Talk:Pro-Europeanism

Pro-European Parties
I'm wondering why it is necessary to list the pro-european parties from France and the UK. I understand that listing the parties from all the member states would make the article too long, but selecting France and the Uk seems arbitrary. I can understand mentioning the UK since it has a different political division on this issue. Also the vast majority of the political parties in the EU (exept for the UK) are pro-European. Maybe it would be better to make a list based on political views? Ive added ''Although the situation differs in each member state, in general, most political parties can be considered as being pro-European in varying degrees. The main exeptions being far left, far right and nationalist parties.'' Maybe it's to generalistic, let me know what you think!

i think within the country we should have disscusions on are thaughts then prosent them with all of the eu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.166.243 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-European Links
I was very impressed by the number of sceptic links there are on the Eurosceptic page (I've added some myself), so I though it might be worth having a few pro-Europeans ones on this page too. Unfortunately, there a bit UK specific at the mo, so if others could broaden them that'd be great... - Tom

Reform of EU
I think a key part of any pro-European viewpoint must include an aim to improve and reform the EU. For example, I personally think CAP is a very expensive way to 'protect' food supplies and agricultural employment, and is highly damaging to some developing countries that rely heavily on agricultural exports. Does anyone know of good links on reform that could be added to the page? - Tom

The point
What's the point of this article when there's already a synonymous one? It also seems to be rather Britain-centric. --Shallot 16:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Some people like Kenneth Clarke, consider themselves pro-European without the uncritical 'love' europhile might imply. Certainly there are more references in Wikipedia to Pro-European than to Europhile. That said, perhaps a redirect from one to the other might be appropriate as they are quite similar.

In terms of UK specific, it is, but a few contributions from others could broaden it to encompass other pro-European campaigns and political parties. --EuroTom 18:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Redundancy
This page really should be here. There are lots of references to it in multiple pages and it isn't self-explanatory unless you view the EU as Europe (!)... --anon


 * Agreed, but perhaps the various pro-EU pages (this one, and Europhile, and any others that are hanging around) could be combined into one bigger page covering the various grades of pro-EU thought. A similar thing should be done with the various eurosceptic pages. Toby W 08:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Odd sentence
I just tidied up a rather wordy intro but couldn't find a way to tidy up this sentence:

N.B. Whilst it is stated above that a pro-European position supports the EU, it does not necessarily follow that someone who may be labelled anti-European would be non-supportive of the EU.

I'm not sure what this means. It seems to be saying that pro-Europeans support the EU but anti-Europeans don't necessarily oppose it, but that can't be right because it's patently untrue. Any suggestions? Wombat 19:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge Europhile to this article
The Europhile article is vague, and it is UK usage anyway. 'Pro-European' makes sense all over Europe, and is widely used.Paul111 11:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. Merge (and redirect) the UK variant into this. Marcus22 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag
Isn't the flag upside down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boonk (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
As part of the necessary cleanup, I am removing this bit of unencyclopedic discussion of terminology, but I'll move it here first in case anyone thinks something can be saved from it. I suppose it might conceivably belong on Wiktionary. "In practice the term is used as a de facto antonym of eurosceptic. In turn anti-European and the pejorative Europhobe are synonyms of Eurosceptic, and Europhile is often seen as a pejorative term for a pro-European. Some Eurosceptics would describe themselves as 'pro-European' in the sense that they are not anti-Europe or anti-EU per se, although they would clearly not identify themselves as being pro-European in the sense described in this article. The precise meaning of these terms is often dependent on the context." --Boson (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is pro-Europeanism a political ideology?
I have long seen pro-Europeanism used in many infoboxes for political parties in the ideolgies section. As far as I was remember it had a few years ago been agreed and accepted that it is a political ideology. However a long time editor,, removed this from the page Scottish Labour Party, claiming it is not a political ideology. Is there any current consensus on this? If it is not an ideology a lot of infoboxes will need changing because as far as I'm aware it was general consensus that this could be included, as it is used quite frequently in this section. As such would Euroscepticism also need removing? I could see this as being far more complex and less justified as a lot of parties are based mainly around this. As such if Euroscepticism is acceptable then I don't really see why pro-Europeanism isn't. Helper201 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing Pro-Europeanism from Parties' infobox
User:Nick.mon, User:Vif12vf, User:Scia Della Cometa, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Autospark. User:Davide King, User:Broncoviz, User:AleCapHollywood, User:Egeymi, User:Yakme, User:Vacant0, User:Ermanarich, User:BastianMAT, User:Shadow4dark, User:The Account 2, User:Martopa, User talk:Braganza, User:Karma1998, User talk:Mureungdowon, User:Nick Number, User:Nick Number, User:Stevan Mitnick, User:Gorrrillla5, User:Skywatcher68 and User:Checco

