![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I read in the CIA world fact book that there is provision to make 13 european half brigades (1500 men strong) between 2005 and 2010.
Should not be a military section?
Or even a link to the euroarmy?
or both?
-- 147.156.202.89 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the Lisbon Agenda the European Union is to become the most advanced economic, technological and cultural area of the Earth by the end of the decade.
I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum - I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the entire EU (among many other things). I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on the pros and cons: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance! Medalstats 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact, recently someone nominated this article for deletion. Whether it really should be deleted is being discussed here: this article's entry. Medalstats 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Having an Olympic medal statistics for the EU would be a great addition since other countries also have those statistics, even though the IOC does not favor it.
I just reverted an anon who changed a bunch of statistics without any edit summary or justification - just thought I'd mention it here in case they are actually accurate. — Dan | Talk 03:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if you had put some edit summary yourself when you wrote the text above, so that we know from the watchlist what your point is :) (Especially since you are bringing up a serious topic). Oleg Alexandrov 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I looked through the numbers, using the IMF site linked to generate the reports with the matching numbers (since the link given was only for per-capita GDP PPP, and was for all countries, bah). There was a mistake with the GDP of Slovakia (was about half what it should be), and the sums were off by second-most significant digits (GDP was low, per-capita GDP was high). I've updated them and fixed the value for Slovakia's GDP. My numbers are based on the data available at the links below the table, and I can provide the Exel/Gnumeric files I used to calculate the totals for review.
I'm going to update the numbers in the intro
European Union#Economic status for the EU and USA too. I've just got to get my conversions to euros first. (Update: those numbers are updated now too using XE.com.) —
Saxifrage |
☎ 02:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
An anon amended the sentence that stated that Brussels was the headquarters, to say that the headquarters is "largely" in Brussels and Luxembourg ( diff). I knew this was a vast oversimplification, but then so was the original sentence. I've taken the liberty of expanding it, trying to be as terse as I could while including the relevant fragments of the "headquarters". (I used this [2] as my initial source. Someone care to double-check my facts?)
Comments? Additionally, I notice that this is going to be a featured article: if there's contention over this, perhaps we should reinstate the simple sentence about only Brussels (perhaps changing "headquarters" to "capital", which is more accurate) just for the time that it's a featured article? — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
(The first three posts in this thread are copied from User_talk:Pgreenfinch)
Regarding your recent edit to European Union,
As far as I was aware, the fact that Brussels is the location of the European Commission, it being the executive body of the EU, made Brussels the capital of the Union. Apart from that, according with the Treaty of Amsterdam, Strasbourg is not the location of the European Parliament: the EP is held half the time in Brussels, half the time in Strasbourg. Further, the administration of the Parliament is located in Luxembourg. Therefore, if the location of the capital is determined by the location of the Parliament, the "capital" is divided between Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg. Am I mistaken in any of these points? — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Come on, you know perfectly well that the EU has no official capital, you will never find the word capital in the treaties, even the new one, for deliberate reasons that I explain below. So to say that Brussels is the capital is as wrong as to say it for any other European town. But as some people insist that Brussels is, it is normal to correct it by telling that other towns can rightly pretend to the title. Btw, Strasbourg is regarded as the capital of the whole Europe, as it is the seat of the Council of Europe. Also, the EU Parliament is really in Strasbourg, since the beginning, and it is exceptional that its sessions take place in Brussels, so nobody can deny that it is the democratic capital. So, either it is mentionned in this article that the EU has *no* capital, which happens to be its will from the beginning, this is the core of the issue, as a volontary sign of a decentralised union, or some try to maintain in the article that Brussels is, or is regarded as, *the* capital, then everybody is entitled to write on the article that any other town with a EU institution is the capital, or a capital, or a specific capital for a given aspect, or a part of the capital, or whatever specie, taste or flavor of capital. -- Pgreenfinch 07:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With a legal background, and being very familiar with EC law, I can confirm that there is no "capital city" of the EC/EU. More to the point, if there was a "capital city", it would be of the European Community, not the European Union, as it is the European Community which constitutes the main binding legal framework. I also think that in the interests of Wikipedia remaining as a source of information it is a serious mistake to make reference to the EC/EU having a "capital city", as this is factually wrong, and is a political assertion.
I don't think it's appropriate to be addressing the complex topic of the structure of the EU in the second paragraph of the article, particularly while also trying to address the sticky topic of the "capital" of the EU in the same paragraph. The intro to the article must be focused and terse. I belive that the "capital" question can be quickly addressed there, but that the proper treatment of the structure of the EU should be put in the body of the article in a dedicated section. Notice that European Union#Structure already exists. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why is French Guiana not highlighted on the location map? It is part of the Union.
Greenland stays under danish sovereinty but it is not part of the EU anymore.
It is very ill-advised to divide the institutions into the traditional Montesquieu 3 branches. I have changed it. – Kaihsu 22:52, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Hello. User:Rl is reverting my changes to this section with the following edit summary: "rv to Cantus' version of 10:37; the "geeky stuff" was correct, your math isn't; and these ain't minor edits, either". My version is this:
And User:Rl is reverting to this version:
The figures I'm adding come from the IMF web site, and you can see them for yourself. If there is a problem with this figures I would like to know. — Cantus… ☎ 12:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if there is something wrong, but we might talk again about it when the euro will reach 1.5 US dollars ;-)) -- Pgreenfinch 13:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cantus, both your (corrected for magnitude) numbers and the previous numbers were correct. They were simply calculated by different standards, both acceptable (those being "current pricing" and "purchasing power parity" or "PPP"). Before your edits, all the figures in that section were derived from the IMF's PPP calculations and were consistent. Now, the table contains PPP-calculated figures and the text contains conflicting figures based on current-pricing calculations. I don't object to using the new numbers over the old (I don't care which, really), but I strongly object to using inconsistent figures. According to Gross domestic product#Cross-border comparison, there is a good argument for using the current-pricing model of calculation in this context, since we're talking about global economic power and not standard-of-living. If we do use the new numbers, though, the table must be edited to agree. I'm not willing to rewrite the table again, having already done it once recently. If someone else is, great. If not, it would be very simple to return the article to a correct and consistent state by reverting the new numbers. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think this two links point to some very informative diagrams that can help readers quickly grasp how EU runs its business. [11] and [12] This links here act more like a site map tp the former link [13]
The comparison with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is irrelevant, as this was only a regional east European state with no european dimension. It cannot be compared to the Holy Roman Empire or the European Union. It has existed dozens of multiple-nation states like the Polish-Lithuanian one, like Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway, not to mention Austria-Hungary, and perhaps even Great Britain. But all these are only regional and have not the same dimension as the EU and the HRE. Also, the European Union originated in "core Europe" (Germany/France), and that's why the empire of Charlemagne and the HRE have some relevance, but regional east European history has no relevance.
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why am I not allowed to make the article say outright the E.U. is a sui generis entity? The current awkward, almost groveling sounding and redundant wording seems to exist only to placate some imaginary concern for NPOV. Who is arguing against the E.U. being unique? -- Dissident ( Talk) 14:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How much of the information in the economic status section should be moved over to Economy of the European Union? And how much crossover should there be between the section and the article? -- Joolz 12:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could some make all of the table styles consistent? Either all of them with borders or without borders. It looks rather shoddy to have such varying tables. 141.213.129.40 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union needs an operational start point. The Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept and the Single European Regiment can respond to this need. The following URL is for the perusal of anyone interested in this central but highly delicate EU portfolio.
http://paginas.pavconhecimento.mct.pt/pessoais/dw/Mario_Zanatti
and follow its debate:
http://cervens.net/legionbbs/showthread.php?t=34&page=1&pp=10
May I ask where does the population figure in the infobox come from? According to the Population Reference Bureau, a very authoritative source, the population of the EU in mid-2004, not forgetting the French overseas départements, which are part of the EU too, was: 259,900,000. That's more than what's currently listed in the infobox. The population in the overseas départements of France alone is close to 2,000,000 inhabitants. Were they forgotten? Hardouin 13:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The EU has since admitted 10 new members. The CIA World Factbook states that the EU population is 456,953,258 (July 2005 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
To be factually correct, I think all the French overseas departments (not only French Guiana, but also Réunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe including northern Saint Martin and Saint-Barthélemy) should be highlighted on the location map, for example with green dots. What do you think of it?
Just on the map its pretty low quailty any one want to make a better version. - Fabhcún 14:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone makes a better version, please change the name Macedonia in FYROM or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, That's the country's name for EU. Thank you. Xmartha 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is Northern Ireland not part of the EU in that map? -- CJWilly 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try to make this map fair to all nations of the EU and therefore Britain's overseas territories should be displayed and every other nation with overseas territories e.g. Portugal and Denmark. 87.112.70.125 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Despite that you have failed to place Britain's overseas territories on the map. This is ridiculous as Britain has the most overseas territories in the world. Therefore if France's overseas territories are placed on the map Britain's should be too. 87.113.89.18 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "3. Location of EU institutions" should be placed under "9.2 Institutional framework". I don't think the former deserves a main title. Taupe 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The following text appears under Current Issues:
Major issues facing the European Union at the moment include its enlargement to the south and east (see below), its relationship with the United States of America, the revision of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, and the ratification of the European Constitution by member states. HAllo Fini und Mama
Is there any reason it says "HAllo Fini und Mama"?
When I click on the subscript numbers in the table, nothing happens. Have the footnotes been deleted? Deus Ex 29 June 2005 10:21 (UTC)
In the 2nd para it says each of the 4 bodies listed have a president but does the "European Court of Justice" -- Fabhcún 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)
yes it does Wild ride 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The Formation date has the forming of the EEC, but the first step was the formation of the ECSC. Or one could look further ahead and state that the formation was the merger treaty to form the EC. Either way, they are both more relevant than the EEC being formed as a formation date.-- 210.86.78.64 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the EEC date should stay as the ECSC was only about coal and steel while the EEC changed it to an economic union. The EC date just updated the EEC and made a political union closer. In all the text books I've read on the EU the EEC date is always been given as the start as the ESCS only became part of the EEC in the 60's. Wild ride 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The EEC date is the most important date. The ECSC had actually nothing to do withe the EEC and the EU. The ECSC was just a treaty among those countries as there are many treaties. If one take the formation of the ECSC as a starting point, or the the formation of the Benelux, one could also take the independence of Belgium, The Netherlands or Luxembourg as a starting point, and that's just bullshit. Furthermore, the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the EEC is the most important date in almost every history text book. 146.175.100.103 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this written in British English? I don't understand the disclaimer at the beginning..considering more Americans speak english.
