Talk:History of the European Union

Flag
Someone added:


 * The EU Flag with the 12 stars is not for the 12 member states, as there are currently 15 member states. Its 12 and it will remain forever 12, even after the expansion with east-European countries. 

I've removed it. The above-linked page makes it clear that there's really no mystery about this - the flag represents Europe, not the EU. This has little to do with the history of the EU anyway. A link to the flag page from European Union is OK, of course, and I'll add one now if there isn't one already. --Camembert

As far as I know this flag had been in use since 1955, when it was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In that time there were no 12, but 6 Members, the starting Six (Belgie, Deutschland, France, Italia, Luxembourg en De Nederlanden)

The 12 stars will remain on the flag, no matter how many countries join the European Union. This unchanging number symbolizes perfection and plenitude.

So: the gold stars on the blue flag were never intended to depict the number of member states.

Later, May 26 1986, this flag was officially adopted as a symbol of the European Union on May 26, 1986.

The 12 stars, forming an exact circle, are placed in the positions of the 12 hours on the face of a clock, the 12 months in a year, 12 tables of Roman Law. They represent the union of the peoples and peaopleS of Europa.

Some sections
The section on the post-Cold War enlargement and the one on associate memberships both seem out of place. They should probably be properly integrated and rewritten in the process. --Shallot 12:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC) --

Pre 1945 Origins - Nazi European Confederation
The nazi proposal for a confederated europe has no connection with the present EU. It is a piece of political spin to try to suggest there is a link between the two. By all means mention that it was floated but its nature needs to be clearly set out. User Elizabeth A seems to want to blur the distinction so that the reader would conclude that the EU has Nazi origins. Lumos3 21:18, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree more or less. However, I am not sure it's totally irrelevant or out of scope for this article on the History of the European Union. And in any case, it fits better in this article then in the main article on the European Union. Maybe we should note also the Frankian realm as a predecessor? In my assessment, there are more similarities between the Holy Roman Empire and the EU than between EU and the Nazi concept of a united Europe. --Ruhrjung 21:34, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

On three occasions in the last three months, ti221110a080-2234.bb.online.no (83.109.136.186), ti221110a080-5341.bb.online.no (83.109.148.221) and ti221110a080-15749.bb.online.no (83.109.189.133) has tried to censor this Nazi reference without discussion and under pretense of NPOV policy. I'm noting this in case they try it again -- which will get them banned but it's obviously a random dialup IP so it may cause too much collateral damage. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The NPOV of reference (6) which supports this section is disputed. The document is not the original German 1942 version but a biased modern English translation with commentary that tries to show that the EU itself is a Nazi concept. Portions of this text have been directly copied into this section. The reference document itself is hosted by the site of a former Voice of Russia journalist based in Moscow. This section should be clarified to remove the disputed reference and any non-NPOV wording whilst retaining the historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.248.206 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the contentious material again. The citation given is not a WP:Reliable source. --Red King (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.248.206 (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

2004 enlargement
What units are used in the table in this section? Could someone please add them? Lumos3 16:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

opat
Aris Katsaris wrote: ''... I don't know what "opat" is supposed to mean.''


 * I can tell you what it means in a non-English language... it's a word for Christian monks (or something) in my language. I can't remember the direct translation to English. Friar? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Abbot', apparently. I have made the edit. There are references to his 1713 'Plan for a perpetual peace' (or various other translations of the title) which may be relevant. I don't know about 1728. He may be a candidate for an article all to himself. Bobblewik  (talk) 12:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suggesting big structural change
There exist really two issues concerning the history of the European Union, and I feel that their juxtaposition in the text actually helps muddle both of them and is detrimental against expanding either. One of the issues we might call "History of the Enlargement of the European Union" and the other one is "History of European integration" (or perhaps "History of the structures") -- the one involves the expanding borders, the other concerns the structural changes and the various policies (like single currency and so forth). In short the "widening" and the "deepening" of the European Union.

So, would anyone agree to restructuring this article according to those lines? The way I see it, it could be something like this:
 * 1) Pre 1945 influences
 * 2) Post 1945 impetus and the three communities
 * 3) History of the European integration
 * 4) History of the enlargement of the European Union
 * 5) Current problems

Both 3 and 4 would be subdivided further ofcourse.

