![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I don't see why we should list all currencies from member states, as the European Union internaly uses the euro (bugdets, for instance). How about this? "Currency: The euro (in 12 member states and used by the institutions). Countries that are not inside the eurozone are intended to join the single currency at some point, but use their national currencies at the moment.
Be sure to use the € (€) code from the wikipedia, for compatibility. 80.58.50.44
This isn't really necessary. The English wikipedia uses UTF-8. There's no problem with using it if you want to, of course. Mr. Jones 12:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That's interesting. Do you know where it has been discussed? There was some talk on the mailing list a couple of months back. Anyone have a reference? Mr. Jones 14:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I presume the French territories is only including those that fall into the category that's most important (french overseas department?) Anyways, it should be the ones on the Euro banknotes included only, French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalope and Réunion. Is this correct then, UTC -4 to +4, including only the above French territories? (there's more, but I think they're more independant or something) Zoney 23:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Under =structure= I added a section about the treaty history. The reason for this is that it is the only way to understand why the structure of the EU is so complicated. I thought it would be interesting to have maybe a one-line summary of what each treaty changed, but I found that I didn't even know what half of the treaties did.
The section is too long as it stands, so if it grows any larger (and it should as it is developed) it should be moved into its own article Treaties of the European Union, which surprisingly doesn't exist. There is a nice list of treaties in the list of European Union topics, but that is not enough. — Miguel 15:15, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
"Europe at several speeds", or whatever people call these things in English.
Amusingly enough, I ended up doing myself what I had balked at!!! I suggest that if anyone sees inaccuracies to fix them, but perhaps they shouldn't be expanded further? (e.g. if a section omits minor details about a treaty) Perhaps create a seperate page to do this? Anyways, please review / comment!!!
Zoney
15:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 23:22, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 23:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Gibralter is most definately in the EU, as they <will> vote in European Parliament elections. The reason I know this is that there was a bit of a hullaballoo recently - with the finite no. of MEPs stretched further most constituencies in the EU have been redrawn. A consequence is that Gibralter no longer will get an MEP of its own and there was a bit of a fuss because it is being included with the south-western bit of England! (I don't think Spain were happy!)
Some of the particulars may be imprecise, but essentially they are in EU as they will be/have been voting in the European Parliament elections!
Gibraltar.gov.gi says "In 1973 Gibraltar entered the European Economic Community, as a dependent territory in Europe, under Article 277(4) of the Treaty of Rome but was excluded, at the request of the Government of Gibraltar, from the common external tariff, the common agricultural policy and value added tax. 1973 also saw Gibraltar’s re-inclusion in the Scheduled Territories of the Sterling Area.". Gibraltar now votes for Euro Parliament because it is one of their human rights. having cake and eating it? garryq 01:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Would this image be better without the rivers? Dmn 02:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Likely :-) . The rivers are present since it is a derivation from the original EU-15 map shown before.
New map uploaded. Post your coments in the Europeanunion25.png image discusion. thewikipedian
the whole island of Cyprus is coloured as part of the union because the wiki states: "Negotiations have been ongoing for years to reunify the island, but have not as yet seen substantial success. A United Nations plan, announced on March 31, 2004 following talks in Switzerland, was put to both sides in separate referenda on April 24. It was favoured by the Turkish side by a majority of 2 to 1, but was rejected by the Greek side by a 3 to 1 margin. As a result, while officially the whole of Cyprus entered the European Union on May 1, 2004, the de facto EU border runs along the Green Line, dividing the country between the Greek and Turkish parts. EU law is currently not applied in the Turkish controlled north. See: Annan Plan, 2004 referendum."
The hungarian version however, only colours the southern part. I suggest leaving things like their are for now, and wait for further official clarification from the EU. thewikipedian
==In The News==
I presume the expansion will go on In The News section tonight. I made this image for the purpose - Please feel free to improve it.
67.100.45.137: The BBC has a pie chart [1] which shows how the EU will spend 99.7bn euros in 2004 (mostly in agricultural subsidies and regional aid). I couldn't find anything there or here about where this money comes from. Does the EU tax its citizens? Does it get grants from the member governments and if so, where does that money come from? Income tax? VAT? Sales tax? Inquiring minds want to see something about this in the article. Thanks.