On a deeper level just because there are more Americans than British people should not be used as a justification to impose American spelling on non American articles, especially as this is not wikipedia policy probably because many non Americans would not participate were it American policy, though also and fundamentally because wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. My sense is this issue is becoming more widesprerad throughout wikipedia. I for one would bitterly oppose any attempt to Americanize (sic) this or any other European Union based article. I would further argue that all the articles about EU countries and their affairs should be in British English. NATO is in British English and has continuous problems from anons who, like the above contributor here, believe all articles should be in American English, SqueakBox 18:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm still laughing about "British people spell a lot of words weird and it's hard to read" - is this a joke? Marco Neves 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Cameron Nedland 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fabhcun. Honor makes no sense either depending on where you are coming from and I propose any more anti-Brit forum venom style ranting of the type engaged in by Cameron etc be removed. English doesn't spell phonetically or we would say shugar, shure, etc, and anti-British slurs are slurs and should be treated as such. Civility in wikipedia includes not making ignorant and inflammatory commenmts about Britain. If you want a US encyclopedia go and make one, but wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and Americans don't get special rights to hijack that in the name of a spurious nationalism, here or anywhere on wikipedia, SqueakBox 13:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
please do not be a typical amercian and assume you are correct we the british gave you the language and now you want to lecture to us on how to write and say thing you are the reason why the language has been butchered over the years you and your removal of the letter U from every word and re instead of er keep with british english where america or americans have nothing at all to do with the article. Lucy-marie 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Stupid, but it's undeniably true. MichaelJBuck 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code - {{portal|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of Europe, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!-- Mais oui! 08:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I find that the GDP Ranking is misleading since when you view the link that goes to the table it shows it as not counted (eg. -), so why does it have it listed on this article? Plus if you view United States of America it is ranked as #1 too, so why the two articles have the same rank? I would suggest it to be edited to something like "Not Ranked".
Well for economical reasons, you'd count the EU as a whole because of the institutions, perhaps it would be good to add a footnote to Not Ranked with something like "As an entity No1 place". I think there was a big dispute about this before too... -- JDnCoke 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is the GDP given in (presumably) US dollars? Wouldn't euros be more appropriate? Markb 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
European Union if counted as a single unit , would be placed at 2nd place (2005 & 2006 PPP)According to IMF, CIA WORLDFACTBOOK....
If the Eu was counted as one unit it would be first end of story. 87.112.79.98 12:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem distinguishing between green and cyan on a laptop? I think pink would be a better substitute for one of the colors. Rudykog 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Macedonia needs to be added in the candidate countries.-- 85.49.226.45 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
EU is not a tea club.
In the article I've seen several times the name Macedonia and some changes are required. The EU accepts only the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM). I suggest you to visit http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/candidate.htm As you see there's no such name as Macedonia in EU's page. Xmartha 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It's ok then, I just wanted to mention that it's an article for EU and it would be aprropriate to be as FYROM (this name is 'adopted' from EU) , but if we can't change it, it's ok! Xmartha 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The international formal name of this country (FYROM) is the only one recognised by the EU and UN, therefore you should change your article and all related graphs accordingly.
62.1.63.35
16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Under the issues that would probably prevent Turkey from becoming a member of the EU, I inserted in text that Turkey does not recognize the Armenian genocide about two months ago, and now it is gone. What happened? It is true. Turkey refuses to acknowledge that such a genocide existed, even though it did happen. There was a program on my local PBS station the other day about Armenia and it stated that the European Parliament told Turkey that it must accept the fact that the Armenian genocide happened before it could be an EU member; Turkey still refuses to believe that it actually happened. Does this tell you something? - Daniel Blanchette 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sad to say, this and other issues specific to conflicts between member states/candidate states and states that are neither actual nor likely candidate states aren't going to be addressed by the eu with any seriousness, no matter how grave. For example, Greece is upset with one of the candidate states, being Macedonia, on account of it's name. The Greeks have an unreasonable fear that the Macedonians will forget that they are Slavic and will become confused by their name, believing that they are in fact Hellenes in the tradition of Alexander of Macedon. The Greeks insist this could spur a Macedonian invasion of Greece. Is any of this likely? Ummm... well, the Macedonians would have to forget their entire history, language, and cultural norms, so my bet is...... no. But despite this, the EU is much more interested in Athens' paranoid delusions than they are in Skopje's claim that being made to use the monniker, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is just too unweildy. But, Skopje's pragmatism is not a point of interest to Brussels. Why? Greece is in the Club, Macedonia isn't. It's just that simple. If Armenia wants the EU to force Turkey to acknowledge the Massacre, there's only one real way it can do it. Armenia has to put in a serious bid for membership, and make itself a far more attractive candidate than Turkey. If Armenia gets in, Turkey will have to toe the EU line (which always favours existing members over non-members) or stay out. Otherwise? Don't expect any apologies from Ankara, or any demands for an apology from Brussels. Wandering Star 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from early on in the article - the topic is covered in suitable depth further down. Have kept the information here in case it is of use - some of it could be incorporated into Accession of Turkey to the European Union if the info is not there already -- Cjnm 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
On 4 October 2005, Turkey furthered its will to enter the European Union, making them the first predominantly Muslim populated country to open membership talks with the organisation. Many states within the union are wary of this decision, chiefly Austria. Austrian apprehension for Turkey dates back for centuries, leading from the 1683 Battle of Vienna, where the Austrians defeated the Ottoman Turks. Fears of an influx of migration from Turkey into Austria if the country and its 70 million inhabitants are allowed into the union is a heated topic. Others argue that most of the country is on the wrong side of the Bosporus Strait, which many believe to be the dividing line between Europe and Asia. Turkey also refuses to acknowledge any relations with the state of Cyprus since Turkish troops invaded the northern section of the island in 1974 following a coup attempt by Greek ultra-nationalists. Austria has proposed for an esteemed partnership for Turkey which would come short of an actual membership. Turkey rejected that proposal. Other European states claim that denying Turkey to a membership would brew future hostilities with other Muslim nations, as well as reinforce the widely held perception that the European Union is a "Christian Club".
User Ronline updated the statistics around GDP, stating they are 2006 data. Surely he must be mistaken, since 2006 is just starting. How can the data be available now? − Woodstone 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
More financials can be found on the German Wiki. English is not my native language, so if somebody else would update the section, please. Mion 12:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- ==European Union Financials== - The European Union's income can be divided in 3 area's: - * EU-importtax leveyd on goods on the borders of the EU. - * Sanctions leveyd by the European Commission ( Competition) - * Contribution of the Member States. - - - ===Bruto contribution pro country=== - - ===Netto contribution pro country=== - - ===Contribution pro head of the population=== - - ===European subsidies===
Sorry, English is not my native language. Mion 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone take this Goddamned cartoon of the page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
please explain what you're talking about Pure inuyasha 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There is some dispute over whether Cyprus is geographically in Asia or Europe.
The current first sentence of the article reads:
A proposed revised first sentence of the article - asserted as more geographically correct - reads:
To avoid an edit war, this section of the talk page has been created.
Evidenced by:
The question here is how does the EU define itself? Not whether all of it is geographically limited to the European continent. The EUs own published view of itself should be given precedence and then later in the article it can be noted that some parts are outside the European mainland area. From the EU official website "The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries..." [17]. When the EU changes its definition of itself , then Wikipedia should change its principal description, not before. Lumos3 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Evidenced by:
Certainly looks like it's in Asia to me. Until looking at a map I had the idea that it was west of Turkey and therefore in Europe, but obviously I was wrong. It seems to be clearly south and east of that 5% of Turkey that I've always heard is considered the south-east corner of Europe. --
Malthusian
(talk)
11:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying it's "24 European countries and 1 country in Asia" is ridiculous. Obviously, Cyprus is more geographically Asian than European. On the other hand, it is an island, and as such is not actually part of Europe or Asia. Many of Greece's Aegean islands - Rhodes, Lemnos, Samos, Chios, Cos - are considerably closer to Asian Turkey than they are to mainland Greece. Why are they to be considered European? Essentially, what is "European" has to be a matter of self-definition, and the Cypriots define themselves as European (more or less). Furthermore, it's just stylistically absurd to bring this issue into the first sentence. john k 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
In light of this, Burlesconi's suggestion that Israel be considered for membership is not so strange. Wandering Star 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sying the EU is a " union of 25 culturally European countries " is rediculaous. This would make most of North America , South America and Australia eligible fo membership. Switching back to the EUs own definition of itself.
Lumos3
19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with users underlining above that there is simply no right answer to the question as whether Cyprus is in Europe or Asia, only arguments in both directions. As concerns the article, I would suggest simply to remove the European adjective in the first sentence AND completely erase the clumsy second sentence, that is replacing the lengthy "The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 democratic European countries known as member states. Since the accession of Cyprus this has also included a state not geographically in Europe but culturally aligned to it." by a shorter "The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 democratic countries known as member states.". -- French Tourist 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In the context of Cyprus alone, the debate seems a little silly. But in the context of precedent, it takes on a more important role. Remember, what you do now will serve as grounds for similair action or inaction in the future. The time has come for Europe to define itself in a real way. Is Europe a cultural group, a geographical area, what? It's also important because it adds respectability to the idea of the Union, especially for those of us who love outside of it. Once the EU comes to aa consensus on such basic elements as a Constitution that will stand the test of time and who qualifies for membership, the rest of the world will be ready to acknowledge it's validity instead of scratching it's head, wondering what it is exactly we're all looking at. A difficult task, to be sure. But a critical one, if the EU is to survive. Wandering Star 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There is not 6 billion people in the EU!! There's only 6.5 billion people on the Planet!
