will know the word aural.  I am guessing that would mean far more than 1% of native English speakers know the meaning of this word.  I would actually imagine far more people understand the word aural than would be able to make sense of your last couple of sentences.(80.189.121.40 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Oops sorry, message above was written in a rush in between two other activities. I can do much better in English, but need a bit more time to do so. The spread of languages does not talk about mulitlingualism (and I agree I am not multilingual or even bilingual). However to lump the ability of the average Dutchman to order some bread and wine in France (un pain et un vin síl vous plait) with their control of English where you can make much more complicated comminucation is also a bit weird. Arnoutf 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood my intent. I wasn't trying to belittle your English.  While you managed to make some spectacular flubs, you did manage to convey your meaning.  What I was trying to say is that Europeans seem, by how you rated your English ability, to have far more liberal standards when it comes to rating one's ability to communicate in non-native languages than Americans tend to.  I was not trying to say "your English sucks", I was simply saying "your rating sucks".  I didn't mean to imply your English was incomprehensible, just that it wasn't "near-native", which is what I understand the rating of "4" to imply.  Put your French down a half peg (it's "s'il vous plaîtes" ;-) ...)... Again...the point had nothing to do with your abilities as an individual, however, but rather with the extent to which Europeans appear to perceive their abilities...  Tom e rtalk  02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. My argument was made because some editors wanted to put command of French and German on the same level as English based on figures about basic education in these three languages; which I think is not a good idea (I would not be able to get this point across on French wiki allthough my (spoken and read) french is much better than the example above where I made mistakes on purpose).Arnoutf 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If basic education held any meaning, the number of Americans who speak French or Spanish at a level of at least 3, if not 4, would be in the area of 70%. Americans may be a bit more realistic about their grasp of other languages than I've already indicated I think Europeans are, but even so, the point is valid...taking classes in a language doesn't mean you can speak it...I've witnessed American students majoring in Spanish at universities who couldn't correctly construct 3 sequential sentences in Spanish...and I don't mean beginning students, I mean kids who'd taken 6 years of Spanish [from no-doubt incompetent teachers] in high school, and thereafter bumbled their way through 4 years of college-level Spanish classes...  Again, however, my point had to do w/ the level where one puts one's grasp of a language in Europe as opposed to the much more modest assignment of ability Americans seem to give themselves.  Tom e rtalk  06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we agree here (and I think you are right that my English is at about lvl 3 I would rate my French (4yrs high school) and German (3yrs high school) both at about 1 - able to conduct a comprehensible conversation on several topics including abstract topics but lots of problems with grammar, sentence construction, and spelling. But when dealing with other European editors that skill is sometimes rated as high as 3.) I think part of the issue is that the language classification according to these levels is hardly used in Europe, so most people probably have no idea how the scale is calibrated. Anyway, this seems to move away from the point, that English is the language that is most commonly spoken at a decent level in the EU; as a second language that is, not bilingual. Arnoutf 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeedy :-) Tom e rtalk  16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the European Union a supranational body?
The opening sentence states "The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of 27 states." Yet the Supranationalism article argues that the EU is not considered to be supranational by most academics. I suggest this is too contentious for the opening sentence and should be reworded. Lumos3 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Economic politics are clearly handled supranational. The EU institutions govern the EEC with directives without intergovernmental treaties. The article about Supranationalism is therefore inaccurate. Lear 21 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's repeat the articles' argument against supranational. The EU itself cannot setup legislation for its members states, it has to be approved and incorporated in the relevant national legislations. Hence the EU is not truly supranational. (including the powers shifted to the EEC)
 * That things are governed centrally is just following a set of international treaties, and as such the EU is not necessarily different from WHO, UN, WTO, NATO and other international treaty organisations.
 * Thus following a very strict definition the EU is not supranational.
 * However, I think this is overinterpreting the phrase. The article on supranational acknowledges that no supranational union (in the strict sense) exists, but that the EU shows enough characteristics of such a body (parliament, court of justice). Thus I am of the opinion that the phrase supranational is sufficiently applicable to the EU to maintain. Arnoutf 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (PS I think the supranationalism article indeed needs improvement).


 * As I understand it, EU regulations are binding on citizens without first being incorporated into national legislation; and EU directives are binding on national governments. --Boson 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the first, and cannot recall an example (do you have any). EU directives are only binding after the national governments have agreed that they will be (ie accepted the directive in national parliament, or given the EU explicit authority to draft a directive). Here EU directives are not much different from other international treaties. Arnoutf 07:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an example. There are thousands and thousands of regulations, all of which are binding. They are published in the official journal, and the database can be searched at EUR-LEX. A fairly random example would be COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 907/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending the marketing standards applicable for fresh fruit and vegetables with regards to presentation and labelling. It contains things like: ‘Stickers individually affixed on product shall be such as, when removed, neither to leave visible traces of glue, nor to lead to skin defects.’