I want to get a consensus to remove the Pro-Europeanism tag from all Parties' infobox because this tag is too generic and this tag's definition is undefined Pomchi-Inu87 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Most of the political parties listed here are well referenced within their "ideologies" section or their infobox's highlighting the party's "pro-European" stance/position. I believe this to be a matter of sourcing. I think you are better off placing WP:CITENEED tags in the articles where sources are non-existent. For the cases in which a particular party's views are ill-defined/or where WP:RS is lacking, taking it to the talk page(s) of those respective articles to discuss/seek consensus would be more appropriate. Considering each article is different, creating one mass rule-of-thumb to apply to all these articles (including the well sourced articles) doesn't particularly make sense. I think an individual, case-by-case approach is what's needed. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also including HapHaxion and Charles Essie here as I see they had to restore several articles where Pomchi-Inu87 had already begun removing the ideology from articles prior to any consensus being reached. Archives908 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with the reasoning of Archives908. User:ValenciaThunderbolt should also be made aware of this discussion based on his recent edits removing Pro-Europeanism from multiple infoboxes. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: As it isn't an ideology and rather a stance, which can be incorporated into an article's ideology section (if not already), I support its removal. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its arguable that even "stances" are ideologically based in principal. Do you have any WP:RS which proves its categorically not an ideology? Several of these "pro-European" parties place closer European integration/development of ties with the EU/prospective EU membership as a goal prominently within their respective manifestos. In contrast, Euroscepticism has become a pretty prominent ideological stance of many parties in Europe, so why the double standard with "Pro-Europeanism" as an ideology? Archives908 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think that pro-Europeanism should be indicated in the infoboxes of all pro-European parties, but in some cases it is a distinctive feature of some parties, characterizing itself "de facto" as a political ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, enthusiastically. Pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism are not ideologies, but policies. Political party infoboxes should contain only pure ideologies and, possibly, not more than two or three of them. Policies like pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, Atlanticism, Russophilia, anti-immigration and so on should not be among them. --Checco (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: not only are pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism real ideologies, but they're very useful for users to instantly understand what a particular European party's outlook on EU is. --Zlad! (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are policies, not ideologies. They are also quite generic, loose and poor indicators. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * big headache = minor spelling mistake.
 * meant to write ideologies lol Zlad! (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The "pro-Europeanism" label in the ideology section of a party's infobox is a critical marker of where the party stands on European integration and support for the European Union. In today's European political climate, where the divide between pro-Europeanism and euroscepticism is increasingly pronounced, this label offers essential insight into a party's core beliefs and policy directions.
 * Firstly, "pro-Europeanism" provides clarity about a party's stance on the EU, an issue that gives readers a hint at their policies on trade, immigration, environmental regulations and more. By clearly labeling a party as pro-European, readers of the Wiki can easily gain a better understanding of where that party stands on these issues.
 * Moreover, the presence of the "pro-Europeanism" label allows for straightforward comparisons between parties. This is especially important in a political environment where opinions on the EU can be deeply polarized. People can easily distinguish between parties that support EU integration and those that are more skeptical or outright opposed.
 * Additionally, the stance on the EU is often a significant part of a party's identity and history. Many parties have evolved in response to Europe-related issues, and their position on the EU has been a defining trait, for example, Volt Europa. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a clear and accepted term to indicate a party's ideological position. Labrang (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Concern about an alleged long list of ideologies is not to be blamed on the ideologies but on the concerned parties. I would rather be concerned with citation overkill which seems to be a trend in en-wiki. Labrang (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I would say that it depends on the country's context, and in some countries the label would play a big role or matter a lot, so we should keep it.