Look [18] [19]As of Last Saturday!
and there 1 bilion in china and another billion in india! That adds up to 8 billion! Plus europes poplation when down big time after 2 world wars, find new population figures.
I place this up for Disupted Facts! HP465 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Opps, Sorry, thx for pointing that out HP465 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
i'm surprised that there is nothing about XAVIER SOLANA who the european representant of the foreign affairs of the UE. There is something to do. He's really important, really. My english is too bad to write something (i'm french) but i'm sure someone will add it.
Given that some people regard the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community as the founding of the EU ( see the Schuman declaration for details), could somebody with the requisite knowledge or time on their hands please take a look at the request for expansion of the European Coal and Steel Community article ? Thanks --jrleighton 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it possiblr to fix this map so that it shows the mid ranking wealth members in a diffferent colour to the non-EU members? Need someone who knows how to edit it. ( Stpaul 13:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
There already exists a critical link in the UN article. Opposition to EU is considerable, and links and/or critical text should be added, in my humble opinion. -- Thomi 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, in Finland for example, a recent study indicates that only 33% of the population believes EU a good thing. While for sure, in other countries where they can at least vote on the EU constitution, the people keep felling it. -- Thomi 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Claims that the EU will have an international code: "A numbering policy for telecommunications" green paper from the european comission http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9611/
Thewikipedian 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC+1)
Would someone be able to explain what exactly this green-paper suggests about an international code?
GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
( Deng 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
The largest city in the European Union may be London or Paris depending on the criteria (boundary, source, census year, etc.) used. I have edited to reflect this. – Kaihsu 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
In CBC Canada news on the March of 24 to 26 ask the EU put a Offical Language: Engish !-- Brown Shoes22 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean that they are "working languages"? That only german, french and english can be spoken in the european parliament? Talous 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the map include Melilla and Ceuta, Spanish exclaves on the African coast? I don't see them on the map. Starry Eyes 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently being considered for removal of its Featured Article status. See the debate at - Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union. All contributors need to take part. Lumos3 09:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Sakhalin island colored blue on the map?
European Union is an economic, politics and social union. Exception handling - military. UE is 25 autonomy country and 1 totality organism/system (similar - United States: 51 autonomy state is 1 totality organism/system ).
Quit reverting this back and forth and please discuss this issue here. Otherwise I will be forced to protect the article. -- Bjarki 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The table should be ordered by GDP per capita rather than total GDP because GDP per capita is more useful in gauging relative economic performance among member states. Total GDP is not particularly useful, other than seeing relative economic weight among member states. But in the Economy section, I think most people are looking for a table that shows them how the member states fare relative to other economically, which states are the wealthiest and which are the poorest. What are the reasons for sorting it by total GDP?
Ronline
✉
06:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are only 24 countries in this chart!
I notice there is alot of switching back and forth of the map in the infobox. There is a map that shows the location of the EU in a global perspective and there is a map that shows a close-up of Europe and identifies which countries are members. In my opinion, the map in the infobox should display this global perspective and serve the purpose that these maps serve in any country article, that is to display a location of an entity. We do have another map in the article which displays only Europe and identifies the member states and we don't need another. -- Bjarki 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the map back to the old version Scavenger 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"The European Union has land borders with 20 nations and sea borders with 31."
I have two questions about this sentence. Are the countries that share both a land and a sea border with existing EU members counted twice (included in both figures)? What exactly is a sea border? Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a country's coast and are considered a sovereign territory of the respective state. EEZs extend up to 200 nm from the coast but states do not excercise sovereignty over that area, only an exclusive right to manage resources. In my mind, one can only speak of sea borders when territorial waters of different states meet (if there are less than 24 nm between them). I haven't managed to find a single country that borders an EU member only by sea border. -- Bjarki 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Add any references if possible, especially if they are Internet sources. Skinnyweed 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to champion this as a good article? Or shall we put this in peer review? Skinnyweed 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
>GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
Agreed. I sincerely believe this.
>It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
The price difference within the European Union is incredible (i'm not from there but spent many years travelling there). If it was considered as one country or economic unit it probably would have the largest gap between rich and poor and standard of living in the OECD by a long shot. It's a truly phenomenal gap.
And you cannot simply divide the average wage or PP GDP to get the average price of goods. By the GDP per person say, a packet of cigarettes ($2 USD) in Vilnius, Lithuania is much cheaper per average dollar earned (over $30,000 US pp GDP) than in England, where it's $7-8 USD a packet at least, and certainly not 3-4 times the GDP per head. A can of coke is the same difference.. a big mac is less difference (you'd pay more of as a percentage of your wage in the Baltics for a burger than in London).
I don't know where people get off thinking GDP is the be all and end all indicator of living standards. Is it really a conclusive indicator of lifestyle and living standard? no.
>Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
Actaully, no you wouldn't. Norway has a higher GDP per head than the United States of America, so I'm really not sure where you get this argument from. Per person Norway is universally considered a richer country than the USA, which a parity GDP to match. So measuring solely on the basis of parity GDP, you'd have to come to the conclusion Norwegians have a better living standard than Americans.....right?
By Common Sense, may 2006 Pine forests falling victim to beekeepers’ initiative.
The European union must ACT against Greece before it is too late
A pine tree covered in the secretion of Marchalina hellenica. The insect lives off the sap of the tree, producing a white fluff, which bees feed on to produce honey.
HANIA - All over Greece, pine trees are being dessicated because of the introduction by beekeepers of large numbers of an insect whose secretions bees feed on to make honey.
The latest victims of the insect (Marchalina hellenica) are the pine forests in the prefecture of Hania on the island of Crete and in the island’s Samaria Gorge to the south.
According to Hania Prefecture Forestry Director Vassilis Kasiotakis, this infestation occurred with the blessing of the Ministry for Agricultural Development.
The first dead pines were found in forests above Anopoli and Aghios Ioannis in the early 1990s. Kasiotakis said that even then the problem had been attributed to the insects, known to the local beekeepers as “workers.”
Yet in March 2001, the Animal Produce General Directorate’s beekeeping department at the Agriculture Ministry (as it was then known) wrote to local authorities “encouraging” them to introduce the insects into the pine forests.
It actually funded beekeeping associations through the EU’s Third Community Support Framework to the tune of 4,000 drachmas (11.70 euros) per 0.10 hectares without first evaluating the climatological conditions in the area and any future negative effects on the ecosystem. As a result, the population of this parasite multiplied dramatically and spread to pines and cypress trees in forests around the region.
“What they actually did was to fund the beekeepers’s associations to deliberately infest the pine forests,” said Kasiotakis.
“These forests exist in extreme ecological conditions since there is very little water, due to an extended dry period (of up to eight months) and sudden deluges in winter,” he explained. “This is a serious problem, as the existence of a parasite such as Marchalina hellenica maximizes the risks to the forest, as it sucks the sap from the tree in order to survive, thereby weakening the tree. If one adds to that the damage done by the processional caterpillar, then the risks are great indeed.”
Parts of the Hania prefecture where the problem has assumed major dimensions are around Anopoli and Aghios Ioannis, at Prasse north of the White Mountains, at Aghii Apostoli and within the national park of the Samaria Gorge.
According to Kasiotakis, a survey carried out four years ago by the Institute for Forestry Research found that the pines had been affected by a number of species of nematodes, worms that live in the soil and attack the roots of the trees. Scientists from the Benaki Phytopathology institute, who took soil samples for further analysis, said these nematodes had been found in forests in Attica where Marchalina hellenica had also been found in large numbers.
The problem appears to lie in the fact that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate this insect using the means permitted by the European Union. In 1996, the Italian government passed a special law on the eradication of Marchalina hellenica and spent large sums for the purpose, yet Greece has done just the opposite.
According to a document from the Institute for Mediterranean Forestry Ecosystems and Forestry Product Technology at the National Agricultural Research Foundation (ETHIAGE), this occurred because of “incompetence and insufficient knowledge on the part of those responsible for the program, who had no idea of the harm the insect could cause, and who approved and encouraged the spread of the insect populations with funds from the Greek state.”
So these huge populations of Marchalina hellenica that have spread throughout the prefecture of Hania can no longer be controlled and are continuing on their path of destruction — and all this in order to increase the amount of honey produced.
The authorities cannot estimate the magnitude of the destruction, but it is certain that the extent of the destruction is enormous, particularly in the National Park of Samaria.
The Hania Forestry Department has issued a document calling the presence of the insect in the Samaria gorge a “danger to the structure and operation of the ecosystem” and that because of the rate at which it multiplies, the trees will be destroyed at the same rate, threatening the economy of the island.
The department recommends an awareness campaign along with on-the-spot evaluation by experts.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marchalina_hellenica"
Here are two maps, one is the currently used map, and here i present a new map showing the imminent partition of Serbia and Montenegro. I have retained seperate borders for each country to show that they are sovereign states. plz choose which one to display in the article as and when partition occurs.
WoodElf 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
or perhaps u might prefer
What about Gronland island isnt it a part of Denmark and EU. While Guine is. And wont EU have a great army to deal with USA and Russia.
How do people feel about making the Infobox looking more like this one, used on most country pages. On the UK page, for example. Due to the EU being more unique than a country, I suggest we just copy the code from the template, not use it. I have edited so it contains the data of the one now, but looks like the current country ones (saved in Notepad for when/if the time comes). One downside is that it is much harder to edit and makes the page a couple of KBs bigger. So, if anybody wants it just say and I'll change the page to have it. MichaelJBuck 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
(I am unsure exactly how its calculated, so this suggestion may not work)
Would it be possible to estimate a HDI of the EU as a whole, by multiplying each state's HDI, by it's population, and adding them, then divide the answer by the population of the EU? I may not have the formula right, but if you know what I mean, would it work as an accurate estimate? If so, working on the most current population ESTIMATES, as stated in their respective articles, I have worked out that the EU's HDI, is approximately 0.922101021. Is this accurate (or as accurate as can be)? Anyway in the meantime, I've added it to the article in this format as an estimate. If anyone wants to see how I calculated it, I can send the spreadsheet. - Red Hot 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea, but my figures seem to differ from yours. I got 0.90724 as the average. However, I didn't include the acceding countries. Did you? MichaelJBuck 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, looking at yours it seems I got my figures wrong. Nice work. MichaelJBuck 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the 9th place is more accurate. Shouldn't we discount the EU Member States from the HDI list? Typelighter 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No, because we don't discout them from GDP lists etc. Remember it's if the EU was ranked. MichaelJBuck 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
See the resolution. All languages of the EU are also working languages. French, German and English are working languages of the Comission. [20] In the Parliament all languages are allowed and there are interpreters for each cabin. Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language. Regulations and other documents of general application shall be drafted in the twenty official languages. The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.