The different binding nature of regulations and directives is explained at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/droit_communautaire/droit_communautaire.htm#1.3: 1.3.2. Regulation

Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a regulation is a general measure that is binding in all its parts. Unlike directives, which are addressed to the Member States, and decisions, which are for specified recipients, regulations are addressed to everyone.

A regulation is directly applicable, which means that it creates law which takes immediate effect in all the Member States in the same way as a national instrument, without any further action on the part of the national authorities.

1.3.3. Directive

Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a directive is addressed to the Member States. Its main purpose is to align national legislation.

A directive is binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved but leaves them the choice of the form and method they adopt to realise the Community objectives within the framework of their internal legal order.

If a directive has not been transposed into national legislation in a Member State, if it has been transposed incompletely or if there is a delay in transposing it, citizens can directly invoke the directive in question before the national courts. A directive is binding on the national government, though there is room for interpretation. The national legislature has a date by which national legislation to implement the directive must be passed. I believe the UK and Denmark are the two states that most often keep to the deadline, whereas the Germans are often very tardy. AIUI, if the appropriate legislation is not passed, national or European courts may directly apply their own interpretation of the directive. Nationals may also sue their own government for losses resulting from their government's breach of the law. I believe this happened in Germany when the Federal Republic of Germany was late in implementing an EC directive protecting holidaymakers in case of bankcruptcy of holiday organisers. If I recall correctly, Germany was first convicted of a breach of the directive by the European Court, and a German court subsequently awarded damages against the German state to some holiday makers.--Boson 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all in the name! Directives frame the direction in which national laws have to be made,  regulations regulate (just an odd term for a law). The terms proposed in the European Constitution are even better: directives are to be known as framework laws for they provide a framework to which national laws have to comply and regulations are to be known as laws which is of course the proper term for it. Maartenvdbent 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and indeed the constitution directives will only be operational after each country has ratified them. Thus countries have (more or less) free will whether to accept a directive and after that they are indeed binding (just like any other international treaty). But I agree its all in the name Arnoutf 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To my mind, the Wikipedia article on Supranationalism is talking about something different to the simple word supranational - see for example dictionary definitions such as supranational - American Heritage Dictionary which gives the definition as "extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations: a supranational economy; supranational federations." This is a complex area but I think supranationalism means something more than just supranational as used in this article.MarkThomas 17:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the view that countries have free will whether to accept a directive. Their "freedom" is analogous to everone's freedom to break the law (and suffer the consequences). If a country does not implement a directive within the specified period it is in breach of the law; sanctions can be imposed, and citizens can sue for damages resulting from that illegal (in)action.
 * I don't really see that the proposed constitution changes much, except for calling directives "framework laws".
 * Article I-33 states"A European framework law shall be a legislative act binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods."
 * Article I-34 states:"Legislative acts 1. European laws and framework laws shall be adopted, on the basis of proposals from the Commission, jointly by the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure as set out in Article III-396."--Boson 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are true, but the EU is not allowed to construct framework laws on all issues (e.g. abortion, same sex marriage etc.) because national government have not given the EU the power to do so in these issues. That is all I tried to say. National governments have to give EU the power to construct framework laws on certain issues (and after that the EU has power I agree, close to a supranational govt); the EU, however, has no power to attract issues the governments have never been willing to succede to the EU, in those cases the EU is not a true supranational govt in that it cannot force national govts to pass on that power. Arnoutf 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are agreed on that. I'm just not sure if that is very much different from the situation in any federal state, such as the USA or Germany, where the component states retain sovereignty in some matters. Perhaps what makes the EU different, when compared with federal states, is that sovereignty in things like foreign relations and defence is retained by the constituent states, though if that were not the case, it could be argued that the EU was a single federal state and the discussion about supranationality would be pointless.--Boson 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Debates about these sorts of little words are never ending, even if they are interesting. I think the technical answer to the question is "yes" and "no" - "supra" just means "above", so are there things where EU decision making is above nation states that are members? Yes. Is it always above? No. Countries are free to leave the EU, and they are the ones who create the treaties, so ultimately Member States are the highest if you like; but I think that to most people supra implies what the EU is ("albeit in limited fields" as the ECJ once said) and it's something that has not been done before. I wouldn't describe the US and Germany as Supranational entities, because nation states can't be above themselves (if you see what I mean) so these kinds of comparisons don't work. Academics like Weiler are talk about supranational simply as something contrasted to intergovernmentalism- the way that the UN works for instance. My own view is that the EU is a model that is breaking past and beyond the international system of the nation state and that's what really makes it "supra" "national".  Wik idea  08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Elegant summary of my own vision on this. Arnoutf 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the opening sentence to 'sui generis' rather than 'both supra and intergov', as given the long discussion here, it is clearly contentious and ambiguous - an entire article could probably be written on the subject. I think sui generis fits better, and is the way the EU is described in a lot of the literature i have read. Suicup 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Geograhpy
I think its quite ridicolous when talking about the geography of Europe to use an image of a beach and believe it is somehow representative. I've placed a satellite composite of the European continent which is far more suitable. I've made two reverts, I'll leave it for others to decide. --A.Garnet 13:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think both you and Lear21 have a bit of a point here. Although many countries have shores, not all of them have sandy beaches and this is hardly a generic geographical property of the EU. Of course countries like Luxembroug, Austria, the Tsjech republic, etc etc are mountainous countries without sea access. Perhaps a mini gallery with some of the most typical EU geographical landscapes (beaches, mountains, wetlands, dry mediterranean country side, please add more) would be more suited. I agree with Lear21, that the satellite image does not add much over the maps and does not distinguish between EU and Europe. Arnoutf 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The coastline is the most dominant geographical feature for the vast majority of member states. It influences especially the climate situation. It´s a standard image for this kind of section. It also avoids being a 'beach' in a touristic sense, because it lacks the people. Lear 21 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not completely agree. The EU is not a country; hence we should be flexible about using so called standard things. Furhtermore the climatic influence is not easy. There are several marine climates in Europe (Northsea, Atlantic, Mediteranean) that are highly different, to say that coastline without any further specification determines climates in the majority of countries is too simple. Hence again, I would say give a mini gallery of 4 typical EU geographical landscapes. PS it is not all that standard. large countries should be considered and here Canada shows both a satellite image and a waterfall, the US shows a dormant volcano, Russia shows a snowed mountain peak AND a pine forest, China shows a precipitation map and no photo, India shows a topographic map showing elevation, and Australia shows a climate map. Hardly a standard feature I would say.....Arnoutf 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support another image (alpine region prefered), when written content is expanded as well. For now, a gallery or a second image would lead to an overload in this section. Lear 21 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is a fair enough argument, will see how the text develops and come back to this later. Arnoutf 11:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine article about EU
It is almost mirroring this article and could be used for expansion. Lear 21 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Table next to population of city stats
This is set up wrong, with my Firefox and Opera browsers the table covers up half the article. It needs to be fixed so it it readable. I don't know how to do it or otherwise I would

