This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federalisation of the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the Herbert Armstrong stuff really belong in this article? -- 69.231.251.39 22:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph which described the level of support given in referenda on accession to the EU by various countries - this had little to do with the subject of the entry, 'United States of Europe'. I was going to integrate the contents into Euroscepticism and History of the European Union, but it turns out the stuff is all there already. Toby W
Woo! U.S.E., U.S.E.! I hope there is a Untied States of Europe one day.
I removed all the Herbert W. Armstrong related material - the paragraph and two links.
What is the deal with this? This is English Wikipedia. English does not use eszet. -- Tysto 05:16, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I'm really unsure about this section, and I’m glad it has already been flagged. There appears to be no link to a source and hence it is just wild speculation of what may happen. I don’t think this should belong in an encyclopaedia unless these ideas can be attributed an a relevant person or organisation. Any feedback would be appreciated as I'm not sure I can make an informed decision, to remove this section, alone. -- zerorpm 23:11, 2006 May 10 (GMT)
Is there really any basis for claiming to know exactly what Winston Churchill 'meant' in his speech? Shouldn't Wiki confine itself to presenting facts, not interpretations of them? Perhaps a better way to qualify Churchill's speech would be to point to another speech where he clarified that he didn't see Britain as part of this potential U.S.E.
I added a brief mention of Arthur Salter, who in 1931 also published a book by that title (cf. http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/europeancommunity.html)
Is Russia a 'predominantly European country'?. Is this not a huge sweeping statement, ignoring the age old debate as to whether Russia is more Asian or European?
Russia is a people and culture unique unto itself.
-G
Finally, how can one discuss European history, economy, politics and culture without including Russia? Can the same be said, to the same extent, of the far or middle East? Sorry Europe, I think we're stuck with Russia. (jk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at the images of those four superpowers. What do you think? The Anonymous One 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
About what? The images aren't really very thought-provoking... 203.51.237.72 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Romans thought themselves ABOVE europe. All they saw Europe was a bunch of savage Celtic tribes to the West, Germanic tribes to the North and Slavic tribes to the east. Rome shouldn't be seen as a past european empire/union.
-G
You don't seem to realized that , fo rall intenst an dpurposs Rome WAS Europe. You see all teh modern stes we consider part of "Europe" Orignte din fall , and susequential fracturing, of the empire, Fedral europe could be seen as a reunifction of those governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.171.153 ( talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The map is pretty much the definition of original research. Completeley unsourced and arbritary. so ive removed it. Willy turner 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The European Space agency is not a part of the EU, it includes countries who aren't EU member states. The sentence at the beginning of the article suggests otherwise. I'll remove it if nobody objects, or maybe we could just rephrase the sentence a little so that it's not explicitly referring to the EU. There are after all many developments external to the EU which could be relevant to this article, though the EU is obviously the most important. Blankfrackis 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This sentence - "People who oppose and criticize forming a United States of Europe or even a confederation of European nations are called Eurosceptics." is incorrect in my view. One can oppose the creation of a "superstate" and support EU membership. The idea that you either support a European superstate or you're a Eurosceptic is one of the biggest red herrings in debates on the EU. This isn't an obscure point of semantics, undoubtedly the largest percentage of European citizens fall into the category of supporting EU membership but not supporting a "United States of Europe". To call these people Eurosceptics, as this sentence does, is obviously to use the term too liberally. I'll change it if nobody objects. Blankfrackis 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I put the Articles of Confederation reference in the article for two reasons:
I'm putting the parenthetic phrase back. However, if you still feel it is too tangential in light of these comments, please feel free to remove it. samwaltz 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The ESA was formed completely independent of the EC and the EU and it still has non EU member states as members. Is it really appropriate to cite the ESA as the EUs space agency? It seems a bit like citing NATO as the european defence agency. Zebulin ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm furious. Victor Hugo wrote about "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" in 1849 !!! Not Winston Churchill !!! This article is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.32.151 ( talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I have read "Winston Churchill first called for a "United States of Europe""... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_of_Europe&oldid=183317048) I have deleted "first". Thank you. This article in French is shorter but better. 86.217.32.151 ( talk)