See also: [21].
So we should get rid of the "working languagesk always counts the members and EU for ranking. - Red Hot 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
See the resolution. All languages of the EU are also working languages. French, German and English are working languages of the Comission. [22] In the Parliament all languages are allowed and there are interpreters for each cabin. Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language. Regulations and other documents of general application shall be drafted in the twenty official languages. The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.
See also: [23].
So we should get rid of the "working languages" section, because it is missleading. -- Danutz
Why has "Capital" been removed? I think this has been discussed several times before and each time it was agreed that "Brussels (de facto)" was the best choice, wasn't it? - Рэд хот 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was Talk:European_Union/Archive02#Capital Fabhcún 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This page seems strangely anodyne and devoid of critical thought, yet in recent years the EU as an institution has had many severe failures and is widely critiqued. To name but a few, the recent constitution proposal failed; the eurozone economy is stagnant or even declining; the european institutions appear out of touch; the auditors have once again refused to accept the accounts; I could go on. Isn't there room on this page for a serious criticisms section? MarkThomas 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing about critism on wikipedia it has to be NPOV, which is very hard to do right and I don't think the page is promoting the Union simply explaining it but if you want to write a paragraph as long as it is fact based, with citations and NPOV go a head Fabhcún 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
While I fully agree that problems with the EU should be properly discussed, I don't think that the sentence "This has led to a gross anomaly whereby family related social welfare benefits are payable by the member state where an EU citizen is employed, even where the family of the worker are resident elsewhere in the Union." is quite appropriate in a short overview of internal policies, which in my opinion should concentrate on giving the general idea of what each point means, instead of going into any detail. I looked around for a better place for the sentence, and couldn't find a page where the right of free movement and work in the EU would be further explained. Is there one on wikipedia?
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 EU 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? -- 152.163.100.74 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You credit the UK with the invention of liberty, but yet I know no other country in which democracy is so poorly organised. There is no such thing as a clear separation of the powers, because in the UK the members of the legislative branch are also the supreme judicial authority in the country (the House of Lords). The document which you credit with the institution of liberty, the Magna Charta, was written for nobles instead of the common people. Until recently Britain was the only developed country in the world in which nobles had anything to say in politics, through hereditary peerage. It was left to Tony Blair to remove the last vestiges of the Ancien Regime from British politics. No American would agree with the thesis "Liberty was invented by the British". Instead they would answer: "We rebelled because the British were so unfree". Britain still has a state church, so in theory members of the Church of England are favoured over members of other faiths. No, Mr Thomas, true liberty was invented on the Continent, in the city states of Ancient Athens and Italy during the Renaissance.
I do think the EU has flaws, such as an unnecessarily large budget, which is largely drained by the equally unnecessary and money-wasting Common Agricultural Policy (which I think the French shouldn't defend any longer). The democratic deficit of Strasbourg needs to be addressed. But with globalism on the rise I think the EU is the only way to be influential beyond our tiny corner of the world. EU politics are hard and to get things your way you need to find allies. There are now two blocs within the EU. One bloc led by France and Germany, which centers around the social welfare state and one led by the UK which favours liberal laissez-faire economics. I tend to favour the UK-bloc. Anyway, the EU is flawed, but as you can see the UK has severe flaws as well.-- 84.26.109.69 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Over at the Superpower talkpage, we're having a bit of a row about whether the European Union qualifies as a superpower. As you guys are the EU experts :P, if you could contribute to the dicussion your views would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
in what way the EU don't folow this definition Confederation???-- Ruber chiken 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on the map in the middle of the page, some "not on the map" countries, like Franch Guayana are marked. Note, that French Guayana & co. belong to EU member countries, but they themselves are not part of the alliance. This is extra mentioned in the Maastricht Contract.
French Guiana, Réunion, Martinique, and Guadeloupe are integral parts of France. As they are not actually countries, they are not "part of the alliance" in the same way that Scotland is not "part of the alliance," or that Bavaria is "not part of the alliance." john k 12:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are two contenders to be the map as one of the is the current map and a new map that was not previously included.
Lucy-marie 09:11, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
In the section listing economies per capita my computer displays this for France:
" [[France
France has been a top tourist place for years and still is. Here are a few sites to use to find out more: www.franceforkids.co.uk
www.teachmefrench.com
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
Image:France'sflag@enchantedlearning.com
Please feel free to use these!|France]]
1,900,467 "
However when I clicked to edit the article the text wasn't there, but then I preview you the page and the text is there. Is this just my computer or is it also there for other people? and If so it needs to be removed.
Kyle sb 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What are we going to do about this? Somebody has inputted figures, but offered no sources to back them up. Should we just cut the GDP in half for each country and leave a reference saying that this does not represent the true GDP of each state, but represents the combined GDP of them both before independence? That way we get rid of another "[citation needed]" and offer technically factual information. Of course, this can be updated as soon as figures are released for the separate countries. Agree? MichaelJBuck 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. That's another "[citation needed]" gone. :) MichaelJBuck 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the European Ombudsman & the European Data Protection Supervisor from the list of "institutions", because they are not institutions. There are only five institutions, as listed in the text of the treaty. I know this sounds strange to some people, but "institutions" is a technical term of EU law, and has a more precise meaning here than it does in ordinary language. The Ombudsman & Data Protection Supervisor are indeed EU bodies, but they do not have institution status. People have to stop adding other things to the list of five. All those other things belong latter on in that section. -- SJK 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said I would earlier, I have created a new Infobox that is more similar to new country Infoboxes, so it may be preferrable. View it here.-- MichaelJBuck 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why Rome is on that list and Athens is not (Athens has a larger Population by a fair bit) ( Giorgos 06:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC))
I don't understand why do you support accention of Turkey in the EU. By my opinion Turkey is an Asian country. You should give them an ultimatum to cede Constantinople to Greece and abandon North Cyprus and feel happy. Better I prefer EU to accept Iceland, Norway, Balarus, Ukraine and then some parts of Russia step by step.-- Verger 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Boohoo, cry me a river. For your information, the city called Istanbul, has a population bigger than the whole of grease and by incorporating it, Turks would become the majority in greece . weird huh? I have a better idea in fact, lets do a trade since you want be a minority in your own country so bad. Northern cyprus and turkish-majority southern bulgaria should join Turkey. Cyprus is a totally artifical state and the second was forcibly incorporated into bulgaria by the russians. No harm done at all here. Herltol 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Turkey is not wholey in asia it is partly in europe and asia. I support turkish accession so as the west can build relationships and have bridges with muslims in the middle east and artound the world. I agree that Iceland Norway Andorra Switzerland Leichinstein Monaco San Marino Macadonia Ukraine Kosovo Serbia Montnegro Moldova Albania Bosina and Herzogovina Georgia and Azerbiajan. all of these countries need to join the Eu as well but gradually they need to join the queue turkey has finally joined the queue in front of all of those countries. Turkey will one day become a full EU member after all of the issues surounding it have been resolved. Turkey will also Use the Euro coins and thown in the bin the highly devalued Turkish Lira. The Turkish lira will join other currencies in the bin such as the British Pound Swiss Franc Danish Swedish and Nowegian Kronas to name just a few of the many to go in the bin.-- Lucy-marie 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Never Turkey will never be a part of theocratic imperialistic blood drinkers league anyhow. In 40 years 3 times Turkey declared to Europe that they will not enter and today just because of Imf and Capital owners(ok ok also some seperatists less than %6) in Turkey wants join but the majority didnt forget 1919 and won't let that happen again by trick instead now they started to sue for war crimes of France and Greece soon comes Britan i hope (i will sue Greece) to Human Rights Court i hope that will drive dirty imperialist hands off my country once and for all. Take Arabs as they love you more they have more blood ties with EU citizens, here no one loves EU nor puppet Turks. Hope soon the customs union will be broken also which for 10 years worked one sided for EU. And Azerbaijan Eu wants only oil there nothing else as after WW1.If Eu wants turkey first all the religious emblems in the member flags must be dropped or changed to a secular one as Turkey doesn't have any religious sybol or writing, but saıdi Arabia has hey take saudi arabia that will be fun watching Arabs in streets of london with their traditional clothes and slave woman behind.But i love one Arabic thing and will be very suitable for this article. YALLAH YALLAH.Opps but the bombs they are walking bombs i forgot your bombs fly theirs walk they evolved in another way....
By the way i am not a Turk just a citizen from caucasus diaspora here.
We are neither European nor Asian we are Anatolian.
The article states that the MEPs are "directly" elected by the citizens of the EU's member states. I'm not sure this is so: aren't a significant number elected indirectly, through party list based PR systems? Countersubject 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I read in the CIA world fact book that there is provision to make 13 european half brigades (1500 men strong) between 2005 and 2010.
Should not be a military section?
Or even a link to the euroarmy?
or both?
-- 147.156.202.89 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the Lisbon Agenda the European Union is to become the most advanced economic, technological and cultural area of the Earth by the end of the decade.
I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum - I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the entire EU (among many other things). I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on the pros and cons: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance! Medalstats 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact, recently someone nominated this article for deletion. Whether it really should be deleted is being discussed here: this article's entry. Medalstats 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Having an Olympic medal statistics for the EU would be a great addition since other countries also have those statistics, even though the IOC does not favor it.
