Talk:Euroscepticism/Archive 1

France

 * On the right, Jean-Marie Le Pen (National Front) and Philippe de Villiers are eurosceptic.

I haven't been following French politics, but is Le Pen a right-wing politician, I thought he was a radical supporter of protectionism and state intervensionism.


 * Le Pen is generally counted as "extreme-right", and Villiers is certainly right-wing. Le Pen's economic policies, shall we say, are not extremely coherent. He's in favor of protectionism, withdrawal from the Euro, but also in favor of diminishing the number of government workers (while at the same time increasing the number of policemen) and reducing taxes.
 * Le Pen started his career under Pierre Poujade and still has this thing about defending the "little guys" (i.e. farmers, small shop owners, artisans, etc...).
 * Besides, being in favor of protectionism and state interventionism is not contradictory with being right-wing. The differences are elsewhere (to caricature, the right spends on the military and police, the left on education). David.Monniaux 08:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Sources of British euroskepticism
I largely copyedited User:Thewikipedian's changes (and I still think there are two many "strenghten" here and there). I disagree with his affirmation that Britain did not insist on joining the EEC: evidently, the British government made repeated bid for joining, and this definitely counts as "insisting" (now, of course, one may argue that Britain designates the country, and that, in that case, the British government did not represent the ideas of its own people; is that the case?).

I softened the allegation that "most people in the UK feel they do not have...". Such statements should be backed with polls, otherwise they may simply reflect the wishful thinking of some people who claim their opinion is a majority opinion. I'd be happy to reinstate the original formulation if somebody could point to serious polls on the issue. David.Monniaux 14:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't like the word "insist", as it portraied the UK as country that was almost "begging" to join, which was not the case. The goverment thought that membership was good for the country, but the British economy was doing fine outside the EEC.

Of course, submiting several times an aplication to join could be considered as "insisting on becoming a member". But then, this could apply to Norway, which has applied twice, but has failed to join due to popular opposition.

Regarding the statement that"most people in the UK feel they do not have..."? I am pretty sure that I did not write that.

Sorry about the abuse of "strengh". I will watch out next time.[user:thewikipedian|thewikipedian]

Euro a failure?
Can someone explain to me why the Euro is considered a failure in the UK? Just today, Kenneth Clarke, who is a contester for the leadership of a national party, anounced that it had been a mistake for him to have backed the euro because it is a 'failure'. What is meant by that? In the UK, I've heard the argument that the single interest rate is bad, yet Scotland and the north of England have long been crippled by having a single interest rate with the south of England - a quite different economy. Please help a confused foriegner! Seabhcán 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think a disinterested observer would conclude that the Euro has failed as a currency. It's been stable and is starting to rival the US dollar as the default international currency, but it hasn't had the dramatic effect on policies in the Euro zone that the British centre-right hoped. Clarke said "I thought it would lead to increased productivity, efficiency and living standards and stimulate policy reforms. On that front so far it has been a failure." I expect his change of heart has to do with political expediency. Europe is the issue that has riven the Conservatives for over a decade and the Eurosceptic majority in that party cannot countenance the idea of a successful Euro or a leader too sympathetic towards it. Duncan Keith 13:57:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Anne Enger Lahnstein
A noted Norwegian eurosceptic during the Treaty of Maastricht negotiations was Anne Enger Lahnstein, representing Senterpartiet.

Why is this more relevant that the dozens of other Eurosceptic politicians in other countries? I suggest it be removed. Gerry Lynch 15:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Eurorealism
Agree - all articles of the same stripe of views should be in one article with only in depth sections being break-away articles.--jrleighton 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Euronaivism
Agree - all articles of the same stripe of views should be in one article with only in depth sections being break-away articles.--jrleighton 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - unless I am misreading the article, Euronaivism appears to be a term of abuse coined by eurosceptics to describe europhiles, ie. the exact opposite of euroscepticism Sceptic 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Danish population
I feel that this article makes a conclusion on Danish "enthusiasm" on European initiatives that is not founded in fact. In Denmark, as in most countries, there is a left wing and a right wing opposition on EU. What I would think the data suggests is that the left wing is sceptical about any development in EU, whereas the right wing opposition has only been effective since around the Maastricht Treaty. This does not mean that the left wing is more sceptical of new European initiatives, but since the EU as such is traditionally rejected on the left wing, it is rather a novelty that the left wing supports any vote on EU, and their voters haven't followed the parties as of yet.

The six results from Danish votes about EU were:
 * 1973: Memership 63.4% yes
 * 1986: "EC-package", 56.2% yes
 * 1992: Maastricht, 49.3 yes (fell)
 * 1993: Maastricht + Edinbourgh, 56.7% yes
 * 1998: Amsterdam, 55.1% yes
 * 2000: Euro: 46.8% yes (fell)

It is hard to trace "enthusiasm" in any of these results, I would say.

Given the last result, it is very hard to say that changes of an economic nature generally are well seen upon in Denmark.

The latter paragraph in the article very much ignore the general opposition to what is percieved by many to be a large, unflexible system. The safety net and the value of "smallness" is only part of the picture, a lot of the opposition is about the construction of what is percieved as a large, unnessecairy bureaucracy.

Oh, just for good measure, I am myself a Danish left-wing federalist, rather a small group. --Jakob mark 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Defence of Euroskepticism"
What is the purpose of this paragraph? It gives the impression that Euroskepticism is not a "proper" view to be held, and hence must be defended, the paragraph alleges, but Euroskeptics arguing that they are not really against the EU. Is there a "Defence of Socialism" in the socialism article or a "Defence of capitalism" in the capitalism article? Surely the article should simply set out what Euroskeptics believe and allow those views to stand on their own feet.

NPOV

Hi not sure if I should put this on the talk, or the discussion page, what's the difference?

"After decades of anti-racist campaigns, it became acceptable again to be against foreigners."

Does this seem POV to anyone else?

"Agitated European politicians regarded the support of Dutch politicians for the anti-European sentiments of their population as an uncooperative Calvinist attitude. Most Dutch people support the European Union, but are against too much power for the European institutions."

Now this has got to be POV. I haven't made any edits to the main article (except for disputing the neutrality, i think i put the sign in the wrong place), I want to see what other people think, but there is not one citation (that I can see) in this entire article, and that Calvinist assertion seems to be extremely value laden. Again, with the "most dutch support", a lot of assertion and no citation.

autocratus


 * Definately. I deleted the first sentence you quoted - Euroscepticism is nothing to do with "being against foreigners" and this is clearly NPOV, designed to portray EUskeptics as racists. I then added a citation needed tag to the assertion that most Dutch people are pro-EU. I left the Calvinist thing, but I think it needs to be altered (just not sure what to), as it seems pretty clearly POV. The "Euroskepticism in the British Press" bit also seems clearly POV, citing numerous examples of the British press making mistakes but not citing any other article written with an anti-EU theme. All in all, the entire article gives me the impression that it was intended to convey the idea that EUskepticism is tantamount to racism and something that shouldnt really be socially acceptable. Clearly it needs serious editting, and is generally a scandalous state for a so-called encyclopedia to be in, but then this is wikipedia after all... 88.105.249.165 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Into separate national articles
Hi, I feel this article has become too long and the part dedicated to the UK has become unbalanced. I suggest moving everything national into new separate articles, and keeping here what is relevant on the European scale only.--Arnaudherve 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Party
I deleted reference to this UK party. It got 129 votes at the 2005 General Election, in one constituency. This user has also created an article Imperial Party which claims it has seats in London and Northern Ireland, but it is not in either assembly. In addition, the user has vandalised the List of political parties in the United Kingdom, giving the Imperial Party 27 seats in the House of Commons, and created a page on the British far right apparently to attribute the Imperial Party programme to the entire UK far right.Paul111 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IPA
Could someone add IPA to this article? I added a link to the pronunciation note on skepticism/scepticism, but that looks rather sloppy as it is. Darkildor 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's IPA ? India Pale Ale is the usual meaning to most of us Brits. --219.79.220.134 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help stop EU banners populating Wikipedia
Wikipedia needs a cleanup from some of the recently and very systematically inserted euro-propaganda:

(1) there are EU banners added to articles about languages (it would be enough to mention that a language is an official working language of the EU, but it is not appropriate to insert a distracting political banner (a box and a flag!) at the bottom of every language article); moreover, languages are correctly categorised linguistically and not on the basis of a political agenda;

Example: Estonian language (look for "Official languages of the European Union")

(2) there are unnecessary links to the .eu internet domain article from each and every article about the member countries. Firstly, in real-life terms, the .eu registration is not restricted to the union's countries (see http://www.azam.biz/eu-domain-names-fraud/), and, secondly, why not add link to .com, .net and .org from all of those country articles, because com/net/org are registrable and popular in all those countries! "EU" is notorious for being an animal that wants to be more equal than other animals...

Example: Estonia (look for "also .eu, shared with other European Union member states")

It seems that these banners and links are inserted by a bot (they are identical on all the pages involved). Can someone who is a more experienced Wikipedia editor help to reduce the eu bias?


 * erm.. in a word, no. From what I can gather what you refer to is neither euro-proaganda nor eu bias.  It looks to me like the simple tagging of articles which have relevance to the EU in some respect.  Nothing to blow steam about.  Marcus22 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Help stop national banners populating Wikipedia?
Given that national flag banners are already inserted en masse into articles about member states and related articles (on their geography, demographics, history, government and so on), what reason is there to remove EU symbols specifically?Paul111 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The EU-spam banner unfortunately is currently widespread in Wikipedia (November 2006). Just noticed that the spam banner is also translated in other languages; example - at the bottom of a Croatian article about the Italian language http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talijanski . Why does it classify as spam? -- Because every such banner, and there could be hundreds or thousands of them if you multiply the number of "EU languages" with the number of Wikipedia languages, contains an outward link to the EU political website. I think massive outward linking classifies as link spam; moreover, in this case it is graphically reinforced with the non-neutral EU flags. It would be fair to just include a mention that a language is an EU working language if individual contributors wish to do so; but robotically disseminating EU banners throughout Wikipedia amounts to misuse of bandwidth and to spreading of biased eurocrat/europhile views. Wikipedia |is not a link farm. EU should not be an exception to anti-spamming rules, and its banners should be withdrawn or at least toned down.

