Talk:European integration/Archive 1

Picture
The "Marshall Plan" picture seems completely inappropriate... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.244.169 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Needs Work
I agree that there should be a page on European integration; however this page really needs some work. Whoever created it has given us a decent structure, but it needs a lot more content as at present it's almost a list of bullet points. I'll add some in due course, but I think everyone should feel free to chip in at this stage. We can worry about editing it down and removing POV entries once we actually have something to edit! Blankfrackis 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Haas link
Don't know how to change things on here but the link to Ernst Haas (the Life photographer) is not the same man as the political scientist who developed his theory on neo-functionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.138.92 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kovoso
I realise that Kosovo is not a recognised state, but a UN protectorate, and its status is currently under discussion. However, its inclusion in this table does not takes this facts into consideration, but merely states that is has adopted the euro currency, and is part of the European integration process. Danrowe (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As an example, Kosovo is also included in tables and figures in the Eurozone article. Danrowe (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The official currency in Serbia is the Serbian Dinar - CSD (1 dinar = 100 paras). Kosovo is already included in the table, despite it is not a recognised state by many members of the International Community Danrowe (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I added Serbia to the "Membership in European Union Agreements" list. I think it's OK, right? Fireleaf (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MEPs adopt simplified regime for the control of visas in Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus
Is there any way to add this development in the article? Check here. The European parliament gave the go-ahead for an extension of simplified controls of visas at the external frontiers of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus. This system will enable these Member States to recognise unilaterally certain documents issued by Schengen zone countries for third country nationals making visits of less than five days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the link after archiving in the europarl.eu. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CIS
Should the CIS be added? I think this is the second-largest by population union in Europe. Although it includes non-European countries as well, it also includes about a half of territory of Europe.--Dojarca (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYROM footnote
I'm not quite convinced the FYROM footnote is necessary, but if we must have it, let's be quite precise: the official term is not "FYROM", it's "the former ..."; it's not "the name recognised by the EU", but the provisional appellation used by the EU in the absence of a "recognised" name; and it's not the case that the country "is a candidate under" this name, because it's a unilateral thing: The EU, unilaterally, refers to the country as such; the country itself insists on its constitutional name in all domains including its dealings with the EU, so from its own perspective, it clearly is a candidate "under" its own name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust you to make the appropriate changes. you have expirience on the subject. I wrote the sentence a bit on hurry. The point is that this country is candidate as "Former...". I think this is somethings that has to be shown somewhere. The reason I insist is first of all that this is the official situation and secondaly that I searched the page to see if "FYROM" was candidate and Id din't find it. I think many editors from Greece will have the same problem. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

article focus
See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union. Alinor (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Warsaw Pact, the USSR, CIS and Russia-Belarus union are not included in this article?
Or the Eastern European integration is not considered relevant here?--Dojarca (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe because those are either defunct (Warsaw, USSR) or virtually inactive (CIS, Union State). 199.90.28.195 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CIS is active.--Dojarca (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How active is it? Georgia has withdrawn and 3 other countries didn't bother to attend the meeting in October of last year. It doesn't seem like it is actually doing much, the CIS page here certainly doesn't indicate vigorous activity. --199.90.28.195 (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Post-Soviet states Alinor (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill speech date
The date given for Winston Churchill's speech on a United States of Europe at the University of Zurich may be wrong. It lists the date at 9 September 1946, but a book edited by Churchill's grandson gives the date of the speech as 19 September 1946. In general, the source citation for the speech does not seem to be very reliable. Source: Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches ed. Winston S. Churchill (New York: Hyperion, 2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.195 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Boson (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed in "Europe is not a state"
As in the montevideo convention ([]), a state has the following attributes:


 * a permanent population (more than 500 milion people in EU)
 * defined territory (more than 4 million sq km)
 * Government (European Commission)
 * capacity to enter into relations with other states (embassies and a UN seat per Lisbon treaty)

Thus, EU exhibits all the above. While it certainly does not replace its component states, it has all the required attributes (after the Lisbon treaty is applied) to be a state in itself.