This article used to be " United States of Europe", what's going on here? Why was the article moved/merged? I see that User:Ssolbergj has renamed/moved the article with the reason being "Removes controvercial link to the United States", what on Earth is this supposed to mean? As far as I can see Ssolbergj has not consulted anyone on this move, and the article is currently a mess. I think we need to seriously consider putting it back the way it was, especially seeing as there has been no explanation given or consultation offered. -- Hibernian ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
User:BillCJ tagged the whole article as POV with the edit comment "Added {{POV}} tag - article paints a biased and often inaccurate views of the USA and its formation, and antagonism towards its system of govenment, with many sections of discussion unsourced entirely.", but did not open a discussion to explain his concerns. As far as I can guess, his objection is more specific to Federal Europe#United States of Europe, so I have moved the tag to that section. But really it is incumbent on him to explain his concerns or, better still, improve the article. I don't deny that this article has a lot of problems because it concerns speculative fiction, nationalism, utopianism and even xenophobia - but the charge of anti-US bias comes way off left field. Please explain. -- Red King ( talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading this article many times, I am still not sure if the "Historical unifications of Europe" section really belongs to an article on "Federal Europe". None of the imperial conquests mentioned in that section unified Europe and none of them attempted to create a European federation. The section seems to be a bit out of place. I wonder what the most frequent editors of this article think about this issue. Andrzej Kmicic ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ EU evolvement timeline}} Inaccurately suggests Lisbon will establish the 'EU'. The 'EU' has been established since the Maastricht Treaty 1992 (adopted 1993).
Mitterand proposed this in 1991. Perhaps that might be a good addition to the article? - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"In the computer game Shattered Union, set in a future civil war in America, the European Union is portrayed as a peacekeeping force."
(from the article)
The EU already exists and has peacekeeping capabilities. I don't see why this concept is related to the idea of a future federal Europe any more than it is to the EU now. Of course, I haven't actually played the thing, so it's possible there's something that I (and the article) am missing. -- I slomaniac 973 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any relevance to this segment as well, it seems to me that whoever wrote it just wants to promote a game. -- Nizzemancer ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I distinctly remember the former prime minister of Greece (I'm from there) saying in a speech (of some sort I can't recall) something in the lines of "We all agree as members of the European community that the way forward is in the form of a federal administration for Europe .." or something in those lines. This is not some kind of crazy local politician, he said that after years as prime minister roaming the parliaments of Europe. He said it not in the way of some bold statement, it was just something thrown along the lines; i.e. He gave the idea he was saying something completely natural to him that is just accepted by European administration officials. Also; I was just listening to a historic speech of Thatcher where she distinctly says (at this youtube video towards the end) that the Economic union of Europe was a move towards a federation (with the British historically opposing for keeping their own power). -- Leladax ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the relevance of the sentence "In the past, various empires and military powers have achieved control over large parts of the European continent, and often introduced imperial structures by force. Notable among these are the Roman Empire, the First French Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union." My immediate reaction would be to interpret it as an attempt to taint movement toward European integration with imperial, dictatorial, and fascist associations that have nothing to do with the subject of the article.-- Boson ( talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice the entire fiction section was removed in this edit. Either it should be reinstated (and probably rewritten to be less trivial), or the Category:Fictional governments should be removed. — sjorford ++ 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This article and United States of Europe should probably be merged. They cover the same political ideology of a united Europe. Currently, Talk:United States of Europe redirects here. 84.92.117.93 ( talk) 15:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The Washington quote used in the United States of Europe article is a fake, manipulated during the translation from English to French and then back to English. [1] The original does not include the phrase "United States of Europe" or anything equivalent. Kauffner ( talk) 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this section could do with some work. It presents the situation as though there is an academic consensus that the European Union is a federation in all but name. There is a huge body of academic literature that would take issue with this: Andrew Moravcsik and other intergovernmentalist academics being the obvious example.