I just reverted an anon who changed a bunch of statistics without any edit summary or justification - just thought I'd mention it here in case they are actually accurate. — Dan | Talk 03:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if you had put some edit summary yourself when you wrote the text above, so that we know from the watchlist what your point is :) (Especially since you are bringing up a serious topic). Oleg Alexandrov 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I looked through the numbers, using the IMF site linked to generate the reports with the matching numbers (since the link given was only for per-capita GDP PPP, and was for all countries, bah). There was a mistake with the GDP of Slovakia (was about half what it should be), and the sums were off by second-most significant digits (GDP was low, per-capita GDP was high). I've updated them and fixed the value for Slovakia's GDP. My numbers are based on the data available at the links below the table, and I can provide the Exel/Gnumeric files I used to calculate the totals for review.
I'm going to update the numbers in the intro
European Union#Economic status for the EU and USA too. I've just got to get my conversions to euros first. (Update: those numbers are updated now too using XE.com.) —
Saxifrage |
☎ 02:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
An anon amended the sentence that stated that Brussels was the headquarters, to say that the headquarters is "largely" in Brussels and Luxembourg ( diff). I knew this was a vast oversimplification, but then so was the original sentence. I've taken the liberty of expanding it, trying to be as terse as I could while including the relevant fragments of the "headquarters". (I used this [2] as my initial source. Someone care to double-check my facts?)
Comments? Additionally, I notice that this is going to be a featured article: if there's contention over this, perhaps we should reinstate the simple sentence about only Brussels (perhaps changing "headquarters" to "capital", which is more accurate) just for the time that it's a featured article? — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
(The first three posts in this thread are copied from User_talk:Pgreenfinch)
Regarding your recent edit to European Union,
As far as I was aware, the fact that Brussels is the location of the European Commission, it being the executive body of the EU, made Brussels the capital of the Union. Apart from that, according with the Treaty of Amsterdam, Strasbourg is not the location of the European Parliament: the EP is held half the time in Brussels, half the time in Strasbourg. Further, the administration of the Parliament is located in Luxembourg. Therefore, if the location of the capital is determined by the location of the Parliament, the "capital" is divided between Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg. Am I mistaken in any of these points? — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Come on, you know perfectly well that the EU has no official capital, you will never find the word capital in the treaties, even the new one, for deliberate reasons that I explain below. So to say that Brussels is the capital is as wrong as to say it for any other European town. But as some people insist that Brussels is, it is normal to correct it by telling that other towns can rightly pretend to the title. Btw, Strasbourg is regarded as the capital of the whole Europe, as it is the seat of the Council of Europe. Also, the EU Parliament is really in Strasbourg, since the beginning, and it is exceptional that its sessions take place in Brussels, so nobody can deny that it is the democratic capital. So, either it is mentionned in this article that the EU has *no* capital, which happens to be its will from the beginning, this is the core of the issue, as a volontary sign of a decentralised union, or some try to maintain in the article that Brussels is, or is regarded as, *the* capital, then everybody is entitled to write on the article that any other town with a EU institution is the capital, or a capital, or a specific capital for a given aspect, or a part of the capital, or whatever specie, taste or flavor of capital. -- Pgreenfinch 07:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With a legal background, and being very familiar with EC law, I can confirm that there is no "capital city" of the EC/EU. More to the point, if there was a "capital city", it would be of the European Community, not the European Union, as it is the European Community which constitutes the main binding legal framework. I also think that in the interests of Wikipedia remaining as a source of information it is a serious mistake to make reference to the EC/EU having a "capital city", as this is factually wrong, and is a political assertion.
I don't think it's appropriate to be addressing the complex topic of the structure of the EU in the second paragraph of the article, particularly while also trying to address the sticky topic of the "capital" of the EU in the same paragraph. The intro to the article must be focused and terse. I belive that the "capital" question can be quickly addressed there, but that the proper treatment of the structure of the EU should be put in the body of the article in a dedicated section. Notice that European Union#Structure already exists. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why is French Guiana not highlighted on the location map? It is part of the Union.
Greenland stays under danish sovereinty but it is not part of the EU anymore.
It is very ill-advised to divide the institutions into the traditional Montesquieu 3 branches. I have changed it. – Kaihsu 22:52, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Hello. User:Rl is reverting my changes to this section with the following edit summary: "rv to Cantus' version of 10:37; the "geeky stuff" was correct, your math isn't; and these ain't minor edits, either". My version is this:
And User:Rl is reverting to this version:
The figures I'm adding come from the IMF web site, and you can see them for yourself. If there is a problem with this figures I would like to know. — Cantus… ☎ 12:54, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if there is something wrong, but we might talk again about it when the euro will reach 1.5 US dollars ;-)) -- Pgreenfinch 13:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cantus, both your (corrected for magnitude) numbers and the previous numbers were correct. They were simply calculated by different standards, both acceptable (those being "current pricing" and "purchasing power parity" or "PPP"). Before your edits, all the figures in that section were derived from the IMF's PPP calculations and were consistent. Now, the table contains PPP-calculated figures and the text contains conflicting figures based on current-pricing calculations. I don't object to using the new numbers over the old (I don't care which, really), but I strongly object to using inconsistent figures. According to Gross domestic product#Cross-border comparison, there is a good argument for using the current-pricing model of calculation in this context, since we're talking about global economic power and not standard-of-living. If we do use the new numbers, though, the table must be edited to agree. I'm not willing to rewrite the table again, having already done it once recently. If someone else is, great. If not, it would be very simple to return the article to a correct and consistent state by reverting the new numbers. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think this two links point to some very informative diagrams that can help readers quickly grasp how EU runs its business. [11] and [12] This links here act more like a site map tp the former link [13]
The comparison with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is irrelevant, as this was only a regional east European state with no european dimension. It cannot be compared to the Holy Roman Empire or the European Union. It has existed dozens of multiple-nation states like the Polish-Lithuanian one, like Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Norway, not to mention Austria-Hungary, and perhaps even Great Britain. But all these are only regional and have not the same dimension as the EU and the HRE. Also, the European Union originated in "core Europe" (Germany/France), and that's why the empire of Charlemagne and the HRE have some relevance, but regional east European history has no relevance.
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why am I not allowed to make the article say outright the E.U. is a sui generis entity? The current awkward, almost groveling sounding and redundant wording seems to exist only to placate some imaginary concern for NPOV. Who is arguing against the E.U. being unique? -- Dissident ( Talk) 14:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How much of the information in the economic status section should be moved over to Economy of the European Union? And how much crossover should there be between the section and the article? -- Joolz 12:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could some make all of the table styles consistent? Either all of them with borders or without borders. It looks rather shoddy to have such varying tables. 141.213.129.40 21:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union needs an operational start point. The Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept and the Single European Regiment can respond to this need. The following URL is for the perusal of anyone interested in this central but highly delicate EU portfolio.
http://paginas.pavconhecimento.mct.pt/pessoais/dw/Mario_Zanatti
and follow its debate:
http://cervens.net/legionbbs/showthread.php?t=34&page=1&pp=10
May I ask where does the population figure in the infobox come from? According to the Population Reference Bureau, a very authoritative source, the population of the EU in mid-2004, not forgetting the French overseas départements, which are part of the EU too, was: 259,900,000. That's more than what's currently listed in the infobox. The population in the overseas départements of France alone is close to 2,000,000 inhabitants. Were they forgotten? Hardouin 13:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The EU has since admitted 10 new members. The CIA World Factbook states that the EU population is 456,953,258 (July 2005 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
To be factually correct, I think all the French overseas departments (not only French Guiana, but also Réunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe including northern Saint Martin and Saint-Barthélemy) should be highlighted on the location map, for example with green dots. What do you think of it?
Just on the map its pretty low quailty any one want to make a better version. - Fabhcún 14:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If anyone makes a better version, please change the name Macedonia in FYROM or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, That's the country's name for EU. Thank you. Xmartha 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is Northern Ireland not part of the EU in that map? -- CJWilly 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try to make this map fair to all nations of the EU and therefore Britain's overseas territories should be displayed and every other nation with overseas territories e.g. Portugal and Denmark. 87.112.70.125 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Despite that you have failed to place Britain's overseas territories on the map. This is ridiculous as Britain has the most overseas territories in the world. Therefore if France's overseas territories are placed on the map Britain's should be too. 87.113.89.18 11:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "3. Location of EU institutions" should be placed under "9.2 Institutional framework". I don't think the former deserves a main title. Taupe 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The following text appears under Current Issues:
Major issues facing the European Union at the moment include its enlargement to the south and east (see below), its relationship with the United States of America, the revision of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, and the ratification of the European Constitution by member states. HAllo Fini und Mama
Is there any reason it says "HAllo Fini und Mama"?
When I click on the subscript numbers in the table, nothing happens. Have the footnotes been deleted? Deus Ex 29 June 2005 10:21 (UTC)
In the 2nd para it says each of the 4 bodies listed have a president but does the "European Court of Justice" -- Fabhcún 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)
yes it does Wild ride 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The Formation date has the forming of the EEC, but the first step was the formation of the ECSC. Or one could look further ahead and state that the formation was the merger treaty to form the EC. Either way, they are both more relevant than the EEC being formed as a formation date.-- 210.86.78.64 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the EEC date should stay as the ECSC was only about coal and steel while the EEC changed it to an economic union. The EC date just updated the EEC and made a political union closer. In all the text books I've read on the EU the EEC date is always been given as the start as the ESCS only became part of the EEC in the 60's. Wild ride 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Cameron Nedland 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The EEC date is the most important date. The ECSC had actually nothing to do withe the EEC and the EU. The ECSC was just a treaty among those countries as there are many treaties. If one take the formation of the ECSC as a starting point, or the the formation of the Benelux, one could also take the independence of Belgium, The Netherlands or Luxembourg as a starting point, and that's just bullshit. Furthermore, the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the EEC is the most important date in almost every history text book. 146.175.100.103 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this written in British English? I don't understand the disclaimer at the beginning..considering more Americans speak english.
