Talk:European integration

Hi

I added Serbia to the "Membership in European Union Agreements" list. I think it's OK, right? Fireleaf (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The "Marshall Plan" picture seems completely inappropriate... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.244.169 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Needs Work

I agree that there should be a page on European integration; however this page really needs some work. Whoever created it has given us a decent structure, but it needs a lot more content as at present it's almost a list of bullet points. I'll add some in due course, but I think everyone should feel free to chip in at this stage. We can worry about editing it down and removing POV entries once we actually have something to edit! Blankfrackis 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Haas link

Don't know how to change things on here but the link to Ernst Haas (the Life photographer) is not the same man as the political scientist who developed his theory on neo-functionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.138.92 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kovoso

I realise that Kosovo is not a recognised state, but a UN protectorate, and its status is currently under discussion. However, its inclusion in this table does not takes this facts into consideration, but merely states that is has adopted the euro currency, and is part of the European integration process. Danrowe (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As an example, Kosovo is also included in tables and figures in the Eurozone article. Danrowe (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The official currency in Serbia is the Serbian Dinar - CSD (1 dinar = 100 paras). Kosovo is already included in the table, despite it is not a recognised state by many members of the International Community Danrowe (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MEPs adopt simplified regime for the control of visas in Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus

Is there any way to add this development in the article? Check here. The European parliament gave the go-ahead for an extension of simplified controls of visas at the external frontiers of Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus. This system will enable these Member States to recognise unilaterally certain documents issued by Schengen zone countries for third country nationals making visits of less than five days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the link after archiving in the europarl.eu. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CIS

Should the CIS be added? I think this is the second-largest by population union in Europe. Although it includes non-European countries as well, it also includes about a half of territory of Europe.--Dojarca (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYROM footnote

I'm not quite convinced the FYROM footnote is necessary, but if we must have it, let's be quite precise: the official term is not "FYROM", it's "the former ..."; it's not "the name recognised by the EU", but the provisional appellation used by the EU in the absence of a "recognised" name; and it's not the case that the country "is a candidate under" this name, because it's a unilateral thing: The EU, unilaterally, refers to the country as such; the country itself insists on its constitutional name in all domains including its dealings with the EU, so from its own perspective, it clearly is a candidate "under" its own name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust you to make the appropriate changes. you have expirience on the subject. I wrote the sentence a bit on hurry. The point is that this country is candidate as "Former...". I think this is somethings that has to be shown somewhere. The reason I insist is first of all that this is the official situation and secondaly that I searched the page to see if "FYROM" was candidate and Id din't find it. I think many editors from Greece will have the same problem. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed in "Europe is not a state"

As in the montevideo convention ([[5]]), a state has the following attributes:

• a permanent population (more than 500 milion people in EU)
• defined territory (more than 4 million sq km)
• Government (European Commission)
• capacity to enter into relations with other states (embassies and a UN seat per Lisbon treaty)

Thus, EU exhibits all the above. While it certainly does not replace its component states, it has all the required attributes (after the Lisbon treaty is applied) to be a state in itself.

204.17.179.2 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Long live the EU

The EU is not recognized as a state by any legitimate body - e.g. the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, nor any nation on Earth (not even the independent EU component states believe the EU is a an independent nation state). There is no uniform currency (only the 16 Eurozone countries are on the Euro - 11 other EU countries have their own currency). The EU only sets monetary policy (and then again only for the Eurozone members) and does not have any say over fiscal policy, tax or spend policy, or any power therein. There is no EU wide tax (income, sales, or otherwise). The debt and spending guidelines set by the EU are regularly ignored. Though there are certainly mutual defense agreements and trade agreements (which makes it no different btw than NATO or NAFTA), each nation state has complete authority over its defense budget, whether it goes to war or not, and who it makes defense agreements with. The EU has no right to prevent any one of its component states from entering into trade or defense agreements with non-EU members. Furthermore, though the EU polity can pass laws, make treaties, etc., on behalf of all members, it cannot bind any component state to those treaties, laws, agreements, etc. unless the internal polity of the individual member state consents. In that sense the EU governing bodies do not meet the standard definition of a centralized government. Each EU members has an independent seat in the United Nations (and often oppose each others goals through that body). The EU has no governing vote or role in the United Nations, and can take no action that any one component state opposes. EU member states have routinely rejected further integration and the EU Constitution. There is no predominant culture, heritage, language, race, or centralized body of laws that all states abide by. The courts, legislatures, and executive branches of each component state trump any action by the EU central bodies (unless those independent states have previously consented to subordination, which they have not done on most issues) - again preventing the EU from meeting the standard definition of having a centralized government. It is clear that the EU is not an independent state, and absent the change of many policies and subordination of the component states to the whole, removal of the individual states from seats on the EU, NATO, etc., and recognition as an independent state from other sovereign bodies, the EU never will be.