204.17.179.2 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Long live the EU

The EU is not recognized as a state by any legitimate body - e.g. the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, nor any nation on Earth (not even the independent EU component states believe the EU is a an independent nation state). There is no uniform currency (only the 16 Eurozone countries are on the Euro - 11 other EU countries have their own currency). The EU only sets monetary policy (and then again only for the Eurozone members) and does not have any say over fiscal policy, tax or spend policy, or any power therein. There is no EU wide tax (income, sales, or otherwise). The debt and spending guidelines set by the EU are regularly ignored. Though there are certainly mutual defense agreements and trade agreements (which makes it no different btw than NATO or NAFTA), each nation state has complete authority over its defense budget, whether it goes to war or not, and who it makes defense agreements with. The EU has no right to prevent any one of its component states from entering into trade or defense agreements with non-EU members. Furthermore, though the EU polity can pass laws, make treaties, etc., on behalf of all members, it cannot bind any component state to those treaties, laws, agreements, etc. unless the internal polity of the individual member state consents. In that sense the EU governing bodies do not meet the standard definition of a centralized government. Each EU members has an independent seat in the United Nations (and often oppose each others goals through that body). The EU has no governing vote or role in the United Nations, and can take no action that any one component state opposes. EU member states have routinely rejected further integration and the EU Constitution. There is no predominant culture, heritage, language, race, or centralized body of laws that all states abide by. The courts, legislatures, and executive branches of each component state trump any action by the EU central bodies (unless those independent states have previously consented to subordination, which they have not done on most issues) - again preventing the EU from meeting the standard definition of having a centralized government. It is clear that the EU is not an independent state, and absent the change of many policies and subordination of the component states to the whole, removal of the individual states from seats on the EU, NATO, etc., and recognition as an independent state from other sovereign bodies, the EU never will be.

You clearly want the EU to be considered its own country to compete with the USA (which is sort of sad that it takes your entire continent to equal the economy of the US, and its military still is dwarfed by the US (the entire EU still only has 1/3 the US military budget, and has less tanks, planes, ships, 1/3 the aircraft carrier/amphibious warships of the US, and 1/10 the nuclear weapons of the US, and is behind the US in technology and logistics). But the fact is that unless the EU can compel military service from its component states, tax its component states, maintains a large centralized EU military that it controls regardless of component state wishes, and can enter into trade and defense treaties regardless of component state support, and declare war even against component state wishes, and has a centralized government stronger than and centralized budget larger than its component states (in other words have the same kind of power the US federal government has over the US states) then it won't matter if the EU is considered an independent state. Absent those centralized powers and riches, the EU cannot call upon the wealth and military power of its components and as such will never be a real rival to US strength as the US central government can call upon and compel the riches and power of all its components at once.