On a deeper level just because there are more Americans than British people should not be used as a justification to impose American spelling on non American articles, especially as this is not wikipedia policy probably because many non Americans would not participate were it American policy, though also and fundamentally because wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. My sense is this issue is becoming more widesprerad throughout wikipedia. I for one would bitterly oppose any attempt to Americanize (sic) this or any other European Union based article. I would further argue that all the articles about EU countries and their affairs should be in British English. NATO is in British English and has continuous problems from anons who, like the above contributor here, believe all articles should be in American English, SqueakBox 18:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm still laughing about "British people spell a lot of words weird and it's hard to read" - is this a joke? Marco Neves 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Cameron Nedland 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fabhcun. Honor makes no sense either depending on where you are coming from and I propose any more anti-Brit forum venom style ranting of the type engaged in by Cameron etc be removed. English doesn't spell phonetically or we would say shugar, shure, etc, and anti-British slurs are slurs and should be treated as such. Civility in wikipedia includes not making ignorant and inflammatory commenmts about Britain. If you want a US encyclopedia go and make one, but wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and Americans don't get special rights to hijack that in the name of a spurious nationalism, here or anywhere on wikipedia, SqueakBox 13:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
please do not be a typical amercian and assume you are correct we the british gave you the language and now you want to lecture to us on how to write and say thing you are the reason why the language has been butchered over the years you and your removal of the letter U from every word and re instead of er keep with british english where america or americans have nothing at all to do with the article. Lucy-marie 23:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Stupid, but it's undeniably true. MichaelJBuck 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code - {{portal|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of Europe, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!-- Mais oui! 08:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I find that the GDP Ranking is misleading since when you view the link that goes to the table it shows it as not counted (eg. -), so why does it have it listed on this article? Plus if you view United States of America it is ranked as #1 too, so why the two articles have the same rank? I would suggest it to be edited to something like "Not Ranked".
Well for economical reasons, you'd count the EU as a whole because of the institutions, perhaps it would be good to add a footnote to Not Ranked with something like "As an entity No1 place". I think there was a big dispute about this before too... -- JDnCoke 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Why is the GDP given in (presumably) US dollars? Wouldn't euros be more appropriate? Markb 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
European Union if counted as a single unit , would be placed at 2nd place (2005 & 2006 PPP)According to IMF, CIA WORLDFACTBOOK....
If the Eu was counted as one unit it would be first end of story. 87.112.79.98 12:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem distinguishing between green and cyan on a laptop? I think pink would be a better substitute for one of the colors. Rudykog 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Macedonia needs to be added in the candidate countries.-- 85.49.226.45 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
EU is not a tea club.
In the article I've seen several times the name Macedonia and some changes are required. The EU accepts only the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM). I suggest you to visit http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/candidate.htm As you see there's no such name as Macedonia in EU's page. Xmartha 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It's ok then, I just wanted to mention that it's an article for EU and it would be aprropriate to be as FYROM (this name is 'adopted' from EU) , but if we can't change it, it's ok! Xmartha 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The international formal name of this country (FYROM) is the only one recognised by the EU and UN, therefore you should change your article and all related graphs accordingly.
62.1.63.35
16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Under the issues that would probably prevent Turkey from becoming a member of the EU, I inserted in text that Turkey does not recognize the Armenian genocide about two months ago, and now it is gone. What happened? It is true. Turkey refuses to acknowledge that such a genocide existed, even though it did happen. There was a program on my local PBS station the other day about Armenia and it stated that the European Parliament told Turkey that it must accept the fact that the Armenian genocide happened before it could be an EU member; Turkey still refuses to believe that it actually happened. Does this tell you something? - Daniel Blanchette 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sad to say, this and other issues specific to conflicts between member states/candidate states and states that are neither actual nor likely candidate states aren't going to be addressed by the eu with any seriousness, no matter how grave. For example, Greece is upset with one of the candidate states, being Macedonia, on account of it's name. The Greeks have an unreasonable fear that the Macedonians will forget that they are Slavic and will become confused by their name, believing that they are in fact Hellenes in the tradition of Alexander of Macedon. The Greeks insist this could spur a Macedonian invasion of Greece. Is any of this likely? Ummm... well, the Macedonians would have to forget their entire history, language, and cultural norms, so my bet is...... no. But despite this, the EU is much more interested in Athens' paranoid delusions than they are in Skopje's claim that being made to use the monniker, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is just too unweildy. But, Skopje's pragmatism is not a point of interest to Brussels. Why? Greece is in the Club, Macedonia isn't. It's just that simple. If Armenia wants the EU to force Turkey to acknowledge the Massacre, there's only one real way it can do it. Armenia has to put in a serious bid for membership, and make itself a far more attractive candidate than Turkey. If Armenia gets in, Turkey will have to toe the EU line (which always favours existing members over non-members) or stay out. Otherwise? Don't expect any apologies from Ankara, or any demands for an apology from Brussels. Wandering Star 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from early on in the article - the topic is covered in suitable depth further down. Have kept the information here in case it is of use - some of it could be incorporated into Accession of Turkey to the European Union if the info is not there already -- Cjnm 09:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
On 4 October 2005, Turkey furthered its will to enter the European Union, making them the first predominantly Muslim populated country to open membership talks with the organisation. Many states within the union are wary of this decision, chiefly Austria. Austrian apprehension for Turkey dates back for centuries, leading from the 1683 Battle of Vienna, where the Austrians defeated the Ottoman Turks. Fears of an influx of migration from Turkey into Austria if the country and its 70 million inhabitants are allowed into the union is a heated topic. Others argue that most of the country is on the wrong side of the Bosporus Strait, which many believe to be the dividing line between Europe and Asia. Turkey also refuses to acknowledge any relations with the state of Cyprus since Turkish troops invaded the northern section of the island in 1974 following a coup attempt by Greek ultra-nationalists. Austria has proposed for an esteemed partnership for Turkey which would come short of an actual membership. Turkey rejected that proposal. Other European states claim that denying Turkey to a membership would brew future hostilities with other Muslim nations, as well as reinforce the widely held perception that the European Union is a "Christian Club".
User Ronline updated the statistics around GDP, stating they are 2006 data. Surely he must be mistaken, since 2006 is just starting. How can the data be available now? − Woodstone 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
More financials can be found on the German Wiki. English is not my native language, so if somebody else would update the section, please. Mion 12:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- ==European Union Financials== - The European Union's income can be divided in 3 area's: - * EU-importtax leveyd on goods on the borders of the EU. - * Sanctions leveyd by the European Commission ( Competition) - * Contribution of the Member States. - - - ===Bruto contribution pro country=== - - ===Netto contribution pro country=== - - ===Contribution pro head of the population=== - - ===European subsidies===
Sorry, English is not my native language. Mion 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone take this Goddamned cartoon of the page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
please explain what you're talking about Pure inuyasha 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There is some dispute over whether Cyprus is geographically in Asia or Europe.
The current first sentence of the article reads:
A proposed revised first sentence of the article - asserted as more geographically correct - reads:
To avoid an edit war, this section of the talk page has been created.
Evidenced by:
The question here is how does the EU define itself? Not whether all of it is geographically limited to the European continent. The EUs own published view of itself should be given precedence and then later in the article it can be noted that some parts are outside the European mainland area. From the EU official website "The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries..." [17]. When the EU changes its definition of itself , then Wikipedia should change its principal description, not before. Lumos3 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Evidenced by:
Certainly looks like it's in Asia to me. Until looking at a map I had the idea that it was west of Turkey and therefore in Europe, but obviously I was wrong. It seems to be clearly south and east of that 5% of Turkey that I've always heard is considered the south-east corner of Europe. --
Malthusian
(talk)
11:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying it's "24 European countries and 1 country in Asia" is ridiculous. Obviously, Cyprus is more geographically Asian than European. On the other hand, it is an island, and as such is not actually part of Europe or Asia. Many of Greece's Aegean islands - Rhodes, Lemnos, Samos, Chios, Cos - are considerably closer to Asian Turkey than they are to mainland Greece. Why are they to be considered European? Essentially, what is "European" has to be a matter of self-definition, and the Cypriots define themselves as European (more or less). Furthermore, it's just stylistically absurd to bring this issue into the first sentence. john k 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
In light of this, Burlesconi's suggestion that Israel be considered for membership is not so strange. Wandering Star 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sying the EU is a " union of 25 culturally European countries " is rediculaous. This would make most of North America , South America and Australia eligible fo membership. Switching back to the EUs own definition of itself.
Lumos3
19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with users underlining above that there is simply no right answer to the question as whether Cyprus is in Europe or Asia, only arguments in both directions. As concerns the article, I would suggest simply to remove the European adjective in the first sentence AND completely erase the clumsy second sentence, that is replacing the lengthy "The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 democratic European countries known as member states. Since the accession of Cyprus this has also included a state not geographically in Europe but culturally aligned to it." by a shorter "The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 democratic countries known as member states.". -- French Tourist 19:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In the context of Cyprus alone, the debate seems a little silly. But in the context of precedent, it takes on a more important role. Remember, what you do now will serve as grounds for similair action or inaction in the future. The time has come for Europe to define itself in a real way. Is Europe a cultural group, a geographical area, what? It's also important because it adds respectability to the idea of the Union, especially for those of us who love outside of it. Once the EU comes to aa consensus on such basic elements as a Constitution that will stand the test of time and who qualifies for membership, the rest of the world will be ready to acknowledge it's validity instead of scratching it's head, wondering what it is exactly we're all looking at. A difficult task, to be sure. But a critical one, if the EU is to survive. Wandering Star 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There is not 6 billion people in the EU!! There's only 6.5 billion people on the Planet!
Look [18] [19]As of Last Saturday!
and there 1 bilion in china and another billion in india! That adds up to 8 billion! Plus europes poplation when down big time after 2 world wars, find new population figures.
I place this up for Disupted Facts! HP465 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Opps, Sorry, thx for pointing that out HP465 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
i'm surprised that there is nothing about XAVIER SOLANA who the european representant of the foreign affairs of the UE. There is something to do. He's really important, really. My english is too bad to write something (i'm french) but i'm sure someone will add it.