There is no link to an "EU political website", but to the official list of EU official languages, which is clearly identified as "Source". It may be cluttering up the template, true, but it is not a plot.Paul111 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's one:
--Greasysteve13 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism and Euroscepticism
I added a couple sentences near the beginning about how traditionally Protestant countries in Europe seem more reluctant to accept the EU. I've witnessed this in person; in the Netherlands, I met people who continued to use the old Dutch guilder at local markets because the euro is "Catholic money." I was told that this practice goes on in parts of some other Northern European countries. User:69.47.102.177 05:19, 14 Feb 2005


 * Interesting theory. As far as I understand, this is rather a new theory, which is why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
 * Nice try!
 * --Johan Magnus 05:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly new theory. I've read about the 12 stars on the EU being an allegory the Virgin Mary ever since the flag was introduced. In fact, here's a little blurb I found from the Economist magazine:

"The European flag of 12 yellow stars on a blue background also owes something to Catholicism. Arsene Heitz, who designed it in 1955, recently told Lourdes magazine that his inspiration had been the reference in the Book of Revelation, the New Testament's final section, to “a woman clothed with the sun...and a crown of twelve stars on her head." (The Economist, October 28, 2004) [1] (http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3332056) User:69.47.102.177 06:22, 14 Feb 2005


 * The stared flag "resented by some Protestants" being perceived as a symbol for Catholicism. And this causes Euroscepticism due to fear of a Catholic reconquest? --Johan Magnus 06:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johan. The theory that the EU flag has its roots in Catholicism is not new, but the theory that Protestantism is linked to euroscepticism, while intriguing, doesn't belong here unless there are some independent sources that develop it. Wombat 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Same for me. David.Monniaux 10:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The EU flag was designed by Gerard Slevin not Arsene Heitz. Seabhcán 12:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The book The Principality and Power of Europe by Adrian Hilton is hostile to the EU on Protestant grounds and claims that the Roman Catholic Church is a driving force behind integration and 'ever closer union'. It's claims were endorsed by Lord Tonypandy, Lord Harris of High Cross, Sir Richard Body MP and Martin Howe QC. - Johnbull 15:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link to Religious opposition to the EU. A religious magazine distributed in 'major grocery stores and supermarket chains in 89 Northeast Ohio cities' hardly seems an authoritative source on euroscepticism. Duncan Keith 04:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The notion of protestant opposition to the EU is interesting, but there has to be an independent verifiable source. I recently read a snippet in a newspaper about people in France refusing to use the euro, but my take on those kind of stories is that the press uses unsourced material to push a POV + people who object to the currency of their economy are daft old codgers or just plain stupid.--Shtove 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

moved "Euroscepticism in Greece"
originaly from 85.50.133.205 in 6 november.--81.245.59.74 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Euroscepticism has been traditionally significant in Greece. When Greece joined the then so-called EEC (European Economic Community), not only fringe Greek parties but also some first-line Greek socialist politicians (then in power) expressed their disaffection with the idea.

Few years later, Greece's populist prime minister Andreas Papandreou threatened the EEC to take Greece out of the Community for political purposes and trying to exploit the Greeks' nationalism and patriotism. Papandreou also acted in a similar away relating to Greece's position with NATO. Those years, far-right and far-left Greek political parties were also eurosceptic (for different reasons though: the far right because the EEC menaced the "national essences" of Greece, and the Communists because the EEC was seen as a "Capitalist" lobby).

In the early 1990's, Greece feared the wave of nationalist hysteria following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The country was concerned that the new countries gaining independence from the former Yugoslavia (especially the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) threatened Greek territorial integrity, and that the EEC's recognition of such "invented" states was treacherous to Greek national interests. This fuelled a renewed eurosceptic trend within Greek politics, and a new, anti-EEC party was created by the then Foreign Minister Antonis Samaras.

By 2001 and 2002, the introduction of the euro currency was accompanied with inflation in Greece, which fed yet another wave of euroscepticism. Few voices expressed concern for the negative effect the euro was having on the then increasingly stronger Greek economy, and figures in both the Parliament and the media called for the restoration of the drachma. Ideologically, moreover, the euro was seen as a unwanted innovation in Greece, having replaced the centuries-old drachma, the Greek traditional currency, and as such it symbolically meant the replacement of Greek economic sovereignty in favour of "technochrat" rule from Brussels. After the euro introduction, the posture of anti-immigration, nationalist parties such as LA.O.S. has stressed the necessity of Greece to recover its former currency.

From 2002, euroscepticism in Greece has remained stable in popularity. The far right (as well as some patriotically-minded conservatives, now ruling) has maintained an anti-EU stance, and has relatively successfully exploited Greeks' fear of their country being overwhelmed in an enormous Europe. Examples are the Hellenic Front of Makis Voridis, the Patriotic Alliance and the notorious Georgios Karatzaferis, all of which have done small yet significant advances. However, it is the Communists of the KKE who have championed Euroscepticism in Greece. With nearly 10% of popular support, it is noteworthy that one of the pillars of the KKE's program is taking Greece out of the EU. Euroscepticism in Greece has still another strong supporter in the Church of Greece, which is known for its nationalistic stances. The expressive and vociferous Archbishop Christodoulos has expressed many times his (and thus, the Church's) stance against the European Union, which is portrayed as "evil", "malignant" and as a multi-culturalist threat to the ethnically homogeneous and religiously Orthodox character of the Greek nation.

Cleanup, sourcing, and weasel wording
A lot of work needs to be done to this:


 * Don't say "some people say" or "many people respond" without attribution. This is weasel wording. Who says, who responds? Source and attribute such statements.
 * Similarly, if you wish to include "factual" information, add a reference. Don't use your personal knowledge or thoughts to write, use reliable sources.
 * Finally, there may be some POV issues. While the article is specifically about those who oppose the EU, and should certainly focus on that, I imagine at least some answers or rebuttals have been made to the "Euroskeptic" position. If so, those need to be included. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree, I don't want to start some sort of wikipedia war by changing anything yet, but I think some issues need to be addressed. For instance this section:


 * "Eurosceptics oppose the idea of a centralised European superstate, a United States of Europe akin to the United States of America, which many see as the inevitable outcome of current integrationist trends. This is a perception disputed by some, but by no means all, pro-Europeans."


 * Is completely unacceptable. The assertion that the EU will develop into a state akin to the United States is hugely controversial. It is completely unacceptable to throw this in using weasel words. I would estimate that the vast majority of citizens in EU member states do not believe the EU will become a Federalised state. To say "many see (this) as the inevitable outcome of current integrationist trends" implies that this is the majority opinion, when quite frankly there is little evidence of that. Nor is any source given. Blankfrackis 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish vandalised sign
I'm probably just thinking about it too much, but does anyone else think the Polish vandalised sign might not be the best pic in the world for the purpose? My main reason for saying so is that the flag is incorrect to begin with (the stars are not all upright as they should be) - i.e. while unlikely, it could have been done by a supporter since it was wrong to begin with. While that's unlikely, it could still be nothing to do with the EU (I've seen advertisements vandalise with "X" drawn on them, when they contained absolutely nothing objectionable i.e. just vandalism for the sake of vandalism) unless we have a source that says it is. Or is there at least a more specific reason why its treated as such (i.e. some treaty was signed the day before etc.) Do we? Cause I couldn't find one on the image page. - Рэд хот (t • c • e) 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

“Euroscepticism rebuttals”—Where’s the rebuttal?
In the section labelled “Euroscepticism rebuttals”, there aren’t actually any rebuttals; only links to sites that might have a rebuttal if you could actually find the document. It would be good if someone could identify actual documents that are rebuttals. I guess the next best would be changing the section title to something more appropriate. — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 09:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"British membership of the EEC was endorsed by 66% of voters."
This claim is misleading and wrong. 67.2% of those who voted supported membership, not 67.2% of those allowed to vote. The turnout was only 64.5% and therefore less than 50% of the electorate voted to remain in the EEC and even less to leave. - Johnbull 15:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Misleading, I agree - but surely ambiguous, not wrong? "Voters" could mean "those who voted" or "those eligible to vote". Instead, it should say "those who voted". I'll make that change. Wombat 15:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes I guess it could be interpreted in many ways. - Johnbull

The same pro-euro lie was repeated in the case of the Latvian referendum concerning the EU. The percentages were nearly the same as in the UK case (about 65% voted, of which about 65% voted "for EU"), resulting in CLEARLY LESS THAN 50% of the eligible electorate backing the EU thing. The next day, the official media (mostly fat-cat owned) trumpeted tastelessly about their "overwhelming victory"; it was sad to watch such a bias in the media (including the BBC). The EU thus cheats us with simple maths.


 * A close to 2/3 majority of those voting is fairly overwhelming. If people chose not to vote they chose not to vote and should not be artificially co-opted to one side or the other for the purposes of making a point. And it is very common to see "population", "electorate" and "people who voted" used sloppily interchangeably in discussions about voting results with no wider agenda - look how much talk there is of the US being a "50/50" divided nation that ignores completely the huge number of people who don't vote at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Euroscepticism isn't a "controversial issue" in the UK at all...the vast majority of the public want out...


 * Inaccurate. Euroscepticism is 'controversial' in that it causes a great deal of debate. And no, only ~30% of people want to leave the EU, versus ~40% wanting to remain in. Views always move over time and opinion polls differ, but it has never been the case that the vast majority (or even the overall majority) want to leave the EU.

Nordic Euroscepticism
It is notable that a number of the Nordic countries are not members, and/or have had Eurosceptic incidents. I think that a discussion of these collectively would be worthwhile, although Greenland is slightly different, being non-European to begin with. --MacRusgail 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its really a north european thing, excluding Ireland and Finland. Seabhcán 21:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Kind of, but I feel that Scandinavia, plus Iceland, the Faroes, Aland islands etc represent a kind of collective rejection that may partly be due to their pan-Nordic connections, e.g. Nordic council etc. Also, there should be something about the various dependencies such as Aland and Faroe, not to mention the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Madeira, Canaries, which are outside the EU for their own reasons, while their connected states are full EU members. --MacRusgail 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A section is warranted, true. But it has to be emphasised that much Swedish opposition is because the EU does not go far enough re: social welfare issues and environmental issues. This is diametrically opposed to British Euroscepticism. Eurosceptic is a very loose label. Setwisohi (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Acta Politica vol 42
Acta Politica Volume 42, Issue 2-3 (July 2007), SPECIAL ISSUE: Understanding Euroscepticism Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The British press
some newspapers are perceived to be Eurosceptic and have been known to publish many perceived anti-EU stories


 * These are weasel words. Come on... we know who we're talking about here. No need to be beat around the bush. Mintguy 16:34, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it is called NPOV. Perhaps we could name some papers instead? We ought to differentiate between euroscepticism and xenophobia though. - stet 16:45, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. It's not NPOV it's using weasel words that end up saying nothing. I could just as easily write "some newspapers are perceived to be written by chimpanzees and have been known to publish many perceived anti-gorilla stories". Can that be denied? The fact is there ARE British papers that consistently publish anti-EU stories and it is well known. It is nothing to do with anyone's individual perception of the newspaper or the story. Mintguy 16:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay. I agree that a paper can be Eurosceptic, but the stories it publish can only be 'perceived' to be anti-EU. If a story that cast the EU in a bad light were published, the paper could be said to be eurosceptic, but the story must only be 'perceived' anit-EU if it is true.


 * How can I put this better? If I said 'snakes are poisonous, they can kill' it would be a far fetch to call me anti-snake just because I publish what is true. I shall remove the first 'perceive'. - stet 17:02, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well it's the spin put on a story and also blatant untruths. - e.g. from

Daily Express, 21 January 2003, page 21
 * A village has been ordered to pull down its playground swings because they are too tall. An edict from Brussels states that the height of children&#8217;s swings must be no more than three metres.


 * Reality: No-one has been ordered to remove their playground swings by the EU. The non-mandatory measure referred to here has nothing to do with the EU &#8211; it is an instrument of the European Standardisation Committee, and was adopted as a British Standard some years ago.