More than this, however, Kelemen has been quoted in a slightly misleading fashion. He certainly doesn't view the EU as a federation, or anything like a unified state, his argument is that you can explain certain aspects of European integration through federalist concepts, but that the entire arrangement falls short of a federation. He's explicitly stated that the idea of a single European federal state is implausible, here, for instance:
Blankfrackis ( talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The talk page for Federal Europe is this page, the talk page for United States of Europe is a redirect to this page. This means that two pages share one talk page. Does anyone know why? -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange there isn't a mention of Napoleon (as he claimed after he was defeated) or the Third Reich in the history of proposing a United Europe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 ( talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Federalisation of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The Eurozone map at the start of the article shows Montenegro and Kosovo (and the microstates) as part of the Eurozone. Whilst they use the Euro, they are not a part of the Eurozone and as such that map is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synitar ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The UK has now left the EU, and as such should be removed from the EU map. If anyone is familiar with using the maps commonly found on wikipedia, the removal of the UK from it would be appreciated! Porcelain katana ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite ostensibly being different topics, all 3 pages cover largely the same content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The map of the EEA at the top of the article appears to show the UK in the EEA. My understanding is that the UK is not part of the EEA. Is it possible to correct this, please? RomanSpa ( talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A sentence that reports a policy objective of the Scholz cabinet (to foster EU federalisation) is being added and removed repeatedly, sometimes by the same editor. For this item to remain, we really need a wp:secondary source that evaluates it; by relying on the wp:primary source, it is Wikipedia that is making the judgement as to its importance (by including it or not): we should not do that. So let's see the secondary sources first, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/german-government-will-push-for-a-european-federation/ or https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-elections-government-europe-olaf-scholz-angela-merkel-sdp-fdp-greens-brussels/ The first one seems to be more dramatic, but the Politico article actually contains a quote from the primary. Also, the primary source should stay along the secondary, just in case, IMO. Hahonja ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This seems to have been unilaterally merged into United States of Europe by @ Micga. Where was the consensus for this? Why did you essentially delete a whole article?
I would like to restore this article, but if there's some consensus I'm not aware about, or you have some argument that'll convince me against doing so, I'd like to hear about that first.first.
XA1dUXvugi (
talk)
10:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
While they use EUR, only the 20 EU members are considered Eurozone members. Kosovo & Montenegro aren't part of eurozone and should therefore be removed from the map. Hexadecimal16 ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:European Federation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federalisation of the European Union article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the Herbert Armstrong stuff really belong in this article? -- 69.231.251.39 22:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph which described the level of support given in referenda on accession to the EU by various countries - this had little to do with the subject of the entry, 'United States of Europe'. I was going to integrate the contents into Euroscepticism and History of the European Union, but it turns out the stuff is all there already. Toby W
Woo! U.S.E., U.S.E.! I hope there is a Untied States of Europe one day.
I removed all the Herbert W. Armstrong related material - the paragraph and two links.
What is the deal with this? This is English Wikipedia. English does not use eszet. -- Tysto 05:16, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I'm really unsure about this section, and I’m glad it has already been flagged. There appears to be no link to a source and hence it is just wild speculation of what may happen. I don’t think this should belong in an encyclopaedia unless these ideas can be attributed an a relevant person or organisation. Any feedback would be appreciated as I'm not sure I can make an informed decision, to remove this section, alone. -- zerorpm 23:11, 2006 May 10 (GMT)
Is there really any basis for claiming to know exactly what Winston Churchill 'meant' in his speech? Shouldn't Wiki confine itself to presenting facts, not interpretations of them? Perhaps a better way to qualify Churchill's speech would be to point to another speech where he clarified that he didn't see Britain as part of this potential U.S.E.
I added a brief mention of Arthur Salter, who in 1931 also published a book by that title (cf. http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/europeancommunity.html)
Is Russia a 'predominantly European country'?. Is this not a huge sweeping statement, ignoring the age old debate as to whether Russia is more Asian or European?
Russia is a people and culture unique unto itself.
-G
Finally, how can one discuss European history, economy, politics and culture without including Russia? Can the same be said, to the same extent, of the far or middle East? Sorry Europe, I think we're stuck with Russia. (jk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at the images of those four superpowers. What do you think? The Anonymous One 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
About what? The images aren't really very thought-provoking... 203.51.237.72 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Romans thought themselves ABOVE europe. All they saw Europe was a bunch of savage Celtic tribes to the West, Germanic tribes to the North and Slavic tribes to the east. Rome shouldn't be seen as a past european empire/union.