4.142.180.158 07:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)IJMS

better? Lear 21 12:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the display error with my Firefox, Safari and Opera (for Mac). Can you post a screenshot? Otherwise I'm reverting to my version, that is valid HTML and much cleaner. -- giandrea   13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Largest Cities
This section is the result of a difficult compromise. Any change to this section is not minor, and needs a very, very good edit summary, or better an argument here, or even better consensus here. Any other edits will be reverted. Arnoutf 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordering
Hi, I don't know if anyone else has found this but to me, despite the content being good, the ordering of the page seems a bit haphazard. I figure we could re-order a few things and prioritise things better. For example the pillars seem to have an undue amount of attention and such detailed information on the political workings should be kept on the politics page. The huge amount of detail on candidate countries could be slimmed down to talking generally about expansion. In addition, some areas seem unnecessarily split, for example; religion is also a matter of culture, environment is also a matter of geography, the CFSP is a also a matter of foreign relations. And so on. Here is a quick list I drew up of a possible way to organise it. Any thoughts?

1. Geography 1.1 Environment 2. History 3. Member states 3.1 Enlargement 4. Politics and Government 4.1 Institutions and bodies 4.2 Treaties 4.3 Three Pillars 4.4 Foreign Relations 4.5 Law 5. Economy 5.1 The euro 5.2 Infrastructure 5.3 Development 6 Culture and Demographics 6.1 Languages 6.2 Religion 6.3 Sport 6.4 Largest cities  7.1 Education and Science 7.2 Exchange programs 7.3 Technology Institute 7.4 Space policy  8. Footnotes 9. References 10. See also 11. External links

-JLogan 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like an interesting idea. There is however some consensus that EU should be modelled as a country following the ideas in WikiProject_Countries I am not sure how you proposed structure goes against that; just something to throw into the discussion at an early stage. Arnoutf 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've taken that into account and reordered things a bit;