Untruths are one thing, truthful reporting is another. I can't let the snake be angry at me for letting others know of its poison. Look at it this way, if you said 'the House of Lords is anachronistic and undemocratic', I would agree with you and consider it truthful criticism, others though may consider you anti-British. It all depends on the listeners Point Of View, and I can't let you call a newspaper story anti-EU simply because it tells the truth.

Can we also get rid of the part about xenophobia? That is a different thing altogether, though I agree some tabloids are awfull (Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror). - stet 17:20, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Eh? The Daily Mirror is europhile!

I find the part on the British tabloids to be very weasely. That those tabloids publish blatant untruths on the EU is a *fact*. Of course, most if not all newspapers publish things that are inaccurate or lacking in research, but here they do so consistently, usually with indignant and often misleading comments.

We could also signal the prominent role that Rupert Murdoch plays and the fact that The Sun is one of the few major newspapers in Europe that uses slurs to call the citizens of the neighbouring countries or insults their heads of state. David.Monniaux 11:41, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC) Notwithstanding all the discussion above, this page has clearly been worked on a great deal and the result is a good one. As a newcomer to the page, I'm impressed, overall, with the way the current incarnation handles some politically sensitive and potentially controversial subjects while generally staying on the right side of NPOV. It remains neutral while also managing to be judiciously informative. A refreshing example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work! Toby W 12:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That said, I am about to do some restructuring edits... :o) Toby W

I haven't looked at this article in a while. I can't believe how wishy washy it now is.Mintguy (T)


 * Well, for once I don't agree with you! I don't have that problem with it at all (and fwiw I'm about as far from being eurosceptic as it's possible to be!). Perhaps you could point out what you'd like to change? Toby W 17:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it's the weasel terms that are used throughout. But most glaringly in the section on the UK and the Tories in particular. e.g.
 * "In one case, the UK Conservative Party has apparently been riven by strife over Europe since the 1970s."
 * - Apparently. Bloody hell yes.
 * "Many commentators believe this to be an important reason why the conservatives lost the British General Election of 2001."
 * - Er... well William Hague banging on about "Saving the Pound" as if it was the only issue of interest to people didn't help much for sure. Anyone dispute this?
 * "Other commentators argue that the British electorate was more strongly influenced by domestic social policy issues than by European affairs." 		::Yes well that was the bloody point wasn't it. Hague chanting - "Save the Pound" wasn't influencing peoples opinions one whit. They had to change tack halfway through the election.

Toby, if you are about to do a major edit, please get rid of these weasel terms like "apparently" and "perceived" and "some commentators say"; it sucks. Mintguy (T) 18:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

David.Monniaux - I couldn't agree more with you, it's a simple fact that tabloids like The Sun use racist slurs against other countries. But the thing is that not everyone agrees, so to stay on the right side of NPOV we do still have to include the "it is often claimed that" phrase, however strongly we both feel that it's just obvious. The article as it stands does add that most eurosceptics (and pro-Europeans, of course) disassociate themselves from the remarks. I think that's suitably NPOV. What do you reckon? Toby W 23:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact that some people deny the obvious is not enough to justify using weaselspeak - after all, there probably are people denying that the earth is round. The Sun uses xenophobic slurs, that's a *fact*, and an encyclopedia must report facts, however unflattering. What may be argued upon is whether they do so in jest, in bad taste, or in a conscious desire to influence politics. This is, of course, a largely speculative question unless we can back up any affirmation on this with quotes from the management of those newspapers; but it's not relevant at this point, because we don't make such affirmations. David.Monniaux 06:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear sir I have removen the word 'accuse' from the sentence about British tabloids and xenophobia. You can only accuse someone of a crime. Xenophobia, like rank hypocrisy, may be wrong but it is not a crime.

What...? This is simply incorrect...of course you can "accuse" someone of something other than a crime....I accuse you of being an idiot...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.68.95 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what Webster says, for it admits the meaning of "To charge with a fault; to blame". WordNet says "blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior". David.Monniaux 20:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well done. I also have a dictionary. 195.92.168.171 20:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The word 'label' is better suited to this sentence as proven by the article on xenophobia which states: '3. The word Xenophobic is often used as a political insult against Racists, Isolationists, and Nationalists.' If you wish to claim that eurosceptic tabloids are any of these things then do so. But provide evidence. 195.92.168.171 20:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a citation for the Tony Blair Quote? I'd really like something on the subject. klaustus

Removal of balance statement
I removed this addition: "In fact, the British press is unusually balanced in its coverage of Europe - at both ends of the market, there are a similar number of Europhile and Eurosceptic titles. On the continent, the press tends to be monolithically pro-Brussels. Denmark, for example, has 42 daily papers, all of which have a pro-European slant." I don't know about Denmark, but I can't see how the assertion of balance between europhile and eurosceptic press in Britain can be justified. Duncan Keith 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. In Ireland all newspapers are generally pro-EU. This doesn't mean that they are unbalanced. They critise the EU regularly on specific issues. All Irish papers are also pro-Ireland and I assume all British papers are pro-Britian. Does this make them unbalanced? Seabhcán 08:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the removal, but think something else should be there instead. It's true that there are a number of pro-European and anti-European titles in the UK, but in terms of readership, more than three quarters of the press is heavily anti-EU. If I can find some decent stats, I think we should add that information instead. Wombat 08:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Stats on this might be quite hard to find. I've just e-mails the European Commission's UK press office - its a place to start looking. I'll post any replys here. Seabhcán 10:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got those stats. Here are the readership figures for the national press: |newspdata|nationalnews2. And here are some very rough calculations: We can divide the newspapers fairly roughly into 2 categories, generally positive and generally negative. In the former category we have Express & Sunday Express, Times & Sunday Times, Star & Sunday Star, News of the World, Scotsman, Mail & Mail on Sunday, Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, and the Sun. in the latter category we have Mirror & Sunday Mirror, FT, Indy, Grauniad & Observer. (Any more?) Categorising by readership, then, this puts 80% of the media (17.5m readers) in the eurosceptic camp, the remaining 20% (4.5m) in the pro-EU camp. Wombat 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How are you defining eurosceptic? Seabhcán 14:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well now, here we come to the sticking point, because of course I don't have any good definition of eurosceptic except my own impressions of what I've read. Personally, I would count a paper as eurosceptic if it regularly puts a negative spin on stories about the EU, but who decides what counts as a 'negative spin' and what's just 'honesty in reporting'? That, I suppose, is the problem with trying to give statistics for what is essentially a subjective judgement.


 * Plus, there's some overlap. Some papers I put on the pro side (e.g. FT) employ sceptic correspondents and do still publish articles frequently attacking some EU measure or other. And some papers that are very definitely on the anti side occasionally write nice things, or at least neutral things, about Europe - sometimes even including the Telegraph.


 * Add to that the fact that it's much harder to draw a definite judgement with the so-called 'quality press' than it is with the tabloids (because only the tabloids are often caught expressing an out-and-out opinion, rather than just subtly spinning their stories), and the whole situation is a bit of a mess really.


 * How would you define eurosceptic? :o) Wombat 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What you've said above seems reasonable, but I'm also not sure how to define it. I'd prefer to get a definition from an outside source, such as the European Commission. Then we can simply quote them, and its NPOV. ;-) Seabhcán 19:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a fair few people would take issue with the fact that a definition from the European Commission would be NPOV! :o) Wombat 08:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * True. But I presume that the eurosceptic press don't define themselves as eurosceptic. They say they're honestly reporting. So defining a paper as eurosceptic is POV so we need to quote someone doing it. The EC is on the other side of the arguement. Seabhcán 08:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. As long as we phrase it appropriately, it'll be fine. Wombat 09:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lede
"'Opposition to the European Union exists throughout the political spectrum; Adapting to political ideologies for various justifications and oppositions. The fundamental criticisms of the EU, regard it as a corrupt, undemocratic, uneconomic, and overwhelmingly bueracratic institution.'" This paragraph seems to be badly written. It's difficult to say what it is supposed to mean exactly. The references provided don't appear to be valid sources for the claims made.--Boson (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a start. This is what the EU is perceived as being by many individuals and organizations throughout Europe. The bias towards EU related matters on Wikipedia is something that needs to be seriously addressed. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a start, but it is a bad start. Apart from the spelling and grammar, the introduction contains unsourced points of view. The references provided do seem to support the assertion that certain people make certain criticisms of the EU, but most of the references given do not support the statements actually made in the article. The last two references you have since added might support some of the assertions, so I would suggest you remove the irrelevant references and adapt the text to reflect what the remaining sources actually criticize. Of course, there remains the problem that it is difficult to write a neutral, objective article when it is named "Euroscepticism". --Boson (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would propose the article to be renamed "Criticism of the European Union" instead, with the Criticism of the United Nations article seen as how this article should be written. "Euroscepticism" merely undermines such criticisms as a meaningless neologism. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since "Criticism of the European Union" would be understood as negative, one would, presumably, then need an article entitled "Praise of the European Union". Perhaps it would be better to rename the article "Attitudes toward the European Union" [in EU member states?], which would be more in line with the spirit of WP:NPOV and would allow "Eurosceptic", "Europhilic", and neutral attitudes to be presented, based on facts. One could, of course, have redirects from Euroscepticism, Europhilia, Praise of the European Union, Criticism of the European Union", etc.--Boson (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should be based upon the perception of EU policies, requirements and actions, and how these are portrayed or connetated both positively and negatively. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we seem to be agreed on the neutral treatment of the subject, though we could still do with a better title. I don't think we are just talking about the perception of policies, requirements, and actions. That might apply more to Euromyths. I think we are talking about positive and negative attitudes toward the EU itself, which may result from or be expressed as criticism of individual policies, but may also be expressed by opinions such as "I don't think the EU will benefit my country", "I know it is all a conspiracy for world domination by the Bigendians", etc. By the way, I think Criticism of the United Nations is a good example of what we need to avoid. It seems to be an unbalanced collection of criticisms that is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policies.--Boson (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?
This section cites this source: [ http://www.eastwest-review.com ] Can anyone comment on the reliability of this source? It appears to have been added this month as a source to numerous articles but I can't find out much about it. On their site it says "East+West International Review represents a special new analysis and information project of the Institute of Law and Culture and its structural subdivision - Center for European Cultural Identity Studies." but there is no real information about where this Institute is supposed to be or who is behind it. I can't even see what country it is supposed to be in. Some of the articles seem to be opinion pieces that are being used to support statements of fact. --Boson (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lucien - Eurosceptic
Jack Lucien, a singer from the UK (although having success predominantly in Eastern Europe) released an album at the end of the year called "Eurosceptic", which already has its own wikipedia page but you need to type in "EuroSceptic" in order to find it. Shouldn't this page have a bit at the top linking viewers to that album? Just a suggestion as I took a while to find it! Gordonbrownfan (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)GordonbrownfanGordonbrownfan (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jonchapple (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Political neologism
Category:Political neologisms was recently added to this article. That category is for new terms that have not become established (i.e. in general use for about a decade). I believe Euroscepticism has been widely used at least since 1990. It was often used of Margaret Thatcher, for instance. --Boson (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Václav Klaus: The Term Should Not Be a Euroskeptic But a "Euro-realist"
A Eurosceptic like Czech President Václav Klaus categorically rejects the term, with its negative undertone, saying (at an April 2, 2012 meeting at the Cercle de l'Union Interalliée in Paris) that the expressions for Euroskeptic and for his opponent should be "a Euro-realist" and someone who is "Euro-naïve".