As for your "P.S. Long live the EU" given all the recent problems in the EU, the collapse of the EURO, the near collapse of Greece and the imminent crash of the rest of the so called "PIGS" (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and the calls in Germany and elsewhere to pull out of the EU and end the Euro, one may wonder how "long" your beloved EU will indeed live. 68.49.150.115 (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * C'mon. See CIA Factbook where the EU is given a special treatment for having its own existence that is not strictly bound to its member state policies. And being not ruled by the military-industrial complex is clearly not a fault for the old continent. And for the last paragraph, hey, aren't there secession movements in the U.S. actively talking their way? Just don't call it done before it's done. While this should be obvious you fail to see how often the EU pushes laws into its member states. Lookup "Fax Democracy" to get an idea. So there is no governance with the EU? What? Guidod (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying there isn't any governance by the EU or that decisions made at the EU level have no effect, but those powers/abilities could hardly be compared to that of any other functioning central government. First, the EU clearly is not a country and is not recognized as such by any legitimate entity (or even the EU members themselves). And while it's level of integration is certainly greater than other economic zones, say NAFTA, it still does not rise to the level of a nation - it cannot compel any of its members to war, or prevent them from going to war (with a non-EU country), cannot compel them to raise or lower taxes, cannot compel them to raise or lower spending. There is also no power to prevent any member nation from entering into an independent treaty with a non-EU member, or prevent a member nation from going to war without EU consent. There is also no common currency (outside of the Eurozone), which would be the very basic ingredient for nationhood I would imagine. As far as succession movements in the US that's just silly. You have a loony governor of Texas who makes crazy statements to win political points and a few poorly armed, poorly funded, poorly organized militia groups that are routinely shut down by the FBI calling for succession, but no movement. Plus movements are meaningless on that subject as no state has the right to leave the Union. The US Civil War pretty much ended that issue and it is now unlawful and punishable by death (as treason) to openly advocate and pursue the separation of any state from the Union, and any state that tried to leave would be invaded and squashed in short order - which is not the case with the EU. 68.49.150.115 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right in the presented arguments but it does not reflect reality. While some legalese might imply that member countries could leave the EU they could not factually to do so for otherwise their economy would collapse - the economic integration (atleast in western Europe) is too strong already. That Norway fax democracy is one good example where the public does not want to join formally but they could not avoid being tightly bound into the EEA anyway. Similarly, the original question above was about what defines a nation. If you have just those four characteristics then the EU would be a nation but if you add the governance on foreign affairs then it is clearly not. Surely, the definition of bonding a nation principle to the question on foreign affairs and military is influenced by the concept of the U.S. constitution. The power separation of EU and its member states is surely different - you mentioned taxes for one example which AFAIK is not bound to the federal level in the U.S. unless covered by the enumerated powers where some subjects were delegated.
 * So far so good - one could leave it on the definition "separation of powers is different and the assessment of how powers are delegated may differ". But let me add one thing: the way the US constitution splits the powers between federal level and member states is foremost one thing: it is clear and sane and it works for the most part (the subject of EP is still a weak point I think). Looking at the bunch of EU treaties and how those delegate powers on some subjects, well, most people would call it a mess and obviously it simply does not work in many ways and it certainly stumbles when something unusual happens. The tendency in Europe however is to make it work. There is always a drive to consolidate (the Treaty of Lisbon originally started under the name of "Reform Treaty").
 * So, if you make the impression that Europe will fall apart and that those decades of adding more integration will be cut off such that the federal concepts will vanish, well, be sure to provoke harsh objections. That European Federation thing is on the mind of many people and some war dog presidents in the U.S. have certainly pushed more people in Europe to focus to the common values of the old continent. (and by the way, the military of the EU has silently pushed into the direction that Europe could leave the NATO without sacrificing their security which certainly was not the case in the last century where European countries were pretty much dependent on some military services only provided by the U.S. forces. In reality now the Core Europe countries might declare joint forces by tomorrow... it's been all prepared behind the scenes and it is just on hold for doing some diplomacy to get more countries aboard. Let the U.S. get into another Gulf War and see the results appear promptly). Guidod (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fail at the most basic level. The European Commission is not a government, it is a civil service. The nearest thing to a government is the European Council which has no legislative power. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see any meaningful way in which the European Commission can be described as a government. The main decisionmaking bodies in the EU continue to be the Council / European Council (with the Parliament afforded decisionmaking power in specific areas). It's fair to say the Commission is more like a civil service than a government, given its role in the legislative process is only to propose legislation. Also, if you were to shift this argument to claim that the Council / European Council constitute a government then that's also problematic given the two bodies are simply composed of government ministers from the member states. Blankfrackis (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

reorganise the table?
Hi,

I thought it would better to organise the table of states and agreements at by the color code they have on the map raughter than the alphabet. Thoughts? --U5K0 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reorganised and added some links (more needed). I think it's better now than it was before.--U5K0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article has one table with different EU agreements:

Another similar table was the following one:

I think that both of these can be easily combined - in addition to the first one the second one has NATO column and some comments/notes.