Given that some people regard the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community as the founding of the EU ( see the Schuman declaration for details), could somebody with the requisite knowledge or time on their hands please take a look at the request for expansion of the European Coal and Steel Community article ? Thanks --jrleighton 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it possiblr to fix this map so that it shows the mid ranking wealth members in a diffferent colour to the non-EU members? Need someone who knows how to edit it. ( Stpaul 13:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
There already exists a critical link in the UN article. Opposition to EU is considerable, and links and/or critical text should be added, in my humble opinion. -- Thomi 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, in Finland for example, a recent study indicates that only 33% of the population believes EU a good thing. While for sure, in other countries where they can at least vote on the EU constitution, the people keep felling it. -- Thomi 02:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Claims that the EU will have an international code: "A numbering policy for telecommunications" green paper from the european comission http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9611/
Thewikipedian 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC+1)
Would someone be able to explain what exactly this green-paper suggests about an international code?
GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
( Deng 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
The largest city in the European Union may be London or Paris depending on the criteria (boundary, source, census year, etc.) used. I have edited to reflect this. – Kaihsu 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
In CBC Canada news on the March of 24 to 26 ask the EU put a Offical Language: Engish !-- Brown Shoes22 01:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean that they are "working languages"? That only german, french and english can be spoken in the european parliament? Talous 20:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the map include Melilla and Ceuta, Spanish exclaves on the African coast? I don't see them on the map. Starry Eyes 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently being considered for removal of its Featured Article status. See the debate at - Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union. All contributors need to take part. Lumos3 09:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Sakhalin island colored blue on the map?
European Union is an economic, politics and social union. Exception handling - military. UE is 25 autonomy country and 1 totality organism/system (similar - United States: 51 autonomy state is 1 totality organism/system ).
Quit reverting this back and forth and please discuss this issue here. Otherwise I will be forced to protect the article. -- Bjarki 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The table should be ordered by GDP per capita rather than total GDP because GDP per capita is more useful in gauging relative economic performance among member states. Total GDP is not particularly useful, other than seeing relative economic weight among member states. But in the Economy section, I think most people are looking for a table that shows them how the member states fare relative to other economically, which states are the wealthiest and which are the poorest. What are the reasons for sorting it by total GDP?
Ronline
✉
06:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are only 24 countries in this chart!
I notice there is alot of switching back and forth of the map in the infobox. There is a map that shows the location of the EU in a global perspective and there is a map that shows a close-up of Europe and identifies which countries are members. In my opinion, the map in the infobox should display this global perspective and serve the purpose that these maps serve in any country article, that is to display a location of an entity. We do have another map in the article which displays only Europe and identifies the member states and we don't need another. -- Bjarki 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the map back to the old version Scavenger 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"The European Union has land borders with 20 nations and sea borders with 31."
I have two questions about this sentence. Are the countries that share both a land and a sea border with existing EU members counted twice (included in both figures)? What exactly is a sea border? Territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a country's coast and are considered a sovereign territory of the respective state. EEZs extend up to 200 nm from the coast but states do not excercise sovereignty over that area, only an exclusive right to manage resources. In my mind, one can only speak of sea borders when territorial waters of different states meet (if there are less than 24 nm between them). I haven't managed to find a single country that borders an EU member only by sea border. -- Bjarki 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Add any references if possible, especially if they are Internet sources. Skinnyweed 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Would someone like to champion this as a good article? Or shall we put this in peer review? Skinnyweed 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
>GDP is a bad indicator of standard of living for a million diffrent reasons and here are some of them
Agreed. I sincerely believe this.
>It dosent show what you have access to. For example it dosent show if schools and unis are free in the country, it dosent show if hospitals are free it dosent show if medicin is free and it shows nothing about how many policemen there are or firefighters. All it shows is how much the country makes and how much that is per person. Also it is all messured in dollars but allprices in EU are not the same for example one pound of bread might cost X amount in one country and Y amount in another so saying standard of living is the same as GDP is so wrong.
The price difference within the European Union is incredible (i'm not from there but spent many years travelling there). If it was considered as one country or economic unit it probably would have the largest gap between rich and poor and standard of living in the OECD by a long shot. It's a truly phenomenal gap.
And you cannot simply divide the average wage or PP GDP to get the average price of goods. By the GDP per person say, a packet of cigarettes ($2 USD) in Vilnius, Lithuania is much cheaper per average dollar earned (over $30,000 US pp GDP) than in England, where it's $7-8 USD a packet at least, and certainly not 3-4 times the GDP per head. A can of coke is the same difference.. a big mac is less difference (you'd pay more of as a percentage of your wage in the Baltics for a burger than in London).
I don't know where people get off thinking GDP is the be all and end all indicator of living standards. Is it really a conclusive indicator of lifestyle and living standard? no.
>Also a rich country like USA has a worse Standard of liveing for then normal person then for Norway but if one only looks at the GDP one would think that the Standard of liveing for the normal USA person is better then for a Norway citizen. But the GDP does not mention that 37 million USA citizens live bellow the Poverty line and it dosent mention that hospitals schools of all levels are free in Norway. There are many diffrent lists in the world that state standard of liveing in the world and none of them uses GDP as the main factor.
Actaully, no you wouldn't. Norway has a higher GDP per head than the United States of America, so I'm really not sure where you get this argument from. Per person Norway is universally considered a richer country than the USA, which a parity GDP to match. So measuring solely on the basis of parity GDP, you'd have to come to the conclusion Norwegians have a better living standard than Americans.....right?
By Common Sense, may 2006 Pine forests falling victim to beekeepers’ initiative.
The European union must ACT against Greece before it is too late
A pine tree covered in the secretion of Marchalina hellenica. The insect lives off the sap of the tree, producing a white fluff, which bees feed on to produce honey.
HANIA - All over Greece, pine trees are being dessicated because of the introduction by beekeepers of large numbers of an insect whose secretions bees feed on to make honey.
The latest victims of the insect (Marchalina hellenica) are the pine forests in the prefecture of Hania on the island of Crete and in the island’s Samaria Gorge to the south.
According to Hania Prefecture Forestry Director Vassilis Kasiotakis, this infestation occurred with the blessing of the Ministry for Agricultural Development.
The first dead pines were found in forests above Anopoli and Aghios Ioannis in the early 1990s. Kasiotakis said that even then the problem had been attributed to the insects, known to the local beekeepers as “workers.”
Yet in March 2001, the Animal Produce General Directorate’s beekeeping department at the Agriculture Ministry (as it was then known) wrote to local authorities “encouraging” them to introduce the insects into the pine forests.
It actually funded beekeeping associations through the EU’s Third Community Support Framework to the tune of 4,000 drachmas (11.70 euros) per 0.10 hectares without first evaluating the climatological conditions in the area and any future negative effects on the ecosystem. As a result, the population of this parasite multiplied dramatically and spread to pines and cypress trees in forests around the region.
“What they actually did was to fund the beekeepers’s associations to deliberately infest the pine forests,” said Kasiotakis.
“These forests exist in extreme ecological conditions since there is very little water, due to an extended dry period (of up to eight months) and sudden deluges in winter,” he explained. “This is a serious problem, as the existence of a parasite such as Marchalina hellenica maximizes the risks to the forest, as it sucks the sap from the tree in order to survive, thereby weakening the tree. If one adds to that the damage done by the processional caterpillar, then the risks are great indeed.”
Parts of the Hania prefecture where the problem has assumed major dimensions are around Anopoli and Aghios Ioannis, at Prasse north of the White Mountains, at Aghii Apostoli and within the national park of the Samaria Gorge.
According to Kasiotakis, a survey carried out four years ago by the Institute for Forestry Research found that the pines had been affected by a number of species of nematodes, worms that live in the soil and attack the roots of the trees. Scientists from the Benaki Phytopathology institute, who took soil samples for further analysis, said these nematodes had been found in forests in Attica where Marchalina hellenica had also been found in large numbers.
The problem appears to lie in the fact that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate this insect using the means permitted by the European Union. In 1996, the Italian government passed a special law on the eradication of Marchalina hellenica and spent large sums for the purpose, yet Greece has done just the opposite.
According to a document from the Institute for Mediterranean Forestry Ecosystems and Forestry Product Technology at the National Agricultural Research Foundation (ETHIAGE), this occurred because of “incompetence and insufficient knowledge on the part of those responsible for the program, who had no idea of the harm the insect could cause, and who approved and encouraged the spread of the insect populations with funds from the Greek state.”
So these huge populations of Marchalina hellenica that have spread throughout the prefecture of Hania can no longer be controlled and are continuing on their path of destruction — and all this in order to increase the amount of honey produced.
The authorities cannot estimate the magnitude of the destruction, but it is certain that the extent of the destruction is enormous, particularly in the National Park of Samaria.
The Hania Forestry Department has issued a document calling the presence of the insect in the Samaria gorge a “danger to the structure and operation of the ecosystem” and that because of the rate at which it multiplies, the trees will be destroyed at the same rate, threatening the economy of the island.
The department recommends an awareness campaign along with on-the-spot evaluation by experts.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marchalina_hellenica"
Here are two maps, one is the currently used map, and here i present a new map showing the imminent partition of Serbia and Montenegro. I have retained seperate borders for each country to show that they are sovereign states. plz choose which one to display in the article as and when partition occurs.
WoodElf 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
or perhaps u might prefer
What about Gronland island isnt it a part of Denmark and EU. While Guine is. And wont EU have a great army to deal with USA and Russia.
