![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please explain how the Pound Sterling is a currency of the EU. Is it accepted across EU member states? Or by EU institutions as payment? Anything else is insufficient and misleading. The Pound (as much the other currencies named) is no more a currency of the EU than it is a currency of NATO. Please provide evidence to the contrary or remove the reference. JamesAVD 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I do say 'as much as the other currencies named'. The infobox should reflect only the Euro as a currency of the EU or should make clear that the other currecncies are not official currencies of the EU as a whole. The box as it stands is incorrect or misleading. JamesAVD 11:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree we can debate whether or not the Euro is the official currency of the EU. As a starting point, the other currencies are quite clearly not official currencies of the EU. JamesAVD 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone knkow what this is??
The start of this page states that the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational organisation, when in the strict sense these terms are mutually exclusive. I strongly suggest a rewording. Will 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Isle of Mann is part of the Uk but the currency is not officaly recognised by the EU as it is a crown dependancy the channel islands are pasrt of the EU as well but are also crown dependancies. This is the same situation with Åland and Finland and the contorversy over snus. -- 21:49, 21 August 2006(UTC)
Can you please explain why the EU law applies to thee areas.-- Lucy-marie 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article quotes EU's motto (under the EU flag graph, to the right) as "In varietate concordia". Below that it adds "Latin for 'United in diversity'".
First, there is no "In varietate concordia" official motto. The EU's official motto is that defined in article I-8 of the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" still to be ratified after the French and Dutch citizens rejected it in referendum. This means that for each valid version of the text, there is one official motto. So, the English version of the Treaty sets "United in diversity" as the official English-language motto.
Second, being like that, anyway, the Latin translation given in the article is wrong.
The motto is only a very small part of the EU i dont know why we are gettimg hung up over it?-- 84.67.170.243 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
See European symbols: motto for how the motto got adopted. It is not entirely official, but not entirely unsanctioned either. – Kaihsu 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Until something like this is entirely official, it's not even slightly official. JamesAVD 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states that "Everyone in the European Parliament is entitled to communicate in their own native language and to have this interpreted into other languages", which is untrue. The languages allowed in the Parliament are those so set in its reglament, mainly the official ones (with some exceptions). There has been controversy on this issue, especially sensitive for the millions of European citizens which do not have their native languages recognized either in their home states or in the EU. The most famous case is that of Catalan language a language spoken by several milion people in three EU states plus Andorra which enjoys partial recognition in Spain. Catalan-speaking Euro MP's have been involved in a series of incidents in the EU Parliament when trying to use their native language and being interrupted or turned down their right to speak after the Parliament authorities noticed they were using Catalan. Political negotiation within the Spanish state has rendered some minor advance in the language's recognition in the EU.
Can anyone explain what the sentence about not not reaching the standards of Canada, Australia, etc, actually means? Seems like nonsense to me, and I notice a citation demand has been added. MarkThomas 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have passed the article in accordance to Good Article Criteria as laid out below. Reading the article logs, I can see why the article was de-listed as a Featured Article for lack of references. While I do not feel the article has addressed that concern enough for FA status, I do believe it more then covers GA status as I will note below.
1. It is well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
5. It is stable- Pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
If anyone has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.
Agne
02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The first European community does not include West Berlin as its shown on the map of the first 6 countries. As far as I know, West Berlin was a legal entity, separate from Western Germany. Its government derived its mandate from the occupation authorities of England, USA and France, not from the electorate. DamianOFF 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, West Berlin was not officially part of the Federal Republic of Germany until unification. All of Berlin, including the East, were officially under occupation by the Britain, France, the US and the Soviet Union. However, West Berlin was de facto under the administration of the West German government in Bonn and followed all Federal German laws and EEC regulations. seanjw
217.196.239.189
12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The European Union is a densely populated, culturally diverse union of 25 member states, constantly expanding and developing. This reads like something out of a publicity leaflet. It gives a nice warm glow, but says everything and nothing. Countersubject 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The UK government is currently discussing whether to allow unlimited work rights to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, when these countries join the EU. It is claimed that,
where "new" refers to the eight states joining in 2004. I think it is a common misconception (in the UK at least) that all EU member states are obliged to grant unlimited work rights to all EU citizens. This article appears to reinforce the misconception, with the following point listed as an internal policy of the free market:
Can somebody find a good reference to explain this situation? Is there a law requiring existing states to accept unlimited workers from new states after a prescribed period? Mtford 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There are many problems with the inclusion of a population-weighed HDI average:
Calculating the HDI for the EU isn't hard, though it is a bit tedious: all the data should be available. However, the calculation is error-sensitive enough to require the calculation page to be archived somewhere.