1. History 2. Politics and Government 2.1 Institutions and bodies 2.2 Structure --Treaties & Three Pillars-- 2.3 Foreign Relations 2.4 Law 3. Member states 3.1 Enlargement 4. Geography 4.1 Environment 4.2 Schengen 5. Economy 5.1 The euro 5.2 Infrastructure 5.3 Agriculture and Development --CAP / eu grants to poorest areas-- 5.4 Education & Science --Erasmus, Technology Institute etc. / Space Policy - Galileo-- 6 Demographics --primarily stats-- 6.1 Languages 6.2 Religion 6.4 Largest cities  7. Culture --Actually talk about European culture-- 7.1 Cultural Capital 7.2 Sport —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLogan (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC). -JLogan 09:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox footnotes - If ranked? If considered as a single unity?
I know that there have been edit wars and vandalism around this issue before, but it's a matter of course that numbers in the EU infobox considers the EU "as a single unity". Before, there was a "if ranked" footnote instead. If the EU isn't ranked/considered as an ordinary country in another wikipedia article is totally irrelevant for this article. Let's get rid of this stupid compromise, and improve the infobox. +It looks better. S. Solberg J. 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the EU is not ranked in that article. Its listed on an unranked line just as "World" is. That said I don't see how your suggestion will improve anything. In all likelihood, the edit war is probably going to start again. Gdo01 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The "if ranked" is dispensable because the EU IS! already ranked in several references like the IMF statistics. Lear 21 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comment by Lear 21. However, note that the "considered as single entity" is essential. Arnoutf 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GDP issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29

None of those statistics shows the GDP total at 14million as stated now. Perhaps someone should fix one or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MitchKliev (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The 14 billion value is from the IMF of 2006 while the table there is from the IMF report of 2005, the others are the World Factbook, and World Bank. The World Bank actually does not even have any info on the EU, the editors apparently added the individual GDP numbers of the member countries. Gdo01 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Daniel why do you insist on changing that one figure? Does it offend you so much that you have to come up with reasons like "please see list [of a Wikipedia article]", "here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29", "see info box above", "I highly doubt that is accurate, with the E.U. GDP growth rate it is impossible for it to be that much." Each time(except the first two) you changed your reasoning and frankly you have not come up with any argument other than "i doubt it."
 * I should have reported you to 3RR by now along with myself but I really just want to know your argument for doing this. You state that the growth rate is too small for the GDP to grow that much but you fail to realize that only a 5.2% growth rate is necessary for 13.5 trillion to become 14.2 trillion. The following countries have a growth rate higher than this in the EU: Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Bulgaria. You also seem to forget that the EU got two new members. This coupled with the growth is enough for 13.5 trillion to become 14.2 trillion. Gdo01 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also note that according to referencing policies, a Wiki article should not be used as a source in another wiki article (for good reason otherwise you could easily set up circular self-sustaining chains of wiki-to-wiki 'evidence'). Hence any external source is by far preferred over an internal Wiki reference, and the ref to the List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 is thus not relevant in this debate as another source evidently exists. Arnoutf 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The IMF figure is an estimation of September 2006 and is highly credible. The definite GDP figure will be calculated end of April 2007. Lear 21 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Already there (April 2007 (PPP&Nominal)).--Van helsing 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep changing the figure? I understand why people might want to be using the Eurostat figure but the IMF is independent so it is a safer bet to use that, on principle. Unless we start believing every countries self assessment of its GDP? As a basic rule I propose we keep to the most up to date figure from an independent, international institution (IMF, World Bank etc.) -JLogan 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet?
I have strong reason to beleive that User:Andrew16 is User:Daniel_Chiswick sockpuppet: The only difference is that User:Andrew16 gives SF as a place of residence/origin rather than LA. Something that he/she might have done to throw off supicious editors. The above are simply too many conicidences for me- The same agenda, the same type of edits, the same age with one account being opened just one day after the other got blocked. I have voiced my concern on the appropriate notice board as well. Regards,  Signature brendel  06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both users state to be 16
 * Both users edit the same articles, w/ the same outlook
 * Both users seem to be patriotic
 * Both users give California as a place of residence/origin
 * Both users agree with each other on this talk page
 * User:Andrew16 is a brand new account opened just one day after User:Daniel_Chiswick got blocked for two weeks.
 * Copied from Talk:Superpower Gdo01 06:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sports Section
Basketball is hugely popular in Greece,Lithuania,Italy,Spain,Slovenia and enjoys varying levels of popularity in France,Germany,Latvia and elsewhere. Mentioning field hockey as popular and omitting basketball seems arbitrary. Please add basketball to the list,without it mentioned it is incomplete, plain and simple.XVA 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording of these example sports are chosen carefully. They never indicate the listed sports are exhaustive (ie complete). Hence (perceived) incompleteness is not an issue (plain and simple).Arnoutf 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrariness is an issue. Field hockey shouldn't be mentioned over basketball.XVA 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that if an incomplete list is given some arbitrary choices have to be made one way or another. I would agree to put up the list of most commonly played sports in Europe if reliable references are provided (this was discussed before, but nobody have provided any). However without good souces we could as well repace field hockey with Golf, Bull-fighting, Carting, Athletics, Rowing, Sailing, Swimming, Marathon, Chess, Bridge, Checkers, Darts, Pool, Snooker, Skiing, Figure Skating etc etc etc. Without some good report about the most popular sports of Europe to serve as reference, your demand to add basketball is just as arbitrary as adding any of these. Arnoutf 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Game attendances of the top club competition in europe, last season. It is in the millions. http://217.13.116.51/finalfour06/noticia.jsp?temporada=E05&jornada=24&id=659 Attendances in spain. http://www.euroleague.net/news/i/6012/180/item http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/lateNews/p/newsid/17361/arti.html Worldwide tv coverage of 2006 world championship (gold and silver medalists are EU countries) http://www.fiba.com/pages/eng/fc/news/lateNews/p/newsid/17894/arti.html Attendance of the Euroleague final (Champions League equivalent), more than 18.000 (sold out). http://www.euroleague.net/main/results/showgame?gamecode=230 In general,basketball is easily world's second most popular team sport, and huge in large parts of Europe (and EU).XVA 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Member States
The map in the "Member States" section is incorrect. It shows the Turkish Bosphorus in EU Member State Blue, while the rest of Turkey is the correct green as a candidate country. I'd correct it myself, but I've got no time or graphics editing skills, so could some-one fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavaJawaUK (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC). --JavaJawaUK 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New articles
I suggest "in varietate concordia" be seperated from the European symbols article. --WoodElf 09:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