So, any comments or thoughts on all of this? Aris Katsaris 21:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm asking again, if someone has huge problems to the concept of such a restructuring? Before I start attempting it. Specific problems can ofcourse be handled at a case-per-case basis but does anyone object to the idea of moving from a sequential order to an order that segregates between enlargement and integration? Aris Katsaris 13:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to the changes you suggest. I dont like the word problems for the last section. Issues is a better description. Problem makes things sound insoluable. Lumos3 14:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I was not very active when Aris Katsaris made this proposal, but I'm glad he did. Reading the result, I wonder if maybe the order of the sections on integration and enlargement should be switched, so that the enlargement followed immediately after the section on the three communities, and the integration, that is an ongoing process that to large degree is influented by the enlargement, followed. What do you say? --Ruhrjung 21:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Role of Benelux
The role of the Benelux in the beginning of the EU is, in my opinion, completely looked over.
 * Well, as a Dutchman I'm inclined to agree with you that we're systematically being ignored (thank god imho =D)
 * But realistically speaking, is there really something you deem so crucial it has to be added to an encyclopedia article?
 * We were there? That's already in it. :/
 * -Kraftwerk 23-03-05-


 * When I was a schoolchild in the US, we were always taught that the EU started with the Benelux countries and the other countries joined in. I'll try to find a source... Only Zuul (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I mentioned the basic influence of the BeNeLux in the Messina Conference article.Pvosta (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After some research I found that the roots of the EEC can be traced back to the BeNeLux memorandum of 1955 and the idea of Jan Willem Beyen for a customs union.Pvosta (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should acknowledge the role of the BeNeLux more clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.160.101 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ENLARGEMENT
I don't think enlargement history is given enough attention. Sure the enlaragements are mentioned but maybe some more info on the issues surrounding that enlargement would prove helpful. I mean the 2004 enlargement wasn't a clear cut issue that everyone was pleased about.


 * The 2004 Enlargement is already a large section. If we are to enlarge it any more, it's better to create a new article about it and just leave a synopsis here. Btw, please consider signing your posts in the talk pages and perhaps getting a Wikipedia account as well. Aris Katsaris 18:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Enlargement and .Gif's animation
Can someone make an animation of the European enlargement ? An animation will be clearer than lot of words.Yug

Greenland comment
I just moved the Greenland comment from the Enlargement page. But I think that its place is neighter here, nor there - it is not a state, so it should be leaved in Special_member_state_territories_and_their_relations_with_the_EU, where it was in the first place.62.204.151.1 21:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Federal Union
In Britain the group known as Federal Union was launched in November 1938, and began advocating a Federal Union of Europe as a post-war aim.

This sounds a little bit odd, given that WW II didn't start before September 1939. It should be clarified when the Federal Union started to have a post-war aim or which war they were referring to (maybe the spanish civil war? That was being fought in 1938) 213.191.70.226 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Decimal points/thousand separators
What's Wiki style policy on the use of thousands separators and decimal points? A number of pages authored by Continental Europeans use a point ( . ) for the thousands separator and a comma for the decimal marker, e.g. 'twelve thousand point eight-four' is written '12.000,84' (and said, e.g. in German, "Zwölf Tausend komma acht-vier"). English style is, of course, a comma for the thousands separator and a point for the decimal marker, i.e. '12,000.84'. Furthermore, SI style drops the thousands separator (12 000.84).

I haven't seen anything in 'how to edit' guidelines about thousands separators and decimal points. Should an entry be made, indicating which style to use when editing English/European language pages?

What brought this up? I've just edited '80.000' to 'eighty thousand' and '80 000' to remove any source of confusion around the thousands separator.


 * See also: Decimal separator

Sentinel75 07:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Defacement
I noticed that the begining of the article had been deleted and replaced with some offensive text. I removed the bad text, but the begining of this article remains missing. If anyone has an older copy of it, it would be much appreciated if someone could restore the article.