(If anyone does the work: please also calculate the three subindices (GDP index is trivial).)
RandomP 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Playing around with the source code, didn't mean to make changes! I'Thanks. Shadowrun 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria and Romania are joining the EU on 1 January 2007 according to the final report of the EU commission and Gunter Verheugen, so all postponement references are outdated…there is no chance that their membership is postponed. The last 3 states to ratify the treaty of accession, France, Denmark and Germany – have assured the EU commission and BG & RO that they will ratify the treaty on time.
There's only one more hurdle: the European Council which will meet in December will have the final say, after the ratification process, but this too will almost certailny decide in favour of the accession in 2007.
Verheugen Confirms Bulgaria, Romania in EU Jan 2007 http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=69329
Romania, Bulgaria approved for this January EU entry - sources http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=381161&lng=1
Current status: Germany and Denmark have still to ratify the treaty of accession.
On the section referring to Turkey's accession to the EU, it is stated that 'part of the problem [...] is the fact that 97% of its land mass lies on [Asia]'. While this issue has been brought up on the media, it can be considered only as a minor legal technicality. (which, by the way, is already solved as Turkey occupies some european territory). Considering that EU is an economic and political union, such an issue should be accounted only as an excuse by parties against the accession and not a realistic political argument. Think about it; in the case that Turkey meets the macroeconomic goals and democratic reforms expected by the EU, would there really be an issue about its continental setting, even if it hold no European ground? I think the sentence should be removed or rephrased to represent its minor importance to the issue. I believe that it can be misleading as it presents an issue about the accession that doesn't really exist.
I'll change it in a while if noone disagrees.
Actually, this is the EUROPEAN Union, so if somewhere had no territory in europe, and no european cultural links, they wouldn't be let in. LIke Morocco. Zazaban 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Turkey not only has territory in Europe, but is also culturally European - more so than Bulgaria and Romania. Furthermore, Cyprus, which is one of the ten member states that joined, technically has no territory in the EU. These countries are grouped for official purposes under "Regions that for cultural reasons are considered Europe".
Regardless, Turkey will not be let in because of popular opposition, unless the bureaucratic tyrants in Brussels blatantly ignore our will again.
"The European Union has land borders with 22 nations."
Unless I'm missing something, this should be either be 21, or it should be "borders" not "land borders". Guadeloupe doesn't have any land borders! Zompist 07:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are counting. The EU borders the following countries:
AL (GR) AD (ES+FR) BG (GR) BR (FR) BY (LT+PL) CH (AT+DE+FR+IT) GB (CY) HR (HU+SI) LI (AT) MA (ES) MC (FR) MK (GR) NL (FR) NO (FI+SE) RO (HU) RS (HU) RU (EE+FI+LV+LT+PL) SM (IT) SR (FR) TR (GR) UA (HU+PL+SK) VA (IT) Northern Cyprus (CY)
If you count Northern Cyprus as a contry, the EU borders 23 countries. If you don't count Northern Cyprus, it's 22. GB and NL here mean possessions of GB and NL that aren't part of the EU. ( 218.228.195.44 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
The EU doesn't have any land borders because the EU isn't a country.
The EU doesn't have land borders any more than Mercosur has land borders. It has no territory and therefore no borders. Please provide evidence to the contrary or remove the reference. JamesAVD 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
lalalalala...wikipedia is hard to locate something that your looking for! woot woot!The European Council is not an official institution of the EU. It establishes the guidelines for the union and is closely connected to it. Thnk about the three-pillar structure of the EU, and imagine that the European Council actually lies above the "roof" of the structure which actually looks like a Greek temple.-- Arado 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I found the name "Europa" on a year 1616 map over the Gulf of Finland, describing "Europa" as a rather small area east of Vyborg in southern Finland ( The map). Who are the Europeans really? This area was of major importance in the 14th century were both the Kalmar Union and the Polish-Lithuanian Union was a answer to the Roman Catholic Church's increasing power. Could the extension named CommonWealth be the real European aboriginals?