external link to Europedia
I am a retired European Union official and the editor of 'http://www.europedia.moussis.eu/ ', a free, non-advertised based website that endeavours to explain the policies of the European Union institutions from a purely technical and legal point of view. Although Europedia is originally based on a book that is widely considered as a scholarly (encyclopaedic) reference on European Union policies, the website is considerably more up to date and is free to access by anyone. It permits direct links to the European legislation EUR-lex site and to hundreds of other sites of European and international institutions and organisations. As a specialist site on the European Union it can be of much use to Wikipedia readers, who want to learn more on subjects of their interest. Europedia links to many Wikipedia articles, which I consider worthwhile and I intend to place the Wikipedia url in the links of my homepage. For all these reasons I request that you allow me to place the Europedia url in the external links of some Wikipedia articles. Best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.60.140 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Scotland?
I was looking up some stuff about the United Kingdom, when I found out a bit about the upcoming Scottish elections. Apparently, the Scottish National Party's leader, Mr Salmond, has detailed plans that state that within 100 days of taking office, an SNP led Executive will issue a bill timetabling a referendum, proposing that the Scottish Executive enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom Government in order to repeal the Acts of Union 1707, thereby returning Scotland to its ancient status as an independent and sovereign state. It is proposed that such a referendum will be put to the Scottish electorate towards the end of the parliamentary session in 2010. Now, if this occurs, will Scotland remain a part of the European Union, or will they have to arrange for their own accession and membership into the European Union? Would they even want to become members? CeeWhy2 05:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * to be honest, I have no idea. I think many Scots won't either. I would suggest to just "wait and see" and deal with the issue when it becomes reality. Arnoutf 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure what the implications of this will be on Scotland's position in the EU, but I do know that the SNP is advocating "independence within Europe". In this way, I believe that most Scots would want to remain members of the EU. Also, considering that their legal base already includes all compatible EU laws and the like, I don't think they'll have to re-apply and go through accession negotiations. It would be interesting if it doesn't happen, since we've never had a country split up within the EU before (though we have had East Germany joining the EU by virtue of reunification, without having to go through a formal accession process). Ronline ✉ 09:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have seen Greenland becoming under a home rule type of relation with Denmark AND leaving the EU in 1979. Arnoutf 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's because Greenland specifically voted to leave the EU. In a technical sesne, home rule and leaving the EU weren't part of the same process. I'm not even sure if the EU has a process for this sort of thing. The European Constitution did have a clause dealing with leaving the EU, but not with what happens when a state already within the EU splits up (well, produces a new sovereign entity). In any case, even if it is put up to a referendum I find it hard to believe that Scotland will vote to leave the EU, when it's (SNP) models for independence are "small countries who have prospered from accession", such as Ireland and Estonia. It would be a really interesting thing to see, actually. Not to mention the huge historic significance of the United Kingdom no longer including Scotland. Ronline ✉ 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For those interested in this topic: there's an article about this very issue at Open Europe. According to the article, it seems that the EU has no mechanism for this sort of process. Consequently, when Scotland becomes independent - when it splits off from an existing EU state - it will also automatically renounce EU membership. Then, according to the EU Commission, the new state would have to negotiate its EU entry (even though this may be more of a ceremonial process since its laws will virtually all be EU-compatible). Interesting and topical stuff, since I'm presuming that it's not only Scotland where independentism is flourishing (but also the Basque Country, Catalonia, perhaps Wales, etc). Ronline ✉ 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And of course the possibility that Belgium will fall apart into Flanders and Wallonia.Arnoutf 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, now I guess that would open up an even greater can of worms, because it will be very hard to determine a successor state. If Flanders splits from Belgium, I find it hard to believe that Brussels and Wallonia will either 1) hold together, or 2) call themselves "Belgium". So I guess both of them may end up losing EU membership. And then what of the fact that Brussels is the capital of the EU? Of course, I believe that at the end of the day, despite popul(ar/ist) support, politicians will be very wary of actually carrying out independence. I'm not sure though, since it did happen in Montenegro. Ronline ✉ 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, let's deal with it if it happends (which may be never). As long as nothing happens, just leave it be. Arnoutf 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When Montenegro gained independence from Serbia, Serbia was the heir to all the organizations of Serbia-Montenegro but Montenegro had to apply separately to become a member of the organizations again. Thus I believe the same will happen with Scotland, and they will have to re-apply for EU membership, and indeed membership to all organizations of which the UK is a part.--Waterfall999 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Algeria was a part of France and the EEC until 1962, when it left both. What happened back then? (212.247.11.153 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