The EU -- A 'German Ploy'?
This might be worth mentioning in this article: many people in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere [i.e. France, Russia, those Europeans countries that refuse to join, many others]) believe that the European Union is nothing more than a 'German ploy' to 'control' Europe both politically and economically (given that Germany is the most economically powerful and populous member of the EU). They say that the success of the EU obliquely fulfills the Third Reich's burning desire for Germany to become "The Undisputed Masters of Europe." Should this hypothesis be included in the article or simply written off as a deluded conspiracy theory? --152.163.101.6 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The later, unless you can cite someone important saying it. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maps
The 2007 map doesn't have Serbia and Montenegro as separate countries. Maybe not a high priority, since they're not joining the EU anyway, but if someone with image editing skills can fix it it'd be a good idea...
 * Quite right. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It would also be nice if the visible sliver of Greenland was coloured in in the 1973 and 1982 maps. jnestorius(talk) 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

1993 Section
The section about the copenhagen criteria reads in a somewhat POV / negative towards the EU - specifically the statement about democracy being a requirement. Tholex 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure of Articles
I would like to propose a reorganisation of articles about the EU, including merging and renaming as follows:


 * Enlargement of the European Union (EEU): rename to Future Enlargement of the European Union


 * List of European Union member states by accession: Merge future info into EEU article, and past info into History of the European Union. keep as a simple list.

Does this sound feasible? AndrewRT - Talk 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am against this. The list article was created to briefly summarise the past and future of enlargements and provide a concentrated collection of dates and information. Keep it as it is. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rotating presidency by country
Is there a list of the country-presidencies of the EEC/EU? If there is (or when it is created) could it be linked here and/or to the main EU page. Jackiespeel 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Presidency of the Council of the European Union. This links into the main Politics and government of the European Union template AndrewRT(Talk) 18:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article
The EU only exists since the Treaty of Maastricht. Including its direct predecessors in this article is relevant, but before 1951 it gets problematic. It is not historically accurate to treat past events as part of a present entity, see historiography and anachronism. I therefore propose splitting the article into a pre-1945 and post-1945 version. One article could be titled History of European integration or History of pan-European proposals. The post-1945 article would retain the present title, and begin with the debate in the immediate post-war years (1945-1946).Paul111 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Article History of Zimbabwe it covers the whole span of histroy from ancient times to modern times, notwithstanding the fact that the country was known as Rhodesia prior to 1980. The is similar. The European Union is part of a continuity of organisations. It is right that the article called History of the European Union should deal with all those organisations and should take the name of the current organisation. Of course there is nothing wrong with having additional sub-articles for the pre-45 and post-45 periods. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The continuity of organisations goes back to 1951. Adding anything before the Second World War is Whig history. There is no need for this article to repeat the errors of nationalist historiography, and assume territorial entities existed in the past in their current form.Paul111 19:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whig historiography perceives the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment. There is no evidence of a claim of inevitablility present in this article so this charge is not a valid one. Any history needs to set the scene as to how previous events have led up to the period in question so that they can be seen in context. Nothing jumps fully formed into being and the movements that led to the EU's coming into being should be described here if the reader is to gain an complete understanding of the subject. Lumos3 (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rework
Just on the idea of splitting, it is long - and should be longer. Way too much information is missing, this is basicaly a history of enlargement plus post 1945 ideas. I've started on a draft which I hope as a better structure to expand with information, including sub-pages, please do help out on it. If there are no objections I'll transfer it from my user space to here when all the existing information is moved to the new pages.