there is something wrong with the table and the pictures (in firefox) Aleichem 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A Single Market is something else than a monetary union. The single market is the Economic Union. The Euro-zone is the Monetary Union. However, if you put them together, you have Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the actual state of integration in the EU. The Single Market was created before the Third and decisive stage of the process of creating the Monetary Union. They evolved in a parallel way. --
Arado
14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Before it was 28,300...something around there I believe, and now it is 32,000? How did that change? And the total GDP went up around 2 trillion...Was this a new report for 2006? Or did someone vandalise it? Brainboy109 0:48, October 1st 2006 (UTC)
Calling the EU a confederation, the first paragraph contradicts one from the body of the text, which is more accurate: "Because of this unique structure most simply classify the European Union as a sui generis (unique) entity and leave it at that." The EU is not a confederation. Ezadarque 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(I made the previous comment on removing the 'part of the problem...' sentence) Ok, so now that I have time, I will apply the changes. Taking into account the couple of responses , I will remove most of it. I will still reference the issue in some less obvious (and less than half the paragraph) way. As I see it it is an argument from a disputed section of the article Accession of Turkey to the European Union. I'll also add a link to the Copenhagen criteria#Geographic criteria which seems to clarify the subject. Treiskaitetarto 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
File:Support for turkey.gif and the following text
Presently less than 39% of European Union citizens support Turkey's entry into the Union. [1]
It seems to be a diservace to mention the Turkish bid, without mentioning the strong opposition to it.-- Caligvla 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
On the information bar, the largest city is stated as being Paris. I know that there is often confusion regarding city sizes defined by metropolitan area, urban agglomeration or even just city limits - but by most of these criteria London is larger than Paris (and according to most sources I can find e.g. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/urban.aspx). Also, on Wikipedia's page on London, it is stated as being the largest city in the EU, so we have a contradiction here.
OK. I don't care if London or Paris is chosen as the "largest city", but as long as the link is to Largest urban areas of the European Union, then it is stupid to put anything else than Paris. Anyone who wants to have London as the largest city at least needs to find a list where London is indeed at the top. If you don't even bother doing that, Paris is just fine here. → SeeSchloß 21:39, 20 October 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please explain how the Pound Sterling is a currency of the EU. Is it accepted across EU member states? Or by EU institutions as payment? Anything else is insufficient and misleading. The Pound (as much the other currencies named) is no more a currency of the EU than it is a currency of NATO. Please provide evidence to the contrary or remove the reference. JamesAVD 17:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I do say 'as much as the other currencies named'. The infobox should reflect only the Euro as a currency of the EU or should make clear that the other currecncies are not official currencies of the EU as a whole. The box as it stands is incorrect or misleading. JamesAVD 11:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree we can debate whether or not the Euro is the official currency of the EU. As a starting point, the other currencies are quite clearly not official currencies of the EU. JamesAVD 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone knkow what this is??
The start of this page states that the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational organisation, when in the strict sense these terms are mutually exclusive. I strongly suggest a rewording. Will 12:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Isle of Mann is part of the Uk but the currency is not officaly recognised by the EU as it is a crown dependancy the channel islands are pasrt of the EU as well but are also crown dependancies. This is the same situation with Åland and Finland and the contorversy over snus. -- 21:49, 21 August 2006(UTC)
Can you please explain why the EU law applies to thee areas.-- Lucy-marie 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article quotes EU's motto (under the EU flag graph, to the right) as "In varietate concordia". Below that it adds "Latin for 'United in diversity'".
First, there is no "In varietate concordia" official motto. The EU's official motto is that defined in article I-8 of the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" still to be ratified after the French and Dutch citizens rejected it in referendum. This means that for each valid version of the text, there is one official motto. So, the English version of the Treaty sets "United in diversity" as the official English-language motto.
Second, being like that, anyway, the Latin translation given in the article is wrong.