 * With Algeria, I suspect that it didn't want to remain in the EEC. As for Scottish independence (or, in point of fact, exchanging membership of one union, the UK, with another, the EU), all of these negotiations would no doubt be conducted before it was granted independence. I also find it very doubtful that all those voters voting for the SNP are doing so because they want independence, which is why a referendum will also have to be held. If the referendum duly returns a "yes" vote, I wonder if there will be provision for another referendum, say ten years later, for the Scots to change their mind and want back in? And furthermore, since the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland is of largely Scottish descent, will an independent Scotland be talking Northern Ireland with it? TharkunColl 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also remember that the 1962 EEC (as well as the 1984 EEC when Greenland left), were much less formalised compared to the current EU. Also the issue with Scotland maybe whether Scotland as a new entity is allowed to stay in/ become member of the EU, rather than being allowed to leave. As far as I know N Ireland is connected to England rather than Scotland; anyway Scottish parliament has no say over N Ireland, hence this point seems moot (would be a bit like the city of Boston becoming part of the Republic of Ireland when that became its own nation). Again let's just take this case as it evolves. Even with the nationalist victory tomorrow, the referendum is suggest only in 3 years time, a lot may happen before we have to deal with this. Arnoutf 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When Algeria split off from France, it automatically left the EU - the EU treaties no longer applied to it because they were signed by the state of France, which Algeria no longer belonged to. The same will happen to Scotland, which will not figure as state-party to the EU's core treaties. It will have to ratify these treaties once again, and this may involve negotiations with existing member states. All in all, a rather difficult process, even though it could be streamlined in the case of Scotland. The Northern Ireland case is rather different, considering the significant Irish minority. I don't see any real chance of Northern Ireland becoming independent - Ulster nationalism has never been a particularly significant force in NI politics. Indirectly, however, I believe that the independence of Scotland will lead to real questions being posed as to the viability of the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If we take NI out of the equation, I believe we may very well see a federation being formed between England and Wales, similar to Serbia and Montenegro. Of course, one possible way to implement a stronger form of autonomy for Scotland, short of independence, would be through a federal structure, where the UK is divided constitutionally into four federal subjects with broad autonomy over their own affairs. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The SNP are extremely unlikely to win a majority, they may become the largest party. This would enable them to enter talks with other parties to create a coalition, the parties they could form a coalition with (dependant on how many seats they win) to gain a majority are Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives have completely dismissed the idea of a coalition with any party, never in a million years will they form a coalition with Labour and the Liberal Democrats are on record as saying they couldn't form a coalition with the SNP unless they agreed that there wouldn't be a referendum. So this hypothetical question has absolutely no chance of happening.(80.189.121.40 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree. I think even though many Scots may be independence-minded in polls, when it would actually come down to a real referendum and pragmatic thinking about real consequences, much fewer people will vote for independence. I think that in a way the SNP may just be using the independence argument as a means of campaigning for greater devolution. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On this, 1) hasn't happened yet 2) SNP need coalition with parties willing to support a poll. 3) They need to win a poll. In the event that all happens the talks would take ages to complete given the complicated constitutional problems and hostility to the idea from London. Although possible it will take ages. If it does the Commission has said it would need to apply as a new member state, only the rest of Britain would inherit membership, and all its opt outs, however as a current member it would not be as drawn out with it being sorted very quickly (but treaties on them joining and allocation of seats, plus an obligatory French referendum, would take longer). I doubt however that Scotland would want to be out of the EU for even a second as independence depends on the UK and EU so membership talks would take place before independence is declared so both events happen at the same time. But all this is mute until we know the future of the Scottish Executive. -JLogan 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My repeated point exactly (let's wait and see). Arnoutf 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I have no professional knowledge of this issue, but is there any precedent for the fact that the entire population of the EU is its electorate directly? Surely if the people of Scotland voted directly for the EU leadership - which they did - they are independently entitled to membership? This line of reasoning might be worth looking up. Sojourner001 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An independent Scotland would also apply for EU accession (?)
I think this needs amending per WP:CRYSTAL. Personally, I would argue for removal, but I suppose one could replace it with a section on the speculation about what might or might not happen (legally, politically, economically) if existing member countries, such as the UK, split up.--Boson 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, and as no member country has split up within the EU (note that all previous example like Algeria are from the era of EEC not the EU) I think even the paragraph what would happen is (for now irrelevant). Let's not crystalball, once something happens we will be fast enough in our response to follow the unfolding story. (in this light I have taken out the sentence from the article)Arnoutf 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Largest economic and political entity"
From the article:
 * The EU is the largest economic and political entity in the world, with 494 million people and a combined nominal GDP of €11.6 (US$14.5) trillion in 2006.