I have added this information at the end of the introductory paragraph, but the tidbit could also come inside the following paragraph ([|Types])). Asteriks (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree: Václav Klaus's opinion does not belong in the lede, so I have moved it. It also needs a proper citation. The lede should summarize the article, so I have flagged that too. I also changed the section name and a few other things. --Boson (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurobarometer survey 2009 - remove?
I think we'll need to remove the Eurobarometer survey from 2009.

For one, we are now in 2012, there are several other Eurobarometer surveys that shows radically different results (chiefly that a majority of the population want there country to leave the EU)

Second, it doesn't give the reader a fair view of people's opinion on the EU, because it's only a survey covering one year, a small and insignificant period considering that the EU has been around for a long time. It's probably better if someone gives the reader an idea of how support for the EU has fluctuated during its existence than what its members though of it in 2009.

Just my thoughts. --90.130.55.169 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The results of the 2009 survey should probably be replaced by the results of the 2012 (Spring) survey. Unfortunately, the 2012 results have less information than the 2009 survey, so this probably means restricting the information to respondents' trust in national institutions and the EU, and their overall image of the EU. We could also add the figures for satisfaction with how democracy works at a national and EU level and the account taken of national interess in the EU (but the preliminary report does not discuss these figures, so we can't interpret them too much). We should also show the historical development to some extent. For instance we could quote the decrease in trust in the EU between 2007 and 2012.
 * The results of more recent Eurobarometer surveys into attitudes toward the EU should first be added and given due weight. The 2009 poll remains of interest, but the historical nature of the 2009 information should be indicated, enabling the reader to see how attitudes changed over time. Older surveys might also be of interest from this perspective.
 * It would also be useful if we could add information from surveys on attitudes toward the EU from other sources. --Boson (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Political or political and economic
The whole article seems to be about it being a denunciation of political integration but isn't it also economic? The first sentence saying that "Euroscepticism (sometimes euroskepticism) is the body of criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration" says it outright but the whole article seems to be based only on political integration.  Cat-five t  c   22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Vagueness
This Euroscepticism Article is much too vague. It needs to state the rationales, the beliefs of Euroscepticism. Wikipedia's Censorship Committee may not agree with the tenants of Euroscepticism, and personally favor the pro-EU propaganda of Western mainstream media, but these tenants need to be stated. Let the readers, not the censors, decide where where the truth lays.

Plato
Plato's Philosophy: The truth is best discovered through open discourse. Those who hide in inaccessible chambers and behind cryptic difficult to understand rules and protections, and in their self-proclaimed authority and censorship, curtail or completely remove speech or writings which do not please them, are not seekers of truth but barriers to the truth. The writer of the below edit has tried many times to find a way into this realm, this sacrosanct inner chamber, where Wikipedia Lords hold sway with plenipotentiary powers of wholesale censorship. He has found no way to reach these Potentates, or to discover their precise (not vague, all-encompassing) complaints about his edits... and without knowing how to amend them to please the Lords, and not being given any opportunity to amend them, he has found that all of his past edits have been stricken, in their entireties, without a word, and with no way of appeal. Even the most dictatorial newspaper editor rarely excises the ENTIRE ARTICLE! No one throws out the good with the bad. Only a blind despot heaves the baby out the window with the bath water! Cannot you Sanctified Allmighties leave a sentence or two, or even a paragraph? Must you always torch the entire Edits?!!

Constructiveness
PLEASE BE CONSTRUCTIVE NOT DESTRUCTIVE!

Fritz Schumacher himself would ask you, "Have you a human face?" Are you too big to fail, too grand to reply, and too glorious to bandy words with the non-anointed?

The below recent Internet article states many of the facts and rationale held by Europeans who oppose the EU, its policies, and its spread to further countries in Europe. These sentiments and beliefs rose to world attention during the Maidan or EuroMaidan demonstrations in the main square of Kiev, Ukraine. [[The Case Against the Global Economy (1998) Book by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith; E. F. Schumacher, Multilateral Clearing Economica, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 38 (May, 1943), pp. 16-122, 141-165

"Ukraine is faced with a choice between retaining its local economy and local autonomy, or attempting membership in a Russian confederation or the EU. Both of the latter are large and distantly ruled components of what some PR (public relations) firms call “the Global Economy.”  The opponents of the Global Economy and its subdivisions, who advocate local economies and national democracies, call the Global Economy by a different name:  Economic and Military Imperialism.  We are of this second persuasion.    "Ukraine should look at what is happening to the EU border countries, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Ireland. They were lured into the EU and the Euro with promises of wealth. Instead the clever French-Belgian-German big banks, corporations, and EU puppet politicians used tricks, shell games, loan kickbacks, etc. to steal what little money they had. EU now cuts back their schools, healthcare, train systems, etc. in austerity policies so the people's taxes go to the EU and its banker overlords as "debt interest." If these countries try to escape from austerity the only way is to borrow more money from the banks. They will thus never pay off the debt; the debt will grow, and the increased interest on the loans will further rob their economies. "Do those pro-EU people in Maydan Ploshad read even the mainstream (corporate controlled) news? When you allow the centre of money and power to be a thousand kilometers away from the Ukraine border, in the hands of "superior" and wealthy foreigners, what do you expect to happen?  Ask a Greek or an Italian. They will tell you. "Culture is the glue that holds a people together. There can be no real communities without culture. Ukraine, Kiev Rus, has a rich culture diverse from Poland, Slovakia, and Germany. Without economic independence, Ukraine's unique culture and identity will be inexorably and continuously eroded. Globalization destroys all cultures. "Ukrainians! Do not sell out your local democracy, your local economy, your Hrivna, your heritage. Ukraine has rich soil, strong forests, and almost all the minerals it needs to make its own products and foodstuffs, the Ukrainian way.  The absentee capitalists and foreign bankers welcome the chance to exploit you, clear-cut and export your forests, strip-mine your mountains, and turn your children into sweatshop and plantation workers for their distant profits!

"Ask the people of the US if they have democracy. They will tell you that their elections are fixed, fake just like Yanukovych's elections.  They will tell you how Bush stuffed the ballot boxes with dead people's names and illegally denied the vote to citizens who had been imprisoned and let free.  At least the 200 million Americans who oppose this corporate rule will tell you.  If you think America and the west have democracy, ask ten tourists and learn that the majority opposed and oppose the wars.  The people have very little power, and are led like sheep by their television and printed media.  The only truth is found reading between the lines, as they say.  And in the internet.  Investigate yourself.

"If you have not seen it yet, a good place to start your investigation is by watching free internet documentaries, such as LooseChange. "People used to grow them and protect the seeds so they could pass them on to the next generation so that there was tremendous variety of potatoes. But now, with the export economy taking over everywhere in the world, you don't grow a hundred varieties of potatoes anymore. Now you grow one kind of potato, or maybe two, because that is what is going to get exported to England, or that is what is going to be exported somewhere else. The people who are making that case are the people who are promoting globalization — corporations and banks and governments. They are saying that globalization can solve the world's problems, that it's going to give people something to eat and so on. They are redesigning an economy that they say works. But it doesn't work.

"We've had globalization for quite a while, it's just being accelerated right now. Wherever the rules of free trade and economic globalization are followed, you have economic and ecological disasters immediately thereafter. You've got the complete destruction of small, traditional farming in Africa and elsewhere; you've got the complete devastation of nature all around the world; you've got people shoved off their lands to make way for giant dams and agri-business and so on, who then become part of the mil lions and millions of people roaming the land and going into cities looking for impossible-to-find jobs, all in competition with each other, and violent and angry. And then people are angry with them, because who needs more people around? So you've set in to motion a global disarray and nonfunctionalism that would not have been achieved — certainly not at the same level and with the same speed — without this emphasis on global development.

"Ukrainian farmers who grow potatoes for McDonald’s Corporation have told me that the potatoes they are forced to grow are of inferior flavor from those Ukrainians have traditionally grown. They and their families refuse to eat such potatoes, whose only flavor comes from the industrial genetically modified oil in which McDonald’s deep fries them.  Small farm systems of the world once grew many, many varieties of many, many different food products.  Today many of them have been wiped out in order to grow coffee, for example.  That's a loss of biodiversity and a the creation of an agricultural monoculture.   Through “sweetheart deals” with corporate and banking controlled puppet governments, the good land has been given to the corporations and run as colonial-style low wage plantations.  So we have not only a cultural monoculture, but also a biological and technological monoculture — where people are all relating to the same kinds of central control. The global economy is simplifying and homogenizing and unifying culture around the world.

"How do we respond to the forces of globalization? Well, if the car is about to go off the cliff, the first thing you do is stop the car. We're about to go off the cliff and we've got to stop the car. hat's number one. Then we have to find a road map — where to go next.  The question that is most interesting to me, and the only that seems to make sense is: if globalization doesn't work, what about localization?  I think relocalization is absolutely inevitable. It's going to happen one way or another because the global economy will break down, even if we don't organize a mass movement about it. It simply doesn't work. It can't sustain itself. It's going to fall apart and disintegrate — I hope sooner rather than later — so a certain degree of relocalization is going to take place automatically. I'm I little worried that it might also entail the growth of fascism here and there, as local powers gain real control. But I don't think that's an argument against relocalization, just against the wrong kind of localization.

"What's necessary is that real power and real economic control be reduced very far down so that people have real control of their lives, and so that the technologies and forms of organization that they use don't assist the process of globalization. E.F. Schumacher, in his famous book Small is Beautiful, talked about "economics as if people mattered." That seems to be the case you are making here as well: we need a new kind of economics on a smaller scale, as if people mattered.  And it's not only people, though. I really we need an economics as if people and the natural world mattered.  At the very least, you have to put it like that. It's not only people.  Only local economies and local democracies are subservient to the people.  If you can’t see it, touch it, fully participate in it, if it is far away and all-powerful, those made rich by it will control it for their own ends.

"Globalization’s goal is not world peace and love. It’s goal is world conquest, exploitation, and subjugation.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Thomas Jefferson said that democracy cannot survive in a country as large as the  US if the power is centralized in a federal government.  He fought for local democratic governments in the individual cities and states of the US.  We see Jefferson’s predictions come true throughout US history:  The conquering and destruction of many peoples and their independent economies and cultures.  The Hawaiians, the Mexican lands of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the many N. American peoples, such as the Apache, Cherokee, Sioux, Arapahoe, the Black African slaves, the Alaskan peoples, and many others.  Today the corrupt American central government continues its military, economic, and cultural colonization of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and prepares to invade Syria and Iran, to steal the oilfields from those independent peoples for US bankers’ and oil oligarchs’ personal wealth aggrandizement.