The motto is only a very small part of the EU i dont know why we are gettimg hung up over it?-- 84.67.170.243 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
See European symbols: motto for how the motto got adopted. It is not entirely official, but not entirely unsanctioned either. – Kaihsu 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Until something like this is entirely official, it's not even slightly official. JamesAVD 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states that "Everyone in the European Parliament is entitled to communicate in their own native language and to have this interpreted into other languages", which is untrue. The languages allowed in the Parliament are those so set in its reglament, mainly the official ones (with some exceptions). There has been controversy on this issue, especially sensitive for the millions of European citizens which do not have their native languages recognized either in their home states or in the EU. The most famous case is that of Catalan language a language spoken by several milion people in three EU states plus Andorra which enjoys partial recognition in Spain. Catalan-speaking Euro MP's have been involved in a series of incidents in the EU Parliament when trying to use their native language and being interrupted or turned down their right to speak after the Parliament authorities noticed they were using Catalan. Political negotiation within the Spanish state has rendered some minor advance in the language's recognition in the EU.
Can anyone explain what the sentence about not not reaching the standards of Canada, Australia, etc, actually means? Seems like nonsense to me, and I notice a citation demand has been added. MarkThomas 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have passed the article in accordance to Good Article Criteria as laid out below. Reading the article logs, I can see why the article was de-listed as a Featured Article for lack of references. While I do not feel the article has addressed that concern enough for FA status, I do believe it more then covers GA status as I will note below.
1. It is well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
5. It is stable- Pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
If anyone has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.
Agne
02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The first European community does not include West Berlin as its shown on the map of the first 6 countries. As far as I know, West Berlin was a legal entity, separate from Western Germany. Its government derived its mandate from the occupation authorities of England, USA and France, not from the electorate. DamianOFF 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, West Berlin was not officially part of the Federal Republic of Germany until unification. All of Berlin, including the East, were officially under occupation by the Britain, France, the US and the Soviet Union. However, West Berlin was de facto under the administration of the West German government in Bonn and followed all Federal German laws and EEC regulations. seanjw
217.196.239.189
12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The European Union is a densely populated, culturally diverse union of 25 member states, constantly expanding and developing. This reads like something out of a publicity leaflet. It gives a nice warm glow, but says everything and nothing. Countersubject 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The UK government is currently discussing whether to allow unlimited work rights to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, when these countries join the EU. It is claimed that,
where "new" refers to the eight states joining in 2004. I think it is a common misconception (in the UK at least) that all EU member states are obliged to grant unlimited work rights to all EU citizens. This article appears to reinforce the misconception, with the following point listed as an internal policy of the free market:
Can somebody find a good reference to explain this situation? Is there a law requiring existing states to accept unlimited workers from new states after a prescribed period? Mtford 12:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There are many problems with the inclusion of a population-weighed HDI average:
Calculating the HDI for the EU isn't hard, though it is a bit tedious: all the data should be available. However, the calculation is error-sensitive enough to require the calculation page to be archived somewhere.
(If anyone does the work: please also calculate the three subindices (GDP index is trivial).)
RandomP 17:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Playing around with the source code, didn't mean to make changes! I'Thanks. Shadowrun 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria and Romania are joining the EU on 1 January 2007 according to the final report of the EU commission and Gunter Verheugen, so all postponement references are outdated…there is no chance that their membership is postponed. The last 3 states to ratify the treaty of accession, France, Denmark and Germany – have assured the EU commission and BG & RO that they will ratify the treaty on time.
There's only one more hurdle: the European Council which will meet in December will have the final say, after the ratification process, but this too will almost certailny decide in favour of the accession in 2007.
Verheugen Confirms Bulgaria, Romania in EU Jan 2007 http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=69329
Romania, Bulgaria approved for this January EU entry - sources http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=381161&lng=1
Current status: Germany and Denmark have still to ratify the treaty of accession.
On the section referring to Turkey's accession to the EU, it is stated that 'part of the problem [...] is the fact that 97% of its land mass lies on [Asia]'. While this issue has been brought up on the media, it can be considered only as a minor legal technicality. (which, by the way, is already solved as Turkey occupies some european territory). Considering that EU is an economic and political union, such an issue should be accounted only as an excuse by parties against the accession and not a realistic political argument. Think about it; in the case that Turkey meets the macroeconomic goals and democratic reforms expected by the EU, would there really be an issue about its continental setting, even if it hold no European ground? I think the sentence should be removed or rephrased to represent its minor importance to the issue. I believe that it can be misleading as it presents an issue about the accession that doesn't really exist.
I'll change it in a while if noone disagrees.