Does anyone know the status of the right of the new citizens to live and work in the whole EU?
The last I knew was that all the old members had instituted a 2- to 7-year moratorium, but a few days ago I caught a news report that the Swedish parliament had refused to approve the government's proposal. This means that Sweden will be open to all. [5]
What about the rest of the countries?
— Miguel 14:46, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
This table extends too far, is boring (yes it's relevant information but who is going to read through the figures?), hard to read, etc.
I propose that I make a nice pretty graph instead (using the figures). After all, it's so people can compare various members' GDP per capita - n'est ce pas?
I'm thinking about a nice colourful bar-graph. Thoughts people?
I like the graphs - good work!
However it might be worth sorting the 'by % of EU average' graph in rank order, to differentiate them more. Also giving source details (such as year) in the image would help future updates when new info comes out.
Regardless - definitely big improvement on table -- EuroTom 17:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
The original table seems to come from the CIA Factbook. The conversion to Euro's is probably done just using a recent exchange rate, not sure if that's a good idea (won't have much effect on the comparison, but the acctual values in Euro's may change rather quickly.) Agree that the graph on the right should be sorted, this will give additional information. Even more usefull since the acctual values in the graph on the left may not be accurate anyway. -- Voodoo 23:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I didn't really want to completely omit the whole Cyprus / Yugoslav bit or political stuff. I simply couldn't at that moment figure out how to resolve the fact that the Cyprus issue was being discussing in the context of further enlargement. It's already happened! It's past enlargement now!
The Yugoslav bit is fine, fits in with the ambitions of e.g. Croatia and Macedonia/FYROM joining.
I replaced the 'not nearly ready' with something like 'not viewed as currently suitable' - after all, it's sounding like Croatia and Macedonia might even be in next enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria are further east, yet the latter in particular seems like it will be joining soon. In any case the former phrase seemed a bit harsh.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I don't see why we should list all currencies from member states, as the European Union internaly uses the euro (bugdets, for instance). How about this? "Currency: The euro (in 12 member states and used by the institutions). Countries that are not inside the eurozone are intended to join the single currency at some point, but use their national currencies at the moment.
Be sure to use the € (€) code from the wikipedia, for compatibility. 80.58.50.44
This isn't really necessary. The English wikipedia uses UTF-8. There's no problem with using it if you want to, of course. Mr. Jones 12:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That's interesting. Do you know where it has been discussed? There was some talk on the mailing list a couple of months back. Anyone have a reference? Mr. Jones 14:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I presume the French territories is only including those that fall into the category that's most important (french overseas department?) Anyways, it should be the ones on the Euro banknotes included only, French Guiana, Martinique, Guadalope and Réunion. Is this correct then, UTC -4 to +4, including only the above French territories? (there's more, but I think they're more independant or something) Zoney 23:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Under =structure= I added a section about the treaty history. The reason for this is that it is the only way to understand why the structure of the EU is so complicated. I thought it would be interesting to have maybe a one-line summary of what each treaty changed, but I found that I didn't even know what half of the treaties did.
The section is too long as it stands, so if it grows any larger (and it should as it is developed) it should be moved into its own article Treaties of the European Union, which surprisingly doesn't exist. There is a nice list of treaties in the list of European Union topics, but that is not enough. — Miguel 15:15, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
"Europe at several speeds", or whatever people call these things in English.
Amusingly enough, I ended up doing myself what I had balked at!!! I suggest that if anyone sees inaccuracies to fix them, but perhaps they shouldn't be expanded further? (e.g. if a section omits minor details about a treaty) Perhaps create a seperate page to do this? Anyways, please review / comment!!!
Zoney
15:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 23:22, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Pre-2004 posts on this topic archived here. Zoney 23:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Gibralter is most definately in the EU, as they <will> vote in European Parliament elections. The reason I know this is that there was a bit of a hullaballoo recently - with the finite no. of MEPs stretched further most constituencies in the EU have been redrawn. A consequence is that Gibralter no longer will get an MEP of its own and there was a bit of a fuss because it is being included with the south-western bit of England! (I don't think Spain were happy!)