"These oligarchs control the media and project positive images of the US, but if you investigate the facts yourself you will learn the truth. Read history books, read biographies of US and western leaders such as Bill Clinton, the Bush family, Tony Blair, the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, and other modern corporate and banking principals.  Then answer this question:  Do Ukrainians want their sons dying in Middle East wars, to steal oilfields for US and British fat cats?  The families of the Italian and French sons slaughtered in the West's wars of imperialism didn't even receive free tanks of gas to go to the funerals!  Nor did the English (or American) people receive any oil or gas from their criminal wars and occupations.  The corporate and banking fat cats, the mega-capitalists who run the western governments, stole the oil fields for themselves, personally.  The people didn't get anything except wounds and deaths. "For the same reasons, we should refuse loans from Russian banks. We remember the 25.000 "Kulaks" intentionally starved to death when Mother Russia stole most of our grain in the 1930s.  We remember the Moscow soviet oligarchs riding in their Zil limousines right down the centre of the streets, people and carts diving to the side.  We remember their lavish dachas filled with western produkts and servants. "I do not know if the arrogant Russian ruling class, who stole all the People's industries, equipment, and money when the CCCP fell, and turned themselves instantly into corrupt, greedy, parasitic big-capitalists, are better or worse than the smooth tricksters running the EU. But it is obvious to anyone who cares to investigate and read, who cares to ask fellow Europeans, that Ukraine needs neither the EU nor Russia. We don't need their loans, their products, their rules, or their rulers. Ukraine has been invaded by Austro-Hungarians, Vikings, Poles, Russians, and Germans. The invaders from the West and the Northeast today are advancing on us for the same purpose as the others. Exploitation, imposition of foreign rule, wealth extraction, subjugation. The loss of our new-found independence will be gradual but ever advancing at the hands of the insidious, the insincere, the well dressed. They do not come here to make us rich, but rather to make themselves rich. So have invaders always done. "Beware of foreigners bearing gifts. Do not bring the beautiful huge wooden Trojan Horse within our gates. "Wittingly or unwittingly the Maidan movement is a sad product of Western mainstream media, and their lackey Ukrainian press. When you exalt "free" trade, you know, but refuse to acknowledge, that there are only two variants of countries that enter that imperialistic system: 1.) "Developed" countries with sprawling parking lots, big box chain stores, decadence, over-consumption, arrogance, and militarism against:  2.) The "Underdeveloped" countries, run by bowing and scraping corrupt puppets-or-Colonial-Powers (US, UK, W. Europe). Those in No. 1 are constantly brainwashed by their big-screen entertainment centres (TVs) to believe that they are happy and free. "The sad truth is that they have no democracy at all. The Democrat Obama is the same as Republican Bush.  They are both puppets of the Big Capitalists. Most people in America oppose the massive 3 a.m. residential drone program; the US (with help from EU) sends nightly barrages of remotely controlled drones to kill "Terrorists" (enemies of US business interests, i.e. US colonial policy).  Targets are Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Algeria etc.  No trials, no convictions... just instant death. Why 3 a.m.?  To catch the "enemy of Freedom" at home. Of course this kills his family and neighbors too, but this is part of "Freedom." George Bush said in many speeches, "They hate us because we're free. They hate freedom. "Read even the mainstream press in America and UK, constant complaints about the new "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security" laws of BushObama, demonstrations much bigger than Maydan protesting that these laws violate the Constitution, take away rights of American and UK citizens. Ask them and they will tell you about it.  Have you asked them?  Or have you merely fawned on them, talked of sports or cars, drooled over their huge polluting SUV vehicles? "Did you support the Vietnam War? Do you support the ongoing Oil Wars? Iran and Syria are the next targets, millions will die. The drones kill thousands of women and children, Google it on the internet if you have courage. If you are hiding from the truth, if you are a propaganda pawn of the Big Capitalists, you will not Google it or anything else. To justify invasion, George Bush and Tony Blair said that Iraq did 9/11 and had Weapons of Mass Destruction. They later admitted these statements were false, blaming faulty intelligence reports, but they continued the war and bloody occupations of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, and did not return the oil fields to their lawful owners, the people of those countries. "The west and the US make very few of their own products.  Walk into any store and read the labels, look on the bottoms of the products.  The vast majority are made in Chinese, Indian, Indonesian etc. sweat shops.  The west has a false, non-producing, parasitic economy.  They are the consumers in the global economy.  It is shameful how much they consume, destroy, and waste.  They are stripping and killing our planet Earth.  Such an economy cannot last.  Such is not sustainable.  Such is not moral.  There is no self-respect in it.  Can you see that there is a huge difference between  (A.) Man who owns his own business (small farm, tailor shop, bicycle repair shop, vegetable store, etc.) and works in the farm/shop doing real work every day; and  (B.) Man who sits at a ₤10.000 desk high in a building overlooking the city, doing no productive work whatsoever, merely taking the cream off the top of sweatshop and plantation workers labour? Are you Pro-EU activists such a novice with capitalism, 24 years after the CCCP fell? Please read:  http://innovationwatch.com/the-case-against-the-global-economy-and-for-a-turn-toward-the-local-by-jerry-mander-and-edward-goldsmith-eds-sierra-club-books/ "The former CCCP countries are suffering enough job loss due to the Globalized economy, without Ukraine becoming a vassal state Junior-member of the EU or the Rus. Confederation. "Experts" and TV talking heads in the West have for decades claimed that the cause of unemployment and ₤Multi-Trillions national debt, are complex.  These heads and leaders argue on the TV shows about what the cause is. "They never agree and never solve the problem, and each year unemployment grows a little higher. Yet the cause of unemployment in the West is really quite simple. Their political puppets obeyed their financial elite overlords' order to eliminate the West's centuries-old protective tariffs. This allowed the BIG corporate & banking elites to set up sweatshops and plantations in "underdeveloped" countries, and increase their already obscene wealth. "The West makes very little now. Furniture, clothing, utensils, electronics, boots -- almost all is made in SE Asian sweat factories. Women and children work 60 hours a week for almost nothing. Unless the whole family works, they will starve in their hovels (халупи).  Their puppet governments (installed and funded by the CIA, M6, and Mossad) are very "pro development" and eliminate or stop enforcing all environmental, worker safety, and union laws. "They need to keep the wages "competitive," this is the race to the bottom for wages. Only those countries with the lowest wages, lowest or no corporate taxes, and the least laws protecting the people's forests, lakes, rivers, air... only those countries with the most "business friendly" policies allowing land grabs for plantations, and toxic strip mining and mountain top removal, etc., are fully employed. When another country offers the global, rootless corporate exploiters more profits, they quickly move there, leaving their toxic residue and forests cut and bulldozed into ugly ruin. The country has been "developed." "US and Western EU don't even do their own farm work any more. Mexicans come across the border, and Poles & Lithuanians come across the Baltic Sea, plant, tend, and pick the crops, and return home with a few dollars/euros. If you have eyes to see, you'll notice that the children are picking alongside their parents and grandparents... otherwise they can't survive in the miserable shacks they inhabit.  Shacks often made each wall and from a different discarded material, dirt floors, no heat, not even outhouses! About 10% of the fruit/vegetable's sale price goes to the workers who grow it. 90% is profit for the distant owners who don't know a weed from a cabbage. "Read please how the currencies and the global-imperial economy of the West is falling. Is it wise to give up our Hrivna for Euros? The big western banks know well all the tricks and stratagems for "losing" all the money on "bad investments" "bundled mortgages" "derivatives" "junk bonds" "bank failures" and sophisticated ponzi schemes. The ₤Billions are never really lost, they are just cleverly stolen. But no one goes to jail, except for the occasional highly profiled scapegoat, like Bernie Madoff. "Did you study Marx and Lenin? Now is when you have need of their teachings, mired and duped as you are by Big Capital.  Do not fall into the easy trap of disbelieving everything you learned about economics, classes, and imperialism, just because some fat Russians disobeyed these principals and sold out to the enemy.   Don't kill the goose just because she got some mud on her.  Try to think for yourself. Investigate, question, learn the truth about Global Capitalism yourself.  Don't just parrot back what the foreigners tell you.   Don't mix up two separate issues, opposition or support of Yanukovych, and opposition or support of EU.  They want you to do so, and you are very simple minded if you fall for it.  We support Yulia, not Yanukovych.  We oppose Russian and EU imperialism. "The Soviet Union fell for the same reason Big Capitalism will. Arrogance and fat at the top. Too much centralization of power corrupted them absolutely. The leaders were too many kilometers from the people. The fat politburo men in Moscow lorded it over us Ukrainians. They tried to replace our culture and language with theirs. They only pretended to follow Marx and Lenin's teachings. So does the West, the US, the EU only pretend to follow democracy and equality and respect for all people of the world. They give great speeches, those Tony Blairs, Angela Merkels, BushObamas. So did Mussolini in his attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. His made his conquest, Ethiopia, look like present day Iraq after the Americans have occupied it for 10 years. Thousands dead and the country in ruins.

"I agree with the many who say Yanukovych must go. He should be arrested and put to the prison cell vacated by Yulia.  But do not jump from the frying pan into the fire!  Do not escape Yanukovych by jumping into EU membership or economic integration with Russia.  Jump instead out of the fireplace!

"May Ukraine remain, and become more so, strong, self sufficient, and self ruled.

"May this land remain forever U K R A I N E  ! ! !  Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered (1973, ISBN 0-06-131778-0); a 25th anniversary edition was published (ISBN 0-88179-169-5),  A Guide For The Perplexed (1977, ISBN 0-224-01496-X; still in paperback, ISBN 0-06-090611-1),  http://m.nationalreview.com/article/367034/view-maidan-askold-krushelnyck ; Article there below by James Hannum,  The Case Against the Global Economy (1998) Book by Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, This is all uncited, original research. Wikipedia is not an essay or a blog for you to post your personal conjecture.--Львівське (говорити) 05:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Serious problems with content
It seems that, although this article has been developed consistently since being tagged identifying lack of reliable sources, yet no discussion has taken place as to where to WP:OR stops before WP:BLPVIO demands that any unsourced content be trimmed immediately. There's a far stronger smell of WP:COATRACK being emitted from this article than WP:NPOV and RS.

Are there any regulars actually keeping an eye on its development? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

was lowest in Latvia
But Latvia joined the Eurozone and was threatened by Russia, which influenced the nation.Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Poland
Three of the listed parties were created by one person (Janusz Korwin-Mikke).Real Politics Union joined Mational Movement in 2014. Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Soft Euroscepticism / Hard Euroscepticism
I think it would be very useful to write an extinsive and sourced table (more or less like the one that exists on French wikipedia) that would discriminate between soft and hard eurosceptic parties and politicians in Europe, since they're different concepts and the article doesn't clarify which ones belong to the 1st kind and which ones belong to the 2nd kind. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are real and not quite real parties. The ones in Poland aren't influrntial, they have one Eurodeputy.Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The French table misinforms regarding Poland, some of the data are 10 years old. Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that the French table should be copied Ipsis Verbis to this article, I just said that some table like that one, with references of course, would be useful here. This article already makes a distinction between soft and hard Euroscepticism, which are not equivalent concepts. E.g., Margaret Thatcher was a soft Eurosceptic, while Marine Le Pen is a hard Eurosceptic, since the 1st one defended a sort of European integration though she disputed the nature of integration that was being proposed, and then came into effect in most (or all) EU countries, while the second one disputes the existence of any European integration. That's what I meant, though these concepts could be more precisely explained. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fork (proposed) between Hard Euroscepticism and Soft Euroscepticism
I'd be glad if this article could be divided between one about hard Euroscepticism (those who reject any European integration at all) and soft Euroscepticism (those who dispute the level of integration currently in use, the policies, functioning and lack of democracy in the EU), I, myself am a soft Eurosceptic (supporter of Tsipras, Vaclav Klaus, Kaczinsky, Beppe Grillo, Margaret Thatcher, so on, in what concerns to this topic, not a supporter of Marine Le Pen, FPÖ, Right Sector in Ukraine, MHP in Turkey, so on. But these are just personal tastes. What matters is my 1st statement. And I'd add, that there is a so huge diference between hard Eurosceptics and soft Eurosceptics (1st wouldn't wish to have any integration at all, 2nd: would wish to have an integration more like ASEAN, Mercosur, African Union, Arab League, so on, not a superstate... either in the left or the right, that's what is common among the soft Eurosceptics). I also edit a lot in Spanish. If this doesn't go forward here, I'll make it go in the Spanish WP. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Eurorealism
We've has a user redirect the "Eurorealism" to this article and cut and paste the contents of that article here. I've reverted both moves as "Eurorealism" deals with directly related subject matter, but is entirely unsourced. It's unclear whether the WP:TITLE was based on a dated neologism, or should remain as a separate (but related article) on its own, or whether there is any significant content that could be used in under its own subheader for this article.