Actually, this is the EUROPEAN Union, so if somewhere had no territory in europe, and no european cultural links, they wouldn't be let in. LIke Morocco. Zazaban 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Turkey not only has territory in Europe, but is also culturally European - more so than Bulgaria and Romania. Furthermore, Cyprus, which is one of the ten member states that joined, technically has no territory in the EU. These countries are grouped for official purposes under "Regions that for cultural reasons are considered Europe".
Regardless, Turkey will not be let in because of popular opposition, unless the bureaucratic tyrants in Brussels blatantly ignore our will again.
"The European Union has land borders with 22 nations."
Unless I'm missing something, this should be either be 21, or it should be "borders" not "land borders". Guadeloupe doesn't have any land borders! Zompist 07:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are counting. The EU borders the following countries:
AL (GR) AD (ES+FR) BG (GR) BR (FR) BY (LT+PL) CH (AT+DE+FR+IT) GB (CY) HR (HU+SI) LI (AT) MA (ES) MC (FR) MK (GR) NL (FR) NO (FI+SE) RO (HU) RS (HU) RU (EE+FI+LV+LT+PL) SM (IT) SR (FR) TR (GR) UA (HU+PL+SK) VA (IT) Northern Cyprus (CY)
If you count Northern Cyprus as a contry, the EU borders 23 countries. If you don't count Northern Cyprus, it's 22. GB and NL here mean possessions of GB and NL that aren't part of the EU. ( 218.228.195.44 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC))
The EU doesn't have any land borders because the EU isn't a country.
The EU doesn't have land borders any more than Mercosur has land borders. It has no territory and therefore no borders. Please provide evidence to the contrary or remove the reference. JamesAVD 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
lalalalala...wikipedia is hard to locate something that your looking for! woot woot!The European Council is not an official institution of the EU. It establishes the guidelines for the union and is closely connected to it. Thnk about the three-pillar structure of the EU, and imagine that the European Council actually lies above the "roof" of the structure which actually looks like a Greek temple.-- Arado 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I found the name "Europa" on a year 1616 map over the Gulf of Finland, describing "Europa" as a rather small area east of Vyborg in southern Finland ( The map). Who are the Europeans really? This area was of major importance in the 14th century were both the Kalmar Union and the Polish-Lithuanian Union was a answer to the Roman Catholic Church's increasing power. Could the extension named CommonWealth be the real European aboriginals?
there is something wrong with the table and the pictures (in firefox) Aleichem 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A Single Market is something else than a monetary union. The single market is the Economic Union. The Euro-zone is the Monetary Union. However, if you put them together, you have Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the actual state of integration in the EU. The Single Market was created before the Third and decisive stage of the process of creating the Monetary Union. They evolved in a parallel way. --
Arado
14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Before it was 28,300...something around there I believe, and now it is 32,000? How did that change? And the total GDP went up around 2 trillion...Was this a new report for 2006? Or did someone vandalise it? Brainboy109 0:48, October 1st 2006 (UTC)
Calling the EU a confederation, the first paragraph contradicts one from the body of the text, which is more accurate: "Because of this unique structure most simply classify the European Union as a sui generis (unique) entity and leave it at that." The EU is not a confederation. Ezadarque 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(I made the previous comment on removing the 'part of the problem...' sentence) Ok, so now that I have time, I will apply the changes. Taking into account the couple of responses , I will remove most of it. I will still reference the issue in some less obvious (and less than half the paragraph) way. As I see it it is an argument from a disputed section of the article Accession of Turkey to the European Union. I'll also add a link to the Copenhagen criteria#Geographic criteria which seems to clarify the subject. Treiskaitetarto 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
File:Support for turkey.gif and the following text
Presently less than 39% of European Union citizens support Turkey's entry into the Union. [1]
It seems to be a diservace to mention the Turkish bid, without mentioning the strong opposition to it.-- Caligvla 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
On the information bar, the largest city is stated as being Paris. I know that there is often confusion regarding city sizes defined by metropolitan area, urban agglomeration or even just city limits - but by most of these criteria London is larger than Paris (and according to most sources I can find e.g. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/urban.aspx). Also, on Wikipedia's page on London, it is stated as being the largest city in the EU, so we have a contradiction here.
OK. I don't care if London or Paris is chosen as the "largest city", but as long as the link is to Largest urban areas of the European Union, then it is stupid to put anything else than Paris. Anyone who wants to have London as the largest city at least needs to find a list where London is indeed at the top. If you don't even bother doing that, Paris is just fine here. → SeeSchloß 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)