-G
You don't seem to realized that , fo rall intenst an dpurposs Rome WAS Europe. You see all teh modern stes we consider part of "Europe" Orignte din fall , and susequential fracturing, of the empire, Fedral europe could be seen as a reunifction of those governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.171.153 ( talk) 02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The map is pretty much the definition of original research. Completeley unsourced and arbritary. so ive removed it. Willy turner 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The European Space agency is not a part of the EU, it includes countries who aren't EU member states. The sentence at the beginning of the article suggests otherwise. I'll remove it if nobody objects, or maybe we could just rephrase the sentence a little so that it's not explicitly referring to the EU. There are after all many developments external to the EU which could be relevant to this article, though the EU is obviously the most important. Blankfrackis 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This sentence - "People who oppose and criticize forming a United States of Europe or even a confederation of European nations are called Eurosceptics." is incorrect in my view. One can oppose the creation of a "superstate" and support EU membership. The idea that you either support a European superstate or you're a Eurosceptic is one of the biggest red herrings in debates on the EU. This isn't an obscure point of semantics, undoubtedly the largest percentage of European citizens fall into the category of supporting EU membership but not supporting a "United States of Europe". To call these people Eurosceptics, as this sentence does, is obviously to use the term too liberally. I'll change it if nobody objects. Blankfrackis 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I put the Articles of Confederation reference in the article for two reasons:
I'm putting the parenthetic phrase back. However, if you still feel it is too tangential in light of these comments, please feel free to remove it. samwaltz 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The ESA was formed completely independent of the EC and the EU and it still has non EU member states as members. Is it really appropriate to cite the ESA as the EUs space agency? It seems a bit like citing NATO as the european defence agency. Zebulin ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm furious. Victor Hugo wrote about "les Etats-Unis d'Europe" in 1849 !!! Not Winston Churchill !!! This article is WRONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.32.151 ( talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I have read "Winston Churchill first called for a "United States of Europe""... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_of_Europe&oldid=183317048) I have deleted "first". Thank you. This article in French is shorter but better. 86.217.32.151 ( talk)
This article used to be " United States of Europe", what's going on here? Why was the article moved/merged? I see that User:Ssolbergj has renamed/moved the article with the reason being "Removes controvercial link to the United States", what on Earth is this supposed to mean? As far as I can see Ssolbergj has not consulted anyone on this move, and the article is currently a mess. I think we need to seriously consider putting it back the way it was, especially seeing as there has been no explanation given or consultation offered. -- Hibernian ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
User:BillCJ tagged the whole article as POV with the edit comment "Added {{POV}} tag - article paints a biased and often inaccurate views of the USA and its formation, and antagonism towards its system of govenment, with many sections of discussion unsourced entirely.", but did not open a discussion to explain his concerns. As far as I can guess, his objection is more specific to Federal Europe#United States of Europe, so I have moved the tag to that section. But really it is incumbent on him to explain his concerns or, better still, improve the article. I don't deny that this article has a lot of problems because it concerns speculative fiction, nationalism, utopianism and even xenophobia - but the charge of anti-US bias comes way off left field. Please explain. -- Red King ( talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
After reading this article many times, I am still not sure if the "Historical unifications of Europe" section really belongs to an article on "Federal Europe". None of the imperial conquests mentioned in that section unified Europe and none of them attempted to create a European federation. The section seems to be a bit out of place. I wonder what the most frequent editors of this article think about this issue. Andrzej Kmicic ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ EU evolvement timeline}} Inaccurately suggests Lisbon will establish the 'EU'. The 'EU' has been established since the Maastricht Treaty 1992 (adopted 1993).
Mitterand proposed this in 1991. Perhaps that might be a good addition to the article? - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"In the computer game Shattered Union, set in a future civil war in America, the European Union is portrayed as a peacekeeping force."