 * Lastjourneyman. (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, I can't imagine Georgian parties without them. First are your views on EU, and then economic and social platforms. Zlad! (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, removing it just removes information from Infoboxes, it's useful to know the parties' stances on the EU. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While it may be useful for outside-EU political parties, it is completely useless for EU member parties as it is the assumed default position - being for oneself is *normal*.
 * In that context, we can also invent "Pro-Frenchism" as an ideology in infoboxes for some(!) of the French political parties. And "Pro-Greekism" for some(!).
 * On the practical scale, Federalism is a real description of a party ideology/policy. Pro-Europeanism is not. Not for EU political parties.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism are established and widely used ideologies, while pro-Frenchism is not. Zlad! (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That something is used - in academia - does not mean it is useful for further one's understanding of the world.
 * I have nothing against the existence of the term as an academic one with a very specific article noting the nuances /and the limitations/ of what is actually meant by this one more in my view - language-abusing - word. There are a lot of terms like that in the academic world and yet we do not "transplant" them into the casual vocabulary. Not without major caveats/explanations at a minimum.
 * The issue I see is the term was created *before* there was an actual EU and referred to the desire to *create* an Europe-wide structure of sorts. The objective which wa largely achieved by now. This was as opposed to the concept at the time which were against moving in the EU creation direction. As a raw term, it had a lot of meaning - 20+ years ago. The problem is that, today, general populace still associates that original meaning with it while academia diverged a lot on that. I argue that using the term to describe political parties of the EU *30 years after its creation* is useless. Not that the term does not exist. The same way a term of "Frenchism" would have been valid at the time modern France was formed as a unitary state. I used an invented word intentionally to show the point only.
 * On the contrary, the term "Euroscepticism" is actually a much newer term - it represents policies *within* the EU and refers to the conviction about the ability of the centralised EU structures to solve/not solve all problems effectively. A very current term which has a meaning for EU-based parties. Incidentally, not much meaning so for outside-EU ones in a mirror way.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support (Conditional), the term has no place for EU-based parties these days. It can still be used for outside-EU parties where it has a meaning. Like UK, Belarus, Turkey, etc. It can also be kept for historical, now defunct parties which had the position before their country joined the EU.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be revived and a consensus should be achieved, eventually. More broadly, we should decide whether only ideologies should be mentioned in political party articles' infoboxes. I have long argued that only recognised ideologies, not policies and let alone neologisms, should be be included. Also, infoboxes should not contain long lists of ideologies, but we need a clear consensus. I hope we will find the proper place for that discussion. In the meantime, we should find consensus on the "pro-Europeanism/Euroscepticism" issue, at least. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy that more users are writing on the issue. I understand that the stance on the EU is somewhat critical in the current circumstances, but not all parties are clearly defined by being pro-Europeanist or Eurosceptic. Moreover, I quite dislike long list of ideologies, supposed ideologies, policies and stances to infoboxes. There should be only a couple of recognised ideologies, otherwise why pro-Europeanism/Euroscepticism and not pro-NATO/anti-NATO, pro-immigration/anti-immigration, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc.? --Checco (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its important to note that this certainly is not the talk page to debate if other random ideologies warrant inclusion on infoboxes or not. As for "Pro-Europeanism", it seems there is a WP:SNOWBALL majority who, as of now, vote to keep it. Archives908 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true, but we absolutely need to have a general picture and agreement on which items can be added or not in political party infoboxes. --Checco (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The term Europeanism would actually be the correct term. It doesn't need the "pro" - of that helps. Labrang (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * hmmm, that would be an interesting and a wide reaching change. Zlad! (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, I prefer this over "pro-Europeanism", as it implies there is "anti-Europeanism", when it is actually Euroscepticism. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. Zlad! (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I also dislike a long list of ideologies, but I feel ideology section should accurately reflect party's views on 1. economic matters 2. social issues 3. foreign policy