Only the pre-1993 information is in sub-pages, as there is little post-1993 yet to warrant a new page - I'd see a new sub-page post institutional settlement e.g. " History of the European Union (1993-2009)". Please, comments and contributions, still needs a lot of work - primarily the sub-pages which are just copied information at the moment. User:JLogan/DraftEUHistory -  J Logan t/c: 11:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Election result tables
I've always got the impression that this type of articles should only contain text and supplementary images. I think massive amounts of quality text should be our 'goal' for this article. A fundamental article like History of the European Union should be spared from huge tables, and the exact numbers of MEPs in the Parliament is a bit too irrelevant, I think. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am half an half about it. I was thinking we could use some kind of quick reference on here for the results - for comparison between the years.- J Logan t: 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but I think "see also"s would be better. It looks better. - $\mathrm{S}$ $\mathrm{Solberg}$ $\mathrm{J}$ 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits about the expansions ...
... that part was for me of big interest and it is now completely gone. Where can I see it? Was it moved? It was recently removed from the European Union article moved into this article, and now where? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly what do you mean on expansions? Nothing was removed by SSJ and before I moved the 1993-1999 detail to its own page like the Communities one as it had grown larger than those independent pages, you can find that here: History of the European Union (1993-1999). The link to that is at the top of the shortened section, like the others. If not that, what?- J Logan t: 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not actually sure, I think it may be worth to re-read the article as a whole. But a couple of notes: References to the fourth enlargements are gone (nothing is mentioned).  The fifth enlargement has its own section when there are no other sections for the previous enlargements (sounds out of place to me, look at the index to see if you understand what I am saying).  The section '1999–2004: "Prime Minister of Europe"' continues into the next section, but it does not "flow directly".  Again, I think a great job has been done to make it simple and short, but the last copy/edits seem to me like leaving the article in an inconsistent state.  I might be wrong ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes the whole thing could do with copyedit and citation, 1999-2004 wasn't changed by me of late. There is a very small note on the 4th enlargement but granted it could do with a bit more. The 5th has its own section because there is no sub pages for 1999 onwards, 1999-2004 and 2004-present are essentially pages in the making which would need development (or merging together after 2009) before being shipped out like I did to 1993-1999.- J Logan t: 10:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
The first (pan)-European organization after the Second World War was the OECC, the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, instead of the Council of Europe. It was created on 16 april, 1948. See also http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1876912_1_1_1_1,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubberbrein2 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Treaty nice.jpg
The image Image:Treaty nice.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

History of European Parliament link
In reading this, I noticed that the History of European Union from 1973-2003 had a link to History of European Parliament from 1973-2003. That link led to the very same page. I assume this is a leftover from a merger, so I deleted the rouge link. If it was an incorrectly leading to the wrong page, feel free to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.48.159 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The two links in question were History_of_the_European_Parliament and History_of_the_European_Union

European Atomic Energy Community
The intro states that the EAEC is part of the EU, but the EAEC's own article states that it is still legally distinct from the EU. I think the intro here is actually trying to say that the ECSC and EEC are part of the EU but has inadvertently and erroneously included the EAEC. I'm not sure how to reword the intro, but I thought it should be brought up. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article
The wording and feel of the article seems to be very academic, as if it was an extract or a modified version of an original university essay, it is not the kind of article you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Sheodred (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the European Union. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/europe/eu-budget/eu-budget-fraud/eu-budget-fraud-%24366701.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923001700/http://www.bmbrussels.be/box_bmnewcomm.php to http://www.bmbrussels.be/box_bmnewcomm.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230075057/http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1231409822.27/ to http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1231409822.27/

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) 13:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For the External link "An Outline of Emergence of the European Union" I find the bar graph to be helpful, but it seems to be a little confusing to understand and follow? Uneatnesath the years and type of treaty it provides content and abbreviations, it would be nice to have a key of what those abbreviations means.Nikki sato (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Nikki S

From ECSC to the Treaties of Rome
The sentence Most European countries failed to maintain their Great Power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers .[6] However, the exception was the USSR, which became a superpower after World War II and maintained the status for 45 years is not clear and the referenced site [6] doesn't exist any more. I would delete "leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers", which smells like OR to me. Or can someone find the text of the original reference #6? 194.174.73.80 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Oswald Mosley/Europe A Nation
On purely objective grounds should there not be a section devoted to Mosley, his outline for an EU and the fact he was the first to publish a newspaper called "The European?" His vision provides an interesting alternative structure run by a coalition of businesses and trade unions, with fixed wage for each job and price controls over the entire continent to control over and underproduction which, agreeing with Marx, he held to be the cause of poverty and unemployment. Of course, as with the current set up, you end up with an open prison with a centralized power base but it is an interesting alternative and should feature in any history.
 * I don't think so. Plenty of people, both before and after Mosley, thought about European unity and published newspapers. Some of them had similar political views too, both before and after his swing from corporatism/planning to fascism. His ideas had no major success in the UK and no long-term influence elsewhere. At best, he might merit a wikilink. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brigade Piron Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's is something wrong with this sentence:
As a civilian Churchill, after leaving office calling for a United States of Europe. 62.74.34.119 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)