And the area is quoted in the infobox as 4,324,782 km². What definitions of "largest" and "economic and political entity" are being used here? It is indeed the largest economic entity (having a slightly higher GDP than the USA) but the geographical size and population are both lower than those of the People's Republic of China. Hairy Dude 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless someone can cite overriding standard criteria for assessing the size of a political entity, I would propose changing the wording to "In terms of GDP, the EU is the largest economic entity in the world, with a combined nominal GDP of €11.6 (US$14.5) trillion in 2006. With a population of 494 million, it is also one of the world's largest political entities."--Boson 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the United Nations? Surely that is quite a lot bigger. TharkunColl 22:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The UN is not an economic entity. The EU is (in principle and de jure at least) a single market.

Image sizes
I don't see why all image sizes should be coherent. In the seemingly perfectionated USA and UK articles, the size of every image is adjusted for the image itself. Some carries more information and details than others. Some images deserves more pixels than others. And the image-overdose of this article is currently being undelined by the every second image on each side-layout--└ S. SOLBERG J.  /  talk  ┐ 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that neither UK nor USA are featured article so not perfectionated. Also note that especially in the USA article there is little variance in image size; many images are the same dimensions, unless the content reguires otherwise.
 * For layout I would try to standardise image size to a limited range of widths. Nevertheless I agree that content readability goes before dogmatic standardisation of image size. Arnoutf 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no dogma in image size, see Largest cities section. A majority of horizontal images have 200 px and should´nt have more than 220 px for layout reasons. Vertical images should range from 150 - 180px. Note that a much bigger image size would also emphasize the importance of a certain picture. Lear 21 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moderating influence of the US and USSR
The division of Europe into two heavily armed and diametrically opposed camps was a bigger influence for peace than its union into a single entity? Whoever wrote that needs to read their world history 1945-1991. I'm getting rid of that and replacing it with a broader statement about possible causes.


 * Except for discipling Yugoslavia, Europeans haven't waged war on one another for 60 years, thanks to USA muscle. Isn't that proof enough? Hoserjoe

Article length
It is a bit long. Perhaps if the bulk of the politics section, such as the subtitle areas like the pillars, be moved to the Politics page? -JLogan 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is of rather short length compared to USA, UK, Germany. The politics section seems large but is still the most important content within the EU article. Lear 21 10:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Germany has about the same lenght (80-Germ vs. 77-EU) and is the only Featured Article among the three. The EU is complex so the article will be long; nevertheless some attention to the length is warranted as all articles tend to grow uncontrollably if the issue of lenght is not raised once in a while. Arnoutf 16:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is geographically in Europe!
The borders of Europe stretch from The Ural mountains and Ural river, then through the Caspian Sea, along the river Araks seperating Armenia and Azerbaijan from Iran and Turkey, through to the Black sea. Cut through the Dardanelles and the Straights of Gibraltar, and INCLUDES ALL ISLANDS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN! Look in a map or Google Earth at the Greek islands of Rhodes, Lesbos, Chios and even Samos which is a European island yet is lees than 1 mile away from Asiatic Turkey (Asia Minor). Look up Kastelorizo in Wikipedia and you will see that even though it is 110 Km away from the nearest Greek island, and only 1.3 Km away from Asia Minor, however it is still part of Europe! All islands in the Mediterranean are considered part of Europe. If you say that Cyprus is part of Asia, then you must also say that Malta is part of Africa, and you will have to make something up for the Greek islands, as well as Imbros and Tenedos --Waterfall999 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This would be more appropriate at Cyprus or Geography of Cyprus. Basically scholars say that Cyprus is geographically in the Middle East and West Asia but culturally and historically a part of Europe but once again, this has nothing to do with the EU. You should also check out Copenhagen criteria Gdo01 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The borders of Europe also extend to the Caribbean and South America, to Martinique, Sint-Maartin, Guadeloupe, Cayenne, etc Hoserjoe
 * Euhm the borders of the EU do, not those of the strictly geographically considered continent. Arnoutf 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did decolonization contribute toward peace in Europe or was it irrelevant?
In my opinion, the statement "Another factor is decolonization, which removed a major source of conflict between European powers" is -- however plausible it might seem at first glance -- conjecture (or, at best, original research). It could equally be argued that it is common knowledge that powerful empires or blocs that have divided the world up into spheres of influence are generally regarded as a source of stability and peace. It could also be argued that the power vacuum created by the disintegration of an empire is much more likely to be a source of conflict.--Boson 15:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For one example England couldn't zap the immense man power and resources from India or Africa or from anywhere else and THAT will make England more likely to sit and talk diplomacy rather than charge bayonet in hand and yell “FOR THE QUEEN!”