 * For example for parties in Georgia you may see economic ideology like Libertarianism or democratic socialism, then social like social liberalism or social conservatism, then stance on EU like euroscepticism or pro-europeanism and finally Atlanticism for favoring NATO integration and Russophilia for favoring Russia relations. This perfectly summarizes the party's ideology and essence in a way that is not a long bloated list. Zlad! (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And that is the core of the point. "Pro-Europeanism" has a very well understood and specific meaning for parties *outside* the European Union.
 * But the most people who have issues using it have a problem with (ab)using it for EU parties. There it is used as a political tool to insinuate that a parties not labeled "Pro-Europeanian" are in some way anti-Europeanian.
 * For non-EU parties, the correct term is indeed "Pro-Europeanism" as this is an umbrealla term, covering BOTH Europeanist and Eurosceptic views, and al in between. It is about the direction/alignement with the European Union per se.
 * For EU-based parties the correct term is "Europeanism" which is a more nuanced one, that *is* applicable for EU-based parties and political discourse while vice versa is not really applicable for outside-EU parties /it has no meaning for their polities/.
 * This conflation is the source of the conflict in my view. Until this is somehow split - i.e. we have a separate "Pro-Europeaninsm" article focusing on the outside-EU polities and a separate "Europeanism" article focussing solely on the EU-based polities the conflict will not go away.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: The policy is not an ideology. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact Europeanism is an ideology/ideological family - as various academics have argued. Labrang (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please state sources. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's odd. You make a statement without providing sources to corroborate your statement, while expecting me/others to proof their replies with sources. Of course I did not say the above randomly in an uninformed fashion. For example such as these links or this. Labrang (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of the term "Euorpeanism", as it has always been pro- or anti-Europeanism here. The reason why I said, before I knew of these page, is because of the way the intro of the page here is as follows "Pro-Europeanism, sometimes called European Unionism, is a political position that favours European integration and membership of the European Union (EU).. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you delve into sources you'll see Europeanism is a long used term and has evolved from into an ideology, a set of ideas - with Pro-Europeanism basically being synonymous for that, but simply highlighting it is "pro" that. Our Europeanism redirect summarizes this set of ideas in the section McCormick (2010) from this book - which I did not link yesterday, but which you can access with your Wikipedia Library account. Labrang (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the academia. This is Wikipedia.
 * The English language meaning of "Pro-Europeanism" is interpretted as "being for the European Union" and is being - politically used as such even. To say that anyone who is not "Pro-European" is "anti-European Union".
 * That has been mangled up in accademia publications to a different meaning does not change is generally accepted meaning as per the English language.
 * The only way I can see sustaining this if the article on Pro-Europeanism was explictly educative, describing the term as having gronw into a political propaganda tool to un-label opponents, purposely using the double-meaning to confuse. But that is a very, very, slippery slope there. Much better to just go with the common meaning of the term. And that is not ideological. Alternatively, the term can be split into a separate "Pro-Europeanism (Politology)" article that would focus on the academia meanings specifically while the general article should cover the UK and other non-EU countries meaning only.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, the term would still have no place in the infoboxes for EU-based parties. So either way it is "support" from here.185.5.68.137 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

word is a package deal
I am wondering is this word is not a package deal? Being 'pro' Europe does not have to entail supporting European political centralisation. Would European federalism or centralisation not be a clearer word to use? Since we are talking here about political parties. Similarly euro-skepticism usually does not entail being skeptical about Europe, but being skeptical about (more) centralisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg21dg21 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No, because not all "Pro-EU" parties advocate for federalism. Some parties support maintaining the EU as is, others call for reform, while others like Volt Europa actively call for the federalization of the EU. Archives908 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)