My instinct is that this article is already short on RS, and that introducing more unsourced material is taking us in the direction of being completely WP:OR. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that either the article about Euroscepticism should be forked between Soft Euroscepticism (including Eurorealism) and Hard Euroscepticism, or that the content of Eurorealism should be included in this article. It makes no sense that separate articles talk about the same subject. At the same time, whatever it's the decision, there must be made a distinction between what is soft Euroscepticism (I'm a soft Eurosceptic myself, definitely not a hard Eurosceptic) and what is hard Euroscepticism. One thing is to dispute the functioning of the EU and/or its level of integration, another is to dispute the existence of any integration at all, which I, myself, don't subscribe. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Eurorealism is merely a self-description used by Eurosceptics, so either the article called Eurorealism should be merged with Euroscepticism, or more appropriately, deleted entirely.--Autospark (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything I read here makes senses. So, yes, I support the Merge and hope changes in the article take into account what the users above mention.--Write Serum (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What is "Euroscepticism in third countries?"
Third countries doesn't seem to make much sense, unless it's some kind of European phrasing I've never heard of. At first I thought it might be "third world" but that doesn't make much sense, "third party" may be what the original author intended, but again third party to what two things?

I think it may be better just to say, "Euroscepticism in other countries" or "Euroscepticism in non-EU countries?" Strongsauce (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've corrected it, though the section's title may be a subject of discussion. Anyway, it was a so simple correction, that I dared to make it. I'm not a native speaker of English, so what I take as "third countries" or "other countries" may be, eventually, wrong. Urgup-tur (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Euroscepticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110821025723/http://media.irelandforeurope.ie/?p=22 to http://media.irelandforeurope.ie/?p=22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141220092640/http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/nou-er/2012/nou-2012-2/13/2/2.html?id=669542 to http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/nou-er/2012/nou-2012-2/13/2/2.html?id=669542

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization
Should Euroskepticism (or Euroscepticism, if you prefer) be capitalized in the middle or at the end of a sentence, since it's formed from Europe, and most common nouns that are formed from proper nouns in English (British, American, or otherwise) retain the proper nouns' capitalization? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; most times I've seen "Euroscepticism" written down, it has been capitalised. The article should use this standard spelling throughout, IMO. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony Benn
We still have a photo of Tony Benn in this article, even though he died in 2014. So far as I know, all the other images are of living politicians. Can we remove the Benn picture now? Even though he once was a Eurosceptic, retaining it now seems inconsistent with the other images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. The article is already low on qualitative information (i.e., there's more WP:OR than substance), but littered with photos overreaching WP:PERTINENCE. As it stands, unless someone can come up with WP:RS defining soft and hard, etc., I'm going to pull all of the expand section tags. They're essentially just lures for more POV and original research content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do remove the photo and the expand section tags. Some of those tags are now out of date and I don't see they're really very necessary in this context. By the way, is Taggart and Szczerbiak's paper defining hard and soft Euroscepticism not a WP:RS? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not contesting that some of the sources are RS. My concern is that the article wasn't being developed within RS parameters, and that these descriptors were being used without attribution (i.e., no RS defining parties and individuals as belonging to any particular camp). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the Tony Benn pic and description, plus the expand section tags. Cheers, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Eurorealism
I notice that there are still tags from six months ago proposing the merger of the Eurorealism article into this article. There appears to have been no discussion of this (unless the discussion has been archived somewhere). The Eurorealism article is little more than one paragraph, unsourced except for three external links, and reads more like a short essay than an article. I suspect that it only exists for lexicographical reasons – to ensure that this rarely-used term is explained somewhere. Unless anyone is actually interested in the merger (or deleting the Eurorealism article) I suggest we remove the tags. Opinions? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Eurorealism article had actually been merged into this article in 2006, but someone resurrected it. I don't see anything of significance to move into this article, therefore suggest that a straight redirect to this article should be put in place again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I've done that. I've put a reference to the term "Eurorealism" into this article so that anyone redirected to it isn't completely confused. Here's the deleted text from the Eurorealism page in case it's of any use to anyone:

Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Spain
I can't know what happens in other countries but I'm from Catalonia and I can assure you that almost everything that is written here about Spain is false. Euroscepticism in Spain is marginal, no Eurosceptic political party has never won any seats in Spanish parliament. CUP are also a minority communist party in Catalonia. Many Catalans and Basques (not a majority so far) claim to secede from Spain but staying in the EU. Someone wants to use wikipedia to manipulate their readers.--37.14.224.166 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have updated the Spanish figures to reflect the November 2015 Eurobarometer opinion survey (commissioned by the EU) and added some information on the membership of the CUP. --Boson (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Greece - small edit
Just a small edit I think should be made to this section. I think the two parties, I Don't Pay Movement and Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow should be removed from the list of Greece's main Eurosceptic parties. Neither has any seats in Greece's Parliament or any seats in the EU Parliament. ALCO's best result in elections for either was 1.19% and IDPM's was 0.9% (both in May 2012) and neither are included in national opinion polls. So to say either is one of Greece's main Eurosceptic parties is I think a stretch. Helper201 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euroscepticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518112439/http://www.tkp.org.tr/soru/tkp-natoya-abdye-ve-avrupa-birligine-neden-karsi to http://www.tkp.org.tr/soru/tkp-natoya-abdye-ve-avrupa-birligine-neden-karsi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euroscepticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604231511/http://archive.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/node/156 to http://archive.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/node/156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the European Union redirects here
I don't feel this should redirect here. I came to look for objective criticism of the European Union but this article speaks nothing about it other than discussing various parties who are against European integration. That's not even mentioning the fact that Euroscepticism is not a synonym for criticism. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Euroscepticism in Bulgaria.
In the section about Bulgaria I saw that the party which represents that current in the country is Attaka, bur actually that party is governing with "Gerb", the conservative and proEurope party just in the year that Bulgaria presides the european comission. I think Attaka is more against romani and turk people than aginst Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.33.130 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Terminology
What is this 'CEECs' ? Could you use full names instead of acronyms ? --Taw

Maybe "Communist Eastern European Countries" from the context? --rmhermen Hmm, I would rather guess it was something like "Central- and Eeastern- European Countries". Anyway, as it isn't clear I'm going to replace it. --Taw

Sorry, thats EU officialese... it stands for "Central and Eastern European Countries" (or possibly "Candidates", i'm not too sure)... what I meant by it was the 10 central and eastern european candidate countries... of course, there are the three other candidates (Cyprus,Malta,Turkey) as well, and the point applies to them as well -- so maybe it would be better to say "the candidate countries"... In fact, I think I'll change it... -- SJK

The term has been used to refer not to scepticism of the EU, but to scepticism of the Euro. See the section on Italy: neither 5-Star nor the Lega is described as opposing the EU. Both parties are described as campaigning (conditionally) against eurozone membership. Also, I have noticed the term 'eurosceptic' recently being used in the UK mainstream media to refer to these Italian political groupings, without clarifying what kind of eurosceptic they mean. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the Euro is an aspect of Euroscepticism as the Euro is a major component of EU membership for the vast majority of members. However I believe both 5 Star and Lega are critical of other aspects of the EU as well as the Euro. A political party can be sceptical of the EU, and thus be Eurosceptic without wanting their country to leave the EU. Those party's that want their country to leave the EU should be labelled as hard Eurosceptic. If a party only wants to stop using the Euro (and thus leave the Eurozone) and is otherwise pro-EU, then the page - withdrawal from the Eurozone - would probably be a better one to use. However as far as I'm aware both 5 Star and Lega (Lega especially) are critical of other aspects of the EU. The section on Italy on this page should be expanded on how else both parties are sceptical of the EU. Helper201 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

suggestion for improvement (uni assignment)
Suggestion for improvement A few things came to mind when I read the article. The first thing is that in the introduction, in the way I feel it, not all the aspects that are described in the article are being introduced. I also think that there could maybe be a better general definition of Euroscepticism. And I feel like that the subdescription of Euroscepticism in each country is (sometimes) a bit unnecessary, maybe make a separate page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopin38 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comments. Could you be a bit more specific? Better still, wp:BE BOLD and just do it! (to the lead/introduction, I mean). Otherwise I do think it helpful to see the different perspectives - some people consider the EU to be too capitalist, others too socialist; to some it is too libertarian, to others it is too authoritarian. So one person's 'reform' is another's 'further down the slippery slope'!--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Euroceticism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Euroceticism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

picture
Very nice picture. LOL. -Pedro 18:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Tories
Made a substantial set of edits aimed at taking the article back towards its ostensible subject, rather than a hostile commentary on the UK Conservative Party and its media allies. Placed in the middle of the article a blanket statement that Eurosceptics oppose a (carefully defined) Federal Europe. Without some unifying definition such as this, the concept of Euroscepticism is analytically suspect and an open invitation for people to play games of guilt by association. -- Alan Peakall 18:11 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Several paragraphs relating to the Conservative Party have just been excised from this page. Why is that? Mintguy 18:10, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)~


 * I don't know, but it looks to me that User:Stet might have a political agenda and is intent on changiong articles (this one and Eurozone, so far) to further it. Perhaps someone should re-insert the paragraphs about the Conservative party? -- Cabalamat 18:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I thought the paragraphs on the Conservative Party were biased and too indepth for an article not about them, thus I removed the offending articles. Though I agree with the single paragraph that has now appeared, as it sums up a political point of interest without going too much into it. Perhaps we could also have mention of other parts of the British political establishment that dont agree with the EU? -- User:Stet late at night, 9/9/03


 * it might have been biased, if it was then it needs NPOVing. Complaining that something's too in-depth seems rather strange to me - isn't Wikipedia supposed to create an in-depth encyclopedia? I agree that we should also mention euroscepticism in other UK parties, and the UKIP -- Cabalamat 19:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * i meant it was too indepth for the page, as the page is about euroscepticism, not the conservative party. it could have been npov'ed, and perhaps that is something i ought to have thought of doing. tho it looks as if someone has added a good paragraph to the end which is agreeable User:Stet 10/9 early morning