Some of the particulars may be imprecise, but essentially they are in EU as they will be/have been voting in the European Parliament elections!
Gibraltar.gov.gi says "In 1973 Gibraltar entered the European Economic Community, as a dependent territory in Europe, under Article 277(4) of the Treaty of Rome but was excluded, at the request of the Government of Gibraltar, from the common external tariff, the common agricultural policy and value added tax. 1973 also saw Gibraltar’s re-inclusion in the Scheduled Territories of the Sterling Area.". Gibraltar now votes for Euro Parliament because it is one of their human rights. having cake and eating it? garryq 01:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Would this image be better without the rivers? Dmn 02:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Likely :-) . The rivers are present since it is a derivation from the original EU-15 map shown before.
New map uploaded. Post your coments in the Europeanunion25.png image discusion. thewikipedian
the whole island of Cyprus is coloured as part of the union because the wiki states: "Negotiations have been ongoing for years to reunify the island, but have not as yet seen substantial success. A United Nations plan, announced on March 31, 2004 following talks in Switzerland, was put to both sides in separate referenda on April 24. It was favoured by the Turkish side by a majority of 2 to 1, but was rejected by the Greek side by a 3 to 1 margin. As a result, while officially the whole of Cyprus entered the European Union on May 1, 2004, the de facto EU border runs along the Green Line, dividing the country between the Greek and Turkish parts. EU law is currently not applied in the Turkish controlled north. See: Annan Plan, 2004 referendum."
The hungarian version however, only colours the southern part. I suggest leaving things like their are for now, and wait for further official clarification from the EU. thewikipedian
==In The News==
I presume the expansion will go on In The News section tonight. I made this image for the purpose - Please feel free to improve it.
67.100.45.137: The BBC has a pie chart [1] which shows how the EU will spend 99.7bn euros in 2004 (mostly in agricultural subsidies and regional aid). I couldn't find anything there or here about where this money comes from. Does the EU tax its citizens? Does it get grants from the member governments and if so, where does that money come from? Income tax? VAT? Sales tax? Inquiring minds want to see something about this in the article. Thanks.
Does anyone know the status of the right of the new citizens to live and work in the whole EU?
The last I knew was that all the old members had instituted a 2- to 7-year moratorium, but a few days ago I caught a news report that the Swedish parliament had refused to approve the government's proposal. This means that Sweden will be open to all. [5]
What about the rest of the countries?
— Miguel 14:46, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
This table extends too far, is boring (yes it's relevant information but who is going to read through the figures?), hard to read, etc.
I propose that I make a nice pretty graph instead (using the figures). After all, it's so people can compare various members' GDP per capita - n'est ce pas?
I'm thinking about a nice colourful bar-graph. Thoughts people?
I like the graphs - good work!
However it might be worth sorting the 'by % of EU average' graph in rank order, to differentiate them more. Also giving source details (such as year) in the image would help future updates when new info comes out.
Regardless - definitely big improvement on table -- EuroTom 17:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
The original table seems to come from the CIA Factbook. The conversion to Euro's is probably done just using a recent exchange rate, not sure if that's a good idea (won't have much effect on the comparison, but the acctual values in Euro's may change rather quickly.) Agree that the graph on the right should be sorted, this will give additional information. Even more usefull since the acctual values in the graph on the left may not be accurate anyway. -- Voodoo 23:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I didn't really want to completely omit the whole Cyprus / Yugoslav bit or political stuff. I simply couldn't at that moment figure out how to resolve the fact that the Cyprus issue was being discussing in the context of further enlargement. It's already happened! It's past enlargement now!
The Yugoslav bit is fine, fits in with the ambitions of e.g. Croatia and Macedonia/FYROM joining.
I replaced the 'not nearly ready' with something like 'not viewed as currently suitable' - after all, it's sounding like Croatia and Macedonia might even be in next enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria are further east, yet the latter in particular seems like it will be joining soon. In any case the former phrase seemed a bit harsh.