-G

European Economic Area and the European union
It is my impression the EU wants to supress just how close the EEA-countries are to a real membership in the EU. So do the EFTA-members of the EEAs politicians. Should this go better into the article? I mean, my impression is, the three EEA-members not being in the EU, are just second-rate members of the EU, and nothing else. I know the rule about original research, but surely, this obvious thing must have been noted by others than me? Greswik 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit weird. Norway had the opportunity to become full member of EU; but Norway declined mainly because of EU fishery and whaling policies. Being EEA member means you can have some of the agreements especially in relation to trade, goods, services and people without having all the obligations (such as the forementioned fisheries) or the benefits (all kind of subsidies, e.g. for agriculture). IMHO it is more the choice of the non-EU EEA members not to join, than the choice of the EU to set them apart. So obviously the EU wants to stress the similarity (because of good neighbourship relations); but they are definitely apart. Ãll togehter I am not sure what addition you practically suggest Arnoutf 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch! First time _ever_ anyone has managed to make me regrett I voted "yes". Kudos. But this is not a place to discuss politics. If no-one sees my point of the EEA treaty being a second class membership, it's no use discussing it. Greswik 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is second class membership, although I wouldn't use that term. Associate member might be closer but I think that is more Turkey. I think the word for it is actually satellite state, or something along those lines at least. Considering how close EEA members are, esp. through the fax democracy, I think they do deserve a bigger mention. They are tied to the EU economically, and politically. They even get involved in the CFSP as their gov't seem so egar to join. But perhaps it is not something to mention here, it is already very long. European Union member state perhaps? A brief section on those closely tied to the EU and/or trying to join. But defiantly the EEA, members without representation. That's what I think of it all at least. Shouldn't be to hard to find some articles to base it on, if not, there are enough facts around to just talk about the relationship. -  J Logan t/c: 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurocoin 1.jpg
Image:Eurocoin 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

London image in Largest Cities subsection
The image of London used in the Demographics-Largest Cities subsection has changed a number of times recently between these two images:. It needs to be agreed upon which image to use; personally the left image is quite dark and not recognisable as London, so I would opt for using the image on the right, with St Paul's and 30 St Mary Axe ('the gherkin') in it. Rossenglish 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The night is unacceptable bad quality. Lear 21 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the night may be everything including a chemical plant. Prefer the day-time image Arnoutf 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently added image Fall of Wall
This image was added recently to the demographics section.



Although I agree the fall of the Berlin wall / Iron curtain was essential for the growth of the EU, I would place this image under the heading Enlargement of EU, rather than under Demographics; as the image and text in themselves have no direct relation with the demographics. Arnoutf 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential vandalism?
Are these vandalism? 

And the text "HOTTIE by Germany (Angela Merkel, Chancellor)" under one of the images looks strange. (Stefan2 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The first example is blatant vandalism, the second maybe a Good Faith edit, although I would tend to revert as well. HOTTIE by Germany is also clear vandalism. Arnoutf 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

EU names in languages
May be a bit much, but what do people think about using the South African method of displaying country names in the infobox? -  J Logan t/c: 11:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the information is already there within the footnote. I think the SA option may indeed a bit be over the top. Arnoutf 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll ref
The References to this article have recently been formatted inside a fixed height scrollbox. The associated template:scrollref is relatively new. What do you guys think about this template being implemented on the EU site (please discuss here) or about the template in general (please discuss at its talkpage). My personal opinion is that as the references are at the back of the article a lengthy list is no problem for legibility of the body text. Hiding part of the list through application of this scrollbox obscures first glance assessment of the sources. Therefore I am against implementing this template Arnoutf 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why...
...is there a "1" next to the words "European Union" in the infobox? It's not linked to anywhere explaining its presence. --Islomaniac 973 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It refers to the footnote at the bottom of the infobox Arnoutf 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)