I'm going to restore the deleted paragraphs. Simply deleting the references to the Tories makes no sense and looks like censorship. Euroscepticism was a major factor in the last few years of the last Tory administration and was central to William Hague's policies when he was leader, and still has a large influence on the current leadership, not to mention the feeling at grass root level. If you feel that this information needs summarising then please edit what we already have. Do not simply expunge relevant material. The article is too short for you to make any claim about there being too much information. As for this being discussed on the page about the Conservative Party instead; that page should discuss the history of the party over centuries and not concentrate in depth on this subject. The link on the Euroscepticism on that page would lead you to beleive that the term's relevance the Tories would be discussed on the Euroscepticism page, and so it should be. Mintguy 08:14, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * do as you please, im sure you will. when i first came across the article i thought it was very pov. the first few paragraphs made good sense, but the article soon descended into an attack on the british media being xenophobic (which is a curiosity for it ignores sections of the media that arent xenophobic and it suggests that only british media is xenophobic. foreign examples please), and then a rant on why the conservatives wont win an election because some of them are eurosceptic. there is much need for npov. - User:Stet early afternoon, 10/9


 * If you thought the article was POV when you started editing it, you should take a look at the way it was before my two edits of a year ago. I may have been overcautious about redressing bias then, but I think the comparison of correlation of political orientation with Euroscepticism between the UK and Sweden merits putting back. -- Alan Peakall 14:43, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * That looked awful! Someone really had it in for the Conservatives. I truly think that such indepth talk shouldn't be there, but rather a short paragraph and links to the respective parties. That's why I deleted those last three paragraphs (yes, three whole paragraphs on the Conservative Party!). I reckon Mintguy has me down as some agenda pushing Conservative. Sure I'm eurosceptic, but (shock horror) I vote Liberal Democrat. - stet 15:39, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with you about Mintguy's state of mind. I have seen him remedy a large enough number of instances of Tory bashing to be confident that he can understand the provocation here. The fact that No Campaign apparently persisted for three months in the shape in which you found it points to the weakness of WP in this area. There is a lot of POV that needs to be balanced and contextualised. Sometimes a case for removing material arises, but if an NPOVing effort starts out by adding material it usually goes faster add attracts cooperation, even it does result in chimera-like interim versions of an article. -- Alan Peakall 15:53, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

FWIW I vote Liberal Democrat too, but that's more to do with where I live than a political conviction. Stet: I've not made any judgements or comments about your political views, but deleting a swath of relevant information in this article looked like censorship. I asked you both here and on your talk page why you deleted it, and as far as I was concerend the answer didn't justify the action, so I restored it. Other than that I've made no contribution to this article or comment about its content. Mintguy 16:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I am sorry we have gotten off on the wrong foot. It was rash of me to delete those paragraphs in the way that I did. I ought to have made an effort to change them for the better or discuss them first. I am sorry for being destructive rather than consructive.


 * Though I still maintain there is too much indepth information on the Conservative Party on the page. The article would be far too long if we had three paragraphs on every political party that is mainly or wholly eurosceptic. I only think that a short paragraph and a link would be better in order to keep the information better distributed. - stet 16:45, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But Euroscepticism hasn't had the same influence on any major party in quite the same was as it has of the Tories. Major called the sceptics in his cabinet the "bastards". The party came close to splitting on the issue (probably would have if Ken Clark had been elected leader). William Hague lost an election and then his job, because he thought the most important issue to the electorate was keeping the pound. Mintguy 17:08, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that Euroscepticism is a major part of the Conservative Party. I suppose this is another point of view issue, but then politics is apt to be this way. Labour and even Liberal Democrats have their issues over Europe, as I have at least tried to address with one paragraph. And also there should be information about foreign political parties that are Eurosceptic. The second part reads like a diatribe against the Conservative Party, not as a balanced article on Euroscepticism. There is not even any plus points noted anywhere. It is very negative. - stet 17:28, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eh? You must be living on another planet. Admittedly the Tories don't get much press these days. Do you know about the Bruges Group? Do you know that chairman Norman Lamont is currently in Sweden arguing against the Euro? What about Monday club. What about Conservatives Against a Federal Europe (CAFE). The leadership is still dead against the Euro. Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech in Prague a few where he reiterated the Tories position on the Euro. Mintguy 22:03, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You seem to know alot about it, maybe you could write an article? If there is as much as you say there is on the subject, it certainly deserves to have space of its own. I'm afraid I only know about Conservative policies on local issues. I yet maintain that those paragraphs are too much for the article, I suppose the only way I can prove it is to write similar paragraphs on other parties and their eurosceptic members. - stet 23:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy that Euroscepticism is a major plank of UK Conservative Party policy, indeed now that UK Labour Party has aped most of the policies that the party developed during the Thatcher area, it is one of the few key policy areas that seems to be capable of producing real electoral dividends for the party (though the rise of UKIP as a political force has somewhat taken the shine of their Europsceptic policy). There are Europhiles within the party (such as Kenneth Clarke) but they are few and far between and these days they are very much seen as minority players on the fringes of the party. IMHO - the drift towards Euroscepticism (some would go further and say outright hostility to the EU) has been consistent and maintained throughout the Hague, Duncan-Smith, and Howard leaderships. Nick Fraser 07:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British Justice vs Continental Justice
is fairly clear: "The European legal area would involve sweeping away the existing criminal justice systems of the Member States. Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus would be abolished and with them our ancient freedoms, to be replaced by an inquisitorial system based on the tyrannical Napoleonic Code. The presumption of innocence would become worthless and every man, woman and child in the country, guilty or innocent, would become liable to be arrested at the whim of the European Public Prosecutor.".

This paragraph clearly shows that the Anti Common Market League believes that European systems of justice are based on an alleged tyrannical Napoleonic Code that does not honor presumption of innocence. This is fact, please stop removing this fact from the article. David.Monniaux 23:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that is what the article says. But you have chosen the article to suit your bias. This Anti Common Market League is a fringe group which I never before have heard of.


 * You have set up this logical path: eurosceptics are against law harmonization -> eurosceptic group x argues that european law is inferior as it does not have presumption of innocence -> european law codes do' have presumption of innocence -> eurosceptic group x is wrong -> eurosceptics are wrong. Great, except for that it does not actually convey the majority view of eurosceptics that whatever'' the differences in the law codes, there is little point in harmonization of law.
 * It is not only the difference between facts and non-facts that determine the NPOV of an article, but also the inclusion or exclusion of facts. Hence, by including the views of a fringe group in order to tarnish the reputation of the mainstream, you are POV. 195.92.168.175 19:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * House of Commons Hansard "I am concerned that, if we are not careful about the wording of this Bill, someone who has not been charged with any crime will have his or her passport confiscated. We must never forget that, despite the European Union and Napoleonic law--which, thank God, we have not had to adopt in this country so far--one is innocent until proven guilty in the United Kingdom. In France--the country nearest to our borders--one is considered guilty until proven innocent. That is a fundamental difference. We must not allow the Bill to encroach on that right, no matter how well meaning this legislation may seem."
 * This person is not from a fringe group, but from the British legislature. David.Monniaux 20:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, three points I need to make. First, Euroscepticism really isn't about the relative merits of either one system of justice or another. This debate was/is taking place in many different areas, even within the UK before the EU was conceived. I am glad you have provided a better, though not much, source of quote (even though it isn't about europe per se, only the myth).
 * My point was that there is a striking pattern (not only from this quote, but from others) in the British political debate of making disparaging comments about the neighbouring countries, often with little actual fact, so as to push the notion that Britain is obviously superior and should not compromise itself by meddling with inferior cultures. I think we have a fairly good example of such behavior here. Such argumentation is fairly commonplace in British populist euroscepticism. David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're somehow pushing POV by removing the "stupidest" side of British Euroscepticism. Yes, there is intelligent criticism of EU institutions (and the UK does not have a monopoly on it). Yes, there is also a lot of "mythology" and smugness on the part of some British eurosceptics. Should we give a rosy picture and remove annoying behaviors such as the one I quoted? David.Monniaux 23:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I moved the paragraph to the "British Euroscepticism" section (because, indeed, it's more a British-specific issue than an Eurosceptic issue in general). Does the current formulation suit you? I don't think I'm applying POV, just stating the facts about a very vocal current of British politics inside Parliament. David.Monniaux 06:15, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Next, my point: ...the majority view of eurosceptics [is] that whatever the differences in the law codes, there is little point in harmonization of law. is about the EU harmonizing laws and systems of justice throughout the EU without either debate or reason. The UK will lose its system whether it likes it or not, and this (euphemistic 'harmonization') is the lack of choice and centralizing eurosceptics wish to avoid.
 * I personally don't see why the UK should lose its system. Do you? David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thirdly, a point on the inquisitorial system itself. Though many people do repeat the myth about 'presumption of innocence' (which is a right of man), their concerns are rather with a lack of neutrality. An evidence collecting judge cannot possibly be trusted to find all of the pertinent evidence. The lines of investigation he follows can only be based upon how he interpreted the last piece of evidence collected. He must decide if evidence is important, but if he discards important evidence, it will never be followed. Or even worse, if previous evidence allows him to build a view that the defendent is either innocent or guilty, then from that point on, lines of enquiry turn to collecting evidence to reinforce that. 195.92.168.167 22:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That's why the judge is not left alone: defense attorneys have access to his files, may file motions of procedure, may request additional enquiries, and may appeal all the judge's decisions before a division of the court of appeals. That's also why the investigating judge does not judge the case himself.
 * In essence, the inquisitorial system is about taking the leadership in investigations away from the police (which responds to the executive and may have political reasons for rushing to grab a suspect) and give it to more independent people. David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Improvements
Hi, I'm an Italian librarian it:User: Silvia bruni1. During a course with the Erasmus students, we improved paragraphs on Belgium and Spain Euroscepticism. Silvia bruni1 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In other countries
The section "In other European countries" has to be renamed to "In other countries". Under this banner more types of Euroscepticism or EU criticism could be added from other countries (ex. US, Israel, China and so on). Plus, some countries are transcontinental like Turkey (Asian mostly, small European), one entirely Asian territory like Armenia. Gaspsinidia (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, that is not what this article is about. This is not a list of countries around the world who have negative views of the EU and that does not belong here. If you want to create another article which covers anti-EU sentiment globally, you are more then welcome to submit a draft. Second of all, geographically yes, those states are on the peripheries of Europe and Western Asia- that is already discussed in those countries respective articles. For the sake of this article, these states can be classified as "European" as they politically align more with Europe then Asia, are full members of the Council of Europe, and each have various political parties which are opposed to further EU integration. Your suggestions are not an improvement to this article. Archives908 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Turkey cannot be classified as European, the rest are ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
 * I agree with you. But within the scope of this article, lets be consistent and keep it simple. Besides, Turkey does have territory within Europe. Archives908 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Point out" vs "contend"
It seems to me that "point out" implies an endorsement (if X points out Y, it means that Y is true and X is just merely showing the truth to people who may not have known it) while "contend" does not (if X contends Y, it means that Y is X's opinion).