(from the article)
The EU already exists and has peacekeeping capabilities. I don't see why this concept is related to the idea of a future federal Europe any more than it is to the EU now. Of course, I haven't actually played the thing, so it's possible there's something that I (and the article) am missing. -- I slomaniac 973 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any relevance to this segment as well, it seems to me that whoever wrote it just wants to promote a game. -- Nizzemancer ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I distinctly remember the former prime minister of Greece (I'm from there) saying in a speech (of some sort I can't recall) something in the lines of "We all agree as members of the European community that the way forward is in the form of a federal administration for Europe .." or something in those lines. This is not some kind of crazy local politician, he said that after years as prime minister roaming the parliaments of Europe. He said it not in the way of some bold statement, it was just something thrown along the lines; i.e. He gave the idea he was saying something completely natural to him that is just accepted by European administration officials. Also; I was just listening to a historic speech of Thatcher where she distinctly says (at this youtube video towards the end) that the Economic union of Europe was a move towards a federation (with the British historically opposing for keeping their own power). -- Leladax ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the relevance of the sentence "In the past, various empires and military powers have achieved control over large parts of the European continent, and often introduced imperial structures by force. Notable among these are the Roman Empire, the First French Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union." My immediate reaction would be to interpret it as an attempt to taint movement toward European integration with imperial, dictatorial, and fascist associations that have nothing to do with the subject of the article.-- Boson ( talk) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice the entire fiction section was removed in this edit. Either it should be reinstated (and probably rewritten to be less trivial), or the Category:Fictional governments should be removed. — sjorford ++ 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This article and United States of Europe should probably be merged. They cover the same political ideology of a united Europe. Currently, Talk:United States of Europe redirects here. 84.92.117.93 ( talk) 15:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The Washington quote used in the United States of Europe article is a fake, manipulated during the translation from English to French and then back to English. [1] The original does not include the phrase "United States of Europe" or anything equivalent. Kauffner ( talk) 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this section could do with some work. It presents the situation as though there is an academic consensus that the European Union is a federation in all but name. There is a huge body of academic literature that would take issue with this: Andrew Moravcsik and other intergovernmentalist academics being the obvious example.
More than this, however, Kelemen has been quoted in a slightly misleading fashion. He certainly doesn't view the EU as a federation, or anything like a unified state, his argument is that you can explain certain aspects of European integration through federalist concepts, but that the entire arrangement falls short of a federation. He's explicitly stated that the idea of a single European federal state is implausible, here, for instance:
Blankfrackis ( talk) 13:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The talk page for Federal Europe is this page, the talk page for United States of Europe is a redirect to this page. This means that two pages share one talk page. Does anyone know why? -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange there isn't a mention of Napoleon (as he claimed after he was defeated) or the Third Reich in the history of proposing a United Europe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 ( talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Federalisation of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The Eurozone map at the start of the article shows Montenegro and Kosovo (and the microstates) as part of the Eurozone. Whilst they use the Euro, they are not a part of the Eurozone and as such that map is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synitar ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The UK has now left the EU, and as such should be removed from the EU map. If anyone is familiar with using the maps commonly found on wikipedia, the removal of the UK from it would be appreciated! Porcelain katana ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite ostensibly being different topics, all 3 pages cover largely the same content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The map of the EEA at the top of the article appears to show the UK in the EEA. My understanding is that the UK is not part of the EEA. Is it possible to correct this, please? RomanSpa ( talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A sentence that reports a policy objective of the Scholz cabinet (to foster EU federalisation) is being added and removed repeatedly, sometimes by the same editor. For this item to remain, we really need a wp:secondary source that evaluates it; by relying on the wp:primary source, it is Wikipedia that is making the judgement as to its importance (by including it or not): we should not do that. So let's see the secondary sources first, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/german-government-will-push-for-a-european-federation/ or https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-elections-government-europe-olaf-scholz-angela-merkel-sdp-fdp-greens-brussels/ The first one seems to be more dramatic, but the Politico article actually contains a quote from the primary. Also, the primary source should stay along the secondary, just in case, IMO. Hahonja ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This seems to have been unilaterally merged into United States of Europe by @ Micga. Where was the consensus for this? Why did you essentially delete a whole article?
I would like to restore this article, but if there's some consensus I'm not aware about, or you have some argument that'll convince me against doing so, I'd like to hear about that first.first.
XA1dUXvugi (
talk)
10:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
While they use EUR, only the 20 EU members are considered Eurozone members. Kosovo & Montenegro aren't part of eurozone and should therefore be removed from the map. Hexadecimal16 ( talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:European Federation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)