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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
For those interested, some of the necessary rules for the .eu tld have been published. Hence it will hopefully come onstream in a couple of months. Negotiations with ICANN are to commence soon. See this external link - [1]. Zoney 10:29, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does this mean a phasing out of others such as .co.uk or .se? --81.109.249.119
Someone should add this to the article. It is immportant when considering enlargement and the EU worldwide as well as its relationship to other countries. I dont have the time nor the style of factual writing to add this but I believe its important. This is the web page http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm
Yes this should be written about but I won't do it. Neighbourhood policy is important but someone else will have to do it. Pedro
Can the EU in its current form be described as a de-facto confederation, albeit not in name, as clearly it is a system of powerful regional governments that have devolved some, but not all controlling, powers to a central governemnt? 80.255.219.52 12:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
having just looked the confederation article says exactally that, surely it should also be in this article? 80.255.219.52 12:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The prefix "con" is a clue ;) (although admittedly "flammable" and "inflammable" meen the same thing and I've yet to see something "inert and defunked" be described as previously "ert and funked"!)
The first paragraph of the present state of the article contains the sentence [The] current legal base [of the European Union] is the Treaty of Accession 2003 which entered into force on 1 May 2004. I removed this sentence since I judged meaningless or even inaccurate, some other editor reverted to the previous version, so I launch some discussion about it.
I do not think there is a unique "legal base" for the European Union ; several treaties contributed to building it and for Slovakia, the treaty of accession is certainly the most important of them. But for the twelve older countries, the most important is certainly the Maastricht treaty (Treaty on European Union). Note that all subsequent treaties have acted by modifying this fundamental one, not by replacing it.
I shall quote the first articles of both treaties : Art.1 of Maastricht treaty, first sentence By this treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union (...) and Art.1 of accession treaty : The Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic hereby become members of the European Union and Parties to the Treaties on which the Union is founded as amended or supplemented.
As you can read on this sentence, there is a referrence to "the Treaties on which the Union is founded" (plural form). With all these elements in sight, I find it pointless to decide one of these is precisely the legal base of the European Union and strongly suggest to remove again the litigious sentence. --French Tourist 18:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hope I'm not deleting all the comments on this page... anyway, here goes: Shouldn't there be a reference to the newly formed EGF in the EU article? I'd add it myself, but I'm not really sure how and where...
The following comment has repleced the images of the EU flag "Previously an image in this space. It was removed due to a lack of a free license. The image is pending deletion, and this notice will be removed once the image is deleted. You can still view the image, which was called Euflag.png. The caption displayed for this image was "Flag of the European Union"."
Has appeared in place of the EU flag. Does anyone know who put it there and on what basis is the EU flag a licensed iamge? There is no record of the change in the history so I assume its been carried out at an admin level. Lumos3 11:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So.. you need a LICENSE to show an abstract representation of a flag, which by default always would result to the same picture anyone would make of that said flag. in a -free- encyclopedia ... riiigggghhhtt.. gotta love capitalism. :/ -Das BooT-
The map of the European Union was recently replaced with a newer revision (at a separate image location). As yet, no widespread discussion has taken place as to the merits of the new map over the other. I will be the first to admit that my earlier version is not without faults, but I would still prefer it to the recent revision. Please see Image talk:European Union map.png (the new version's talk page) and discuss / provide input. For reference, the previous version's talk page is at Image talk:EU map names isles.png.
If the issue is not clear cut, a straw poll could perhaps be taken.
Add your comments / preferences or criticisms of either map at the first talk page linked above or here.
zoney ♣ talk 11:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The current division of "members" (25), "admission 2007" (Bulgaria, Romania) and "candidates" (Turkey, Croatia) is good, but I would prefer one more nuance: "submitted application" - Macedonia.
We all know that Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania are regarded as future candidates (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/index.htm), but most of them are in the very early stages and their status as candidates is not fully istitutionalized.
Croatia submitted application for membership in the beginning of 2003 and then 1,5 years later it received positive response, so currently it is listed as candidate. Macedonia submitted application in the beginning of 2004 and soon (spring 2005) it should receive some response (positive -> candidate, negative -> stays as currently and as Bosnia, Serbia, Albania).
But, this distigntion should be made - between "eventual candidates" (all European countries to some degree - Russia nearly zero - they are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to submit application, Balkan states - neraly 100% sure that someday they will submit application) and "states that officialy submitted membership application" (100% sure - already submitted application; this is different that "candidate" - becouse the EU has not responded so far)
Turkey's status complicates things a bit - they have submitted application a LONG time ago and they received SOME answer - "positive, but without start of negotations". Maybe this category (if it is ever to happen again to another country) should be made as currently - "candidate", but with an added footnote stating that negotiations have not started and decision on that is expected in the future. Of course all this will not be a issue if in December 2004 the EU decides to start negotiations with Turkey - then they will become just a regular "candidate" as Croatia. If in Dec.2004 the EU decides to delay the start of negotiations (and Turkey does not remove it's appication becouse of anger) - then the categories should indisputably became more - "members", "admission XXXX" (multiple sub-categories depending on expected admission date), "negotiating candidates", "candidates waiting to start negotiations", "coutries formaly submitted application"
The GDP link [2] doesn't work. I took the numbers from [3] and labeled it "PPS", but do you notice that the "market prices" and "PPS" for EU-25 is the exact same number, are they getting lazy? They still haven't managed to produce the PPS numbers for the new countries?. - Jerryseinfeld 21:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The motto seems to be from the constitution that hasn't yet been ratified. Should this be somehow addressed?
I really do like the article, no doubt about it, but I find it a rather lengthy read, and I usually prefer smaller articles -- but I have no idea how to break it up in smaller articles. Maybe I am the only one with this feeling, but at least I'd like to ask on this matter here... --denny vrandečić 22:46, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)