But both of these templates deal mostly with EU initiatives (ESA and NATO are the sole exceptions) and participation in EU-initiatives is already shown at Multi-speed Europe (including differences in EU members participation and the participation of non-EU states in EU-initiatives). That's why I think that here we should have a section/table dedicated to non-EU initiatives specifically and the participation of EU members in these non-EU initiatives:


 * Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives

x - member c - candidate s - associate member

What about combining tables1&2 and restoring the section "Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives"? Alinor (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What about this table from International organizations in Europe?



{{legend|#99BADD|high income ($12,195 or more)}} {{legend|#BFFFBF|upper middle income ($3,946 - $12,195)}} {{legend|#FFFF00|lower middle income ($996 - $3,945)}}

1 These countries are currently not participating in the EU's single market (EEA), but the EU has common external Customs Union agreements with Turkey (EU-Turkey Customs Union in force since 1995), Andorra (since 1991) and San Marino (since 2002). Monaco participates in the EU customs union through its relationship with France; its ports are administered by the French. Vatican City has a customs union in effect with Italy. 2 Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City are not members of Schengen, but act as such via their open borders with France and Italy, respectively. 3 Switzerland is not official member of EEA but has bilateral agreements largely with same content, making it virtual member.

On what basis is Coudenhove-Kalergi 'the first' to consider European integration?
I am puzzled by the assertion that  One of the first to conceive of a union of European nations was Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who wrote the Pan-Europa manifesto in 1923.' 
 * Just off the top of my head I can go back to at least the late 17th century and mention William Penn and his An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of a European Dyet, Parliament or Estates (a link is provided at the end of the Wikipedia entry on Penn). So, is there any particular reason for focusing explicitly on Coudenhove-Kalergi? PS. I do realize, that C-K was prominent in pushing the issue, but he was by no means the   first   to think of European integration.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver via Vienna to Vladivostok
I like this phrase better than the Lisbon version. It has alliteration at least in the English language, so it sounds more poetic. OSCE has many of its meetings in Vienna, and Vienna for some time was one of the neutral window on the iron curtain. Certainly an over-romanticized phrase, but not quite inappropriate in this context. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Croatia - EEA relation
I reverted the unsourced removal of Croatia from the EEA member list. Source: http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement.aspx "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States."

Diffs: removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you evidently didn't read the whole source you linked to. The footnote says: "31 EEA States, once Croatia's accession to the EEA has been finalised".  Other sources: "As well as becoming the 28th member of the European Union, Croatia has applied to become a member of the European economic area ...", "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA ..." "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA".  There is a discussion at Talk:European_Economic_Area on this.  TDL (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not read the whole because the intro says "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States.", which I took as "28 EU Member States are part of the EEA". If the website is not false then at least it is inviting misunderstandings. I don't know what means "brings together". TeraCard (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article European Economic Area which also claimed it wrongly. Thanks for your research on the matter. TeraCard (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not very clear. I'm not sure what "brings together" is supposed to mean...  TDL (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding things
Hi,

I was looking at all the tables above and I thought it would be a good idea to add information about NATO, OSCE and CoE to the table (it'll complicate the map colour scheme but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it). Also I was wanting to add a section about pan-European meteorology organisations such as EUMETSAT, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and EUMETNET but I thought it would make more sense to have an environment section instead. Anyone know what else could go in there? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of possible additions:
 * EUMETSAT
 * European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
 * EUMETNET
 * European Civil Aviation Conference
 * Eurocontrol
 * European Common Aviation Area
 * CERN
 * European Molecular Biology Laboratory
 * European Southern Observatory
 * EFDA
 * European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
 * Institut Laue–Langevin
 * Energy Community
 * European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity

Sign --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except EFDA and Energy Community all added, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&oldid=563725220#Overlap_of_membership_in_various_agreements TeraCard (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

More regional integration
The article Post-Soviet states lists TeraCard (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Community of Democratic Choice
 * Black Sea Forum for Partnership and Dialogue
 * Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation
 * Central European Initiative
 * Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations
 * Union State of Russia and Belarus