The article should not be written in a way that endorses any particular subjective point of view, especially if it includes exaggerations. David.Monniaux 14:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out (rather than contend) that you make a very good point. :o) Toby W 08:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lengthy quote about Hungary
The following paragraph was added by an anonymous contributor today:

''"Some Romanians, Slovaks and Croatians claim that the irredentism of Hungary has found a new platform built by the European Union in Eastern Europe. Alleged irredentist Hungarian politicians (among them Viktor Orban, ex-prime-minister) are claimed to be helped by European regulations in involving themselves in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries. The main practice denounced is that Hungary is trying use the legitimate concept of ethnical minority rights in order to promote various forms (mostly subtle) of revanchism in the region. The claim is supported by Hungary's amending the status law trying to redefine the idea of nation and extending special economic, social and cultural benefits to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring states (Romania, Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine), who had objected to the law in 2001. The EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) was called in by Romania and criticised the Hungarian initiative. However, this did not stop Hungary from pursuing its intentions which, in the opinion of affected Eastern Europeans, is another proof of Europe's inability to handle the ethnical nationalism in Eastern Europe."''

I don't know enough about the issues to judge the accuracy or NPOV-ness of this, but my query is whether it really belongs here? Should we condense it to a single sentence or two and include a link to an article elsewhere? This seems to be rather a lot of specific local political detail to include in a section on euroscepticism in general. Toby W 08:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spelling
For Heaven's sake, what is "Euroscepticism"? Can't anyone spell "skepticism" anymore? Update: I've moved the whole damn thing to the (correct) spelling and probably made a right mess of a number of redirect pages. I've done my best to dot i's and cross t's, but please keep a look out. --Liveforever 21:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) I am not American, I am European. I do "get around much" - I've probably travelled more than you ever will. And you have displayed all the grace and wit of a raging elephant in a china shop. Regardless of what the Wiki article says on Skepticism, "scepticism" is not the sole accepted Commonwealth spelling. Check any British dictionary, and you will find that both "scepticism" and "skepticism" are correct. I happen to prefer the latter, since it satsifies both UK and US spellings - moreover, it more closely adheres to the Greek etymology of the word (from skeptikos). I suspect that such subtleties are wasted on you, however. --Liveforever 23:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You arrogantly think that it's spelt wrong? Guess you don't get around much, because the British spell the word "scepticism." This is a European phenomenon, and the British spelling "scepticism" is just as valid as the preferred American "skepticism." This page has been spelled with the British spelling since its inception. Leave the article alone. Wikipedia has a policy over unnecessary bickering over British vs. American spellings, quickly saying "leave it as it is." You're the only one who has been inclined to arrogantly change it to suit your American suitabilities. Yes, I am an American, but respect this small cultural difference. I have reverted back most (if not all) of your changes. Continuing to do so could get you blocked if it angers the right people. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Son, I've been in 62 countries, and stepped foot on all 7 continents, if you do not consider that well-travelled, then that's your problem. And, being rather proficient in the classical languages, and linguistics, I am very familiar with the etymological cradle of the word.  But what you did was edit an article that has been&mdash;since its inception&mdash;spelled consistently with "scepticism"&mdash;that is rash, and wrong. I accept there are two valid spellings, but what you did was without consensus and without reservation.  If the consensus (were you to have sought one) had turned your way, I wouldn't have minded, but you (not me) arrogantly walked on the scene with the bravura of a elephant in a china shop. Just because you "prefer" the spelling with a "k" doesn't mean that you have a right to completely rip through an article just to satisfy your fetish. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. While the Greek is &sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&pi;&tau;&iota;&kappa;&omicron;&sigma;, from &sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&pi;&tau;&epsilon;&sigma;&theta;&alpha;&iota;, the Latin (which has had an undoubtedly greater influence on English) is Scepticus. So take your pick, just don't edit it again without a consensus, or you're asking for trouble. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is most often referred to in the context of the UK's general attitude towards Europe - so I think for the majority of interested readers the 'c' spelling on the main page makes more sense than using the 'k' spelling. For those who might search using the 'k' spelling, a redirect is set up from Euroskepticism - so surely everybody's happy and can appreciate that there are many correct spellings of particular words. I frequently read Wikipedia pages where I see spellings that I don't consider standard to my particular flavour of English - so let's be flexible and stay calm. I agree with Explorer CDT that it's generally polite to seek consensus before making large scale major changes to a page. Nick Fraser 06:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, i go away for one day and look what happens! :o) Seriously - although the redirect solution should please everyone, the good old Google test is very revealing: "Eurosceptic" and "Euroscepticism" total about 102,000 hits; "euroskeptic" and "euroskepticism" total about 4,400, which is about 4% of the former. (And that's worldwide google.com, not .co.uk .)


 * And for what it's worth, I really think there's no need for such phrases as "I suspect that such subtleties are wasted on you" - especially over such a minor question as spelling - and especially when the "subtlety" in question is based on a linguistic error, namely taking one transliteration of Greek script to Roman script as canonical. Tsk. Toby W 22:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Scepticism" may not be the only accepted Commonwealth spelling but it's pretty much the only one I've ever seen used in Britain. Since this is an article about a British/ European phenomenon would it not make sense to spell it in the British way? - Johnny Bull

Denmark
Perhaps someone with a better knowledge than I of the situation in Denmark could check Peregrin982's recent contribution on the subject? I suspect there might be one or generalisations that could do with toning down or NPOVing, but I'm no expert. Wombat 16:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell (living some 20 kilometers East of Denmark, and frequently following Danish radio and television), it's factually correct, although I miss a reference to the Danes' long experience of living in the shadow of the numerous, expansionist and bellicose Germans. The fear for the Germans, although considerably less outspoken today than 20 or 40 years ago, is a recurrent theme in the world view of many common Danes, as it appears in everyday table conversations.
 * However, I can not judge the language usage. Nuances in English is a too complicated matter, to be left to ESL writers. :-)
 * --Johan Magnus 17:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV
Most of Pcpcpc's recent changes are good ones but I've modified a couple today, and thought I should explain why in case these are controversial.

First: Pcpcpc replaced 'Pro-European' with 'Europhile' in a few places, and I've reverted since 'Europhile', like 'Europhobe', is regarded as pejorative. There is a good discussion of these distinctions at Pro-European and also at Terminology.

Second: Pcpcpc spotted some POV stuff in the British press section, and deleted it. I've restored it, but NPOVed. As a rule, it's good to have information about the arguments advanced by both sides, pro and anti, as long as these are clearly labelled as arguments and not presented as bare facts. (Simply deleting all the arguments on one side because one does not agree with them is not in the spirit of NPOV.)

All opinions and feedback welcome - suggest posting here for discussion before undoing either of our changes! Wombat 12:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: "but" vs "and"
The current version of "Eurosceptic attitudes in the UK today" uses the word "but" as follows: "does not feel well informed about the proposed new European constitution but are evenly split on whether to adopt it;"

An earlier version did the same. To my ear the word "but" implies a judgement that "and" doesn't. This is a lot less pronounced in the current version, yet even so there is still the ghost of a suggestion that the stated opinion is invalid. Does anyone have any thoughts on using "and" instead, or perhaps separating the two statements?


 * Interesting point. I agree "but" implies a judgement. However, I don't think that judgement is biased - after all, surely both sides of the argument would agree that an opinion on a subject is rather less useful if even the person who holds the opinion admits that they are relatively ignorant of the subject? Still, I have no objection to substituting "and", if you prefer. Unless there are other objections, I suggest you go ahead and make the change.


 * By the way, please sign your posts so we know who we're talking to :o) - just type three tildes at the end of your message and the software will fill it in automatically for you. Wombat 13:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for explaining about post signing, I made the mistake of assuming it was automatic and not checking. 80.41.201.105

Non-European Opinions?
What do countries beyond the borders of the European area feel? I can only assume that Euroskepticisim is akin to the way many Americans feel about the UN.

The EU can be looked at in the same was as the UN, is it power-hungry and land grabbing, or benign? That said, is it valid to be a Euroskeptic without being immediately subject to EU legally? Look as Microsoft, as an interesting example (not completely exemplary, but a good example nonetheless.) --JD 02:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * EUSSR red flag.svg

Orphaned references in Euroscepticism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Euroscepticism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "local": From UK Independence Party:  From YouTube:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Black block.jpg

Which Euroscepticism?
Euroscepticism is a political position that ranges from opposing some EU institutions and policies, seeking their reform, to opposing EU membership itself, since it considers EU as unreformable. The former position is denoted as "Eurorealism", "Eurocritical", or "soft Euroscepticism" and the latter as "anti-European Unionism", "anti-EUism", or "hard Euroscepticism". (These are the main terms used, although others exist as well.) Yet, in many articles related to this article's subject, no distinction is made between "soft" and "hard" Euroscepticism, e.g. the article on the Italian political party Italexit. I suggest that the distinction is important and should be in every related article, provided, of course, it is supported by sources. - The Gnome (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * So where is the dividing line between soft and hard? According to whom? In the UK's post-referendum debates, May's proposals were regarded by many as hard but by the ERG faction as soft, nothing less than clean break Brexit would do. It can't be for WP editors to make these value judgements. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I made perfectly clear in my suggestion above that the distinction should be made according to 'sources (and I stressed the "of course"). On what basis then did you produced the phantom of "editors making value judgements"?! -The Gnome (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Value judgements on the NPOV of sources. For example, The Telegraph and The Guardian have rather different perspectives on what is soft and what is hard. (To be clear, I agree with your analysis but don't know how to deliver it.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the sources do not make it clear what kind of Eurosceptic a Eurosceptic party is, then nothing beyond "Eurosceptic" is written up. It's not obligatory to have the distinction. -The Gnome (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In my view, there should be no division among Eurosceptic parties. There is no hard and left, but just Euroscepticism. Most importantly, Euroscepticism should never be mentioned in political parties' infoboxes, as it is not an ideology, but a policy. --Checco (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in another comment, the terms "Hard Euroscepticism" and "Soft Euroscepticism" were originally defined by Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak in this paper, which is referenced and used in many academic publications. Also, the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) website has two articles defining "soft" and "hard" euroscepticism. In my personal opinion, if a party actively campaigns for withdrawing its country from the EU, it could be straight defined "hard eurosceptic" basing on these definitions. P1221 (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with . There is a substantial difference between EU criticism and opposition to EU membership. So for example if enough sources claim that a party has among its main priorities the withdrawal of its country's EU membership, that goes within the definition of "hard Euroscepticism" (which by the way is defined already in the second sentence of Euroscepticism). Yakme (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with . I don't agree with, however: for UKIP in the UK (and the modern Conservative Parry aka UKIP 2.0) it is very definitely an ideology bordering on Europhobia [see proposal to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, because of "another European Court telling us what we can't do."] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with P1221 regarding this issue. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Political scientists offer their theories and they can be be very different from one another. Unless there is general consensus among political scientists, we should refrain to adopt a theory of some political scientists or institutes are a general guidance for Wikipedia. Most importantly, there is no need to cite "Eurosceptiscism" in infoboxes, as it is just a policy among others. Parties are and should be defined by their ideologies (which are more stable), not by their policies. --Checco (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Change map picture
Can there be instead a map picture shoving eu or maybe just europe with more clear levels of support/or lack there of for eu 213.28.226.242 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Doubled language?
The reasoning section seems to repeat what is said earlier in the introduction. One of them should either be expanded or deleted. Just checking if there's consensus for this. ForTheGrammar &#34;Police&#34; James (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)