How do people feel about making the Infobox looking more like this one, used on most country pages. On the UK page, for example. Due to the EU being more unique than a country, I suggest we just copy the code from the template, not use it. I have edited so it contains the data of the one now, but looks like the current country ones (saved in Notepad for when/if the time comes). One downside is that it is much harder to edit and makes the page a couple of KBs bigger. So, if anybody wants it just say and I'll change the page to have it. MichaelJBuck 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
(I am unsure exactly how its calculated, so this suggestion may not work)
Would it be possible to estimate a HDI of the EU as a whole, by multiplying each state's HDI, by it's population, and adding them, then divide the answer by the population of the EU? I may not have the formula right, but if you know what I mean, would it work as an accurate estimate? If so, working on the most current population ESTIMATES, as stated in their respective articles, I have worked out that the EU's HDI, is approximately 0.922101021. Is this accurate (or as accurate as can be)? Anyway in the meantime, I've added it to the article in this format as an estimate. If anyone wants to see how I calculated it, I can send the spreadsheet. - Red Hot 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea, but my figures seem to differ from yours. I got 0.90724 as the average. However, I didn't include the acceding countries. Did you? MichaelJBuck 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, looking at yours it seems I got my figures wrong. Nice work. MichaelJBuck 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the 9th place is more accurate. Shouldn't we discount the EU Member States from the HDI list? Typelighter 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No, because we don't discout them from GDP lists etc. Remember it's if the EU was ranked. MichaelJBuck 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
See the resolution. All languages of the EU are also working languages. French, German and English are working languages of the Comission. [20] In the Parliament all languages are allowed and there are interpreters for each cabin. Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language. Regulations and other documents of general application shall be drafted in the twenty official languages. The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.
See also: [21].
So we should get rid of the "working languagesk always counts the members and EU for ranking. - Red Hot 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
See the resolution. All languages of the EU are also working languages. French, German and English are working languages of the Comission. [22] In the Parliament all languages are allowed and there are interpreters for each cabin. Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language. Regulations and other documents of general application shall be drafted in the twenty official languages. The Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the twenty official languages.
Legislation and documents of major public importance or interest are produced in all 20 official languages, but that accounts for a minority of the institutions' work. Other documents (e.g. communications with the national authorities, Decisions addressed to particular individuals or entities and correspondence) are translated only into the languages needed. For internal purposes the EU institutions are allowed by law to choose their own language arrangements. The European Commission, for example, conducts its internal business in three languages, English, French and German, and goes fully multilingual only for public information and communication purposes. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has Members who need working documents in their own languages, so its document flow is fully multilingual from the outset.
See also: [23].
So we should get rid of the "working languages" section, because it is missleading. -- Danutz
Why has "Capital" been removed? I think this has been discussed several times before and each time it was agreed that "Brussels (de facto)" was the best choice, wasn't it? - Рэд хот 10:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was Talk:European_Union/Archive02#Capital Fabhcún 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This page seems strangely anodyne and devoid of critical thought, yet in recent years the EU as an institution has had many severe failures and is widely critiqued. To name but a few, the recent constitution proposal failed; the eurozone economy is stagnant or even declining; the european institutions appear out of touch; the auditors have once again refused to accept the accounts; I could go on. Isn't there room on this page for a serious criticisms section? MarkThomas 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing about critism on wikipedia it has to be NPOV, which is very hard to do right and I don't think the page is promoting the Union simply explaining it but if you want to write a paragraph as long as it is fact based, with citations and NPOV go a head Fabhcún 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
While I fully agree that problems with the EU should be properly discussed, I don't think that the sentence "This has led to a gross anomaly whereby family related social welfare benefits are payable by the member state where an EU citizen is employed, even where the family of the worker are resident elsewhere in the Union." is quite appropriate in a short overview of internal policies, which in my opinion should concentrate on giving the general idea of what each point means, instead of going into any detail. I looked around for a better place for the sentence, and couldn't find a page where the right of free movement and work in the EU would be further explained. Is there one on wikipedia?
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 EU 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? -- 152.163.100.74 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You credit the UK with the invention of liberty, but yet I know no other country in which democracy is so poorly organised. There is no such thing as a clear separation of the powers, because in the UK the members of the legislative branch are also the supreme judicial authority in the country (the House of Lords). The document which you credit with the institution of liberty, the Magna Charta, was written for nobles instead of the common people. Until recently Britain was the only developed country in the world in which nobles had anything to say in politics, through hereditary peerage. It was left to Tony Blair to remove the last vestiges of the Ancien Regime from British politics. No American would agree with the thesis "Liberty was invented by the British". Instead they would answer: "We rebelled because the British were so unfree". Britain still has a state church, so in theory members of the Church of England are favoured over members of other faiths. No, Mr Thomas, true liberty was invented on the Continent, in the city states of Ancient Athens and Italy during the Renaissance.
I do think the EU has flaws, such as an unnecessarily large budget, which is largely drained by the equally unnecessary and money-wasting Common Agricultural Policy (which I think the French shouldn't defend any longer). The democratic deficit of Strasbourg needs to be addressed. But with globalism on the rise I think the EU is the only way to be influential beyond our tiny corner of the world. EU politics are hard and to get things your way you need to find allies. There are now two blocs within the EU. One bloc led by France and Germany, which centers around the social welfare state and one led by the UK which favours liberal laissez-faire economics. I tend to favour the UK-bloc. Anyway, the EU is flawed, but as you can see the UK has severe flaws as well.-- 84.26.109.69 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Over at the Superpower talkpage, we're having a bit of a row about whether the European Union qualifies as a superpower. As you guys are the EU experts :P, if you could contribute to the dicussion your views would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
in what way the EU don't folow this definition Confederation???-- Ruber chiken 09:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, on the map in the middle of the page, some "not on the map" countries, like Franch Guayana are marked. Note, that French Guayana & co. belong to EU member countries, but they themselves are not part of the alliance. This is extra mentioned in the Maastricht Contract.
French Guiana, Réunion, Martinique, and Guadeloupe are integral parts of France. As they are not actually countries, they are not "part of the alliance" in the same way that Scotland is not "part of the alliance," or that Bavaria is "not part of the alliance." john k 12:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are two contenders to be the map as one of the is the current map and a new map that was not previously included.
Lucy-marie 09:11, 17 June 2006 (GMT)
In the section listing economies per capita my computer displays this for France:
" [[France
France has been a top tourist place for years and still is. Here are a few sites to use to find out more: www.franceforkids.co.uk
www.teachmefrench.com
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html
Image:France'sflag@enchantedlearning.com
Please feel free to use these!|France]]
1,900,467 "
However when I clicked to edit the article the text wasn't there, but then I preview you the page and the text is there. Is this just my computer or is it also there for other people? and If so it needs to be removed.
Kyle sb 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What are we going to do about this? Somebody has inputted figures, but offered no sources to back them up. Should we just cut the GDP in half for each country and leave a reference saying that this does not represent the true GDP of each state, but represents the combined GDP of them both before independence? That way we get rid of another "[citation needed]" and offer technically factual information. Of course, this can be updated as soon as figures are released for the separate countries. Agree? MichaelJBuck 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. That's another "[citation needed]" gone. :) MichaelJBuck 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the European Ombudsman & the European Data Protection Supervisor from the list of "institutions", because they are not institutions. There are only five institutions, as listed in the text of the treaty. I know this sounds strange to some people, but "institutions" is a technical term of EU law, and has a more precise meaning here than it does in ordinary language. The Ombudsman & Data Protection Supervisor are indeed EU bodies, but they do not have institution status. People have to stop adding other things to the list of five. All those other things belong latter on in that section. -- SJK 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said I would earlier, I have created a new Infobox that is more similar to new country Infoboxes, so it may be preferrable. View it here.-- MichaelJBuck 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why Rome is on that list and Athens is not (Athens has a larger Population by a fair bit) ( Giorgos 06:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC))
I don't understand why do you support accention of Turkey in the EU. By my opinion Turkey is an Asian country. You should give them an ultimatum to cede Constantinople to Greece and abandon North Cyprus and feel happy. Better I prefer EU to accept Iceland, Norway, Balarus, Ukraine and then some parts of Russia step by step.-- Verger 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Boohoo, cry me a river. For your information, the city called Istanbul, has a population bigger than the whole of grease and by incorporating it, Turks would become the majority in greece . weird huh? I have a better idea in fact, lets do a trade since you want be a minority in your own country so bad. Northern cyprus and turkish-majority southern bulgaria should join Turkey. Cyprus is a totally artifical state and the second was forcibly incorporated into bulgaria by the russians. No harm done at all here. Herltol 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Turkey is not wholey in asia it is partly in europe and asia. I support turkish accession so as the west can build relationships and have bridges with muslims in the middle east and artound the world. I agree that Iceland Norway Andorra Switzerland Leichinstein Monaco San Marino Macadonia Ukraine Kosovo Serbia Montnegro Moldova Albania Bosina and Herzogovina Georgia and Azerbiajan. all of these countries need to join the Eu as well but gradually they need to join the queue turkey has finally joined the queue in front of all of those countries. Turkey will one day become a full EU member after all of the issues surounding it have been resolved. Turkey will also Use the Euro coins and thown in the bin the highly devalued Turkish Lira. The Turkish lira will join other currencies in the bin such as the British Pound Swiss Franc Danish Swedish and Nowegian Kronas to name just a few of the many to go in the bin.-- Lucy-marie 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Never Turkey will never be a part of theocratic imperialistic blood drinkers league anyhow. In 40 years 3 times Turkey declared to Europe that they will not enter and today just because of Imf and Capital owners(ok ok also some seperatists less than %6) in Turkey wants join but the majority didnt forget 1919 and won't let that happen again by trick instead now they started to sue for war crimes of France and Greece soon comes Britan i hope (i will sue Greece) to Human Rights Court i hope that will drive dirty imperialist hands off my country once and for all. Take Arabs as they love you more they have more blood ties with EU citizens, here no one loves EU nor puppet Turks. Hope soon the customs union will be broken also which for 10 years worked one sided for EU. And Azerbaijan Eu wants only oil there nothing else as after WW1.If Eu wants turkey first all the religious emblems in the member flags must be dropped or changed to a secular one as Turkey doesn't have any religious sybol or writing, but saıdi Arabia has hey take saudi arabia that will be fun watching Arabs in streets of london with their traditional clothes and slave woman behind.But i love one Arabic thing and will be very suitable for this article. YALLAH YALLAH.Opps but the bombs they are walking bombs i forgot your bombs fly theirs walk they evolved in another way....
By the way i am not a Turk just a citizen from caucasus diaspora here.
We are neither European nor Asian we are Anatolian.
The article states that the MEPs are "directly" elected by the citizens of the EU's member states. I'm not sure this is so: aren't a significant number elected indirectly, through party list based PR systems? Countersubject 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)