You clearly want the EU to be considered its own country to compete with the USA (which is sort of sad that it takes your entire continent to equal the economy of the US, and its military still is dwarfed by the US (the entire EU still only has 1/3 the US military budget, and has less tanks, planes, ships, 1/3 the aircraft carrier/amphibious warships of the US, and 1/10 the nuclear weapons of the US, and is behind the US in technology and logistics). But the fact is that unless the EU can compel military service from its component states, tax its component states, maintains a large centralized EU military that it controls regardless of component state wishes, and can enter into trade and defense treaties regardless of component state support, and declare war even against component state wishes, and has a centralized government stronger than and centralized budget larger than its component states (in other words have the same kind of power the US federal government has over the US states) then it won't matter if the EU is considered an independent state. Absent those centralized powers and riches, the EU cannot call upon the wealth and military power of its components and as such will never be a real rival to US strength as the US central government can call upon and compel the riches and power of all its components at once.

As for your "P.S. Long live the EU" given all the recent problems in the EU, the collapse of the EURO, the near collapse of Greece and the imminent crash of the rest of the so called "PIGS" (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and the calls in Germany and elsewhere to pull out of the EU and end the Euro, one may wonder how "long" your beloved EU will indeed live. 68.49.150.115 (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

C'mon. See CIA Factbook where the EU is given a special treatment for having its own existence that is not strictly bound to its member state policies. And being not ruled by the military-industrial complex is clearly not a fault for the old continent. And for the last paragraph, hey, aren't there secession movements in the U.S. actively talking their way? Just don't call it done before it's done. While this should be obvious you fail to see how often the EU pushes laws into its member states. Lookup "Fax Democracy" to get an idea. So there is no governance with the EU? What? Guidod (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying there isn't any governance by the EU or that decisions made at the EU level have no effect, but those powers/abilities could hardly be compared to that of any other functioning central government. First, the EU clearly is not a country and is not recognized as such by any legitimate entity (or even the EU members themselves). And while it's level of integration is certainly greater than other economic zones, say NAFTA, it still does not rise to the level of a nation - it cannot compel any of its members to war, or prevent them from going to war (with a non-EU country), cannot compel them to raise or lower taxes, cannot compel them to raise or lower spending. There is also no power to prevent any member nation from entering into an independent treaty with a non-EU member, or prevent a member nation from going to war without EU consent. There is also no common currency (outside of the Eurozone), which would be the very basic ingredient for nationhood I would imagine. As far as succession movements in the US that's just silly. You have a loony governor of Texas who makes crazy statements to win political points and a few poorly armed, poorly funded, poorly organized militia groups that are routinely shut down by the FBI calling for succession, but no movement. Plus movements are meaningless on that subject as no state has the right to leave the Union. The US Civil War pretty much ended that issue and it is now unlawful and punishable by death (as treason) to openly advocate and pursue the separation of any state from the Union, and any state that tried to leave would be invaded and squashed in short order - which is not the case with the EU. 68.49.150.115 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right in the presented arguments but it does not reflect reality. While some legalese might imply that member countries could leave the EU they could not factually to do so for otherwise their economy would collapse - the economic integration (atleast in western Europe) is too strong already. That Norway fax democracy is one good example where the public does not want to join formally but they could not avoid being tightly bound into the EEA anyway. Similarly, the original question above was about what defines a nation. If you have just those four characteristics then the EU would be a nation but if you add the governance on foreign affairs then it is clearly not. Surely, the definition of bonding a nation principle to the question on foreign affairs and military is influenced by the concept of the U.S. constitution. The power separation of EU and its member states is surely different - you mentioned taxes for one example which AFAIK is not bound to the federal level in the U.S. unless covered by the enumerated powers where some subjects were delegated.

So far so good - one could leave it on the definition "separation of powers is different and the assessment of how powers are delegated may differ". But let me add one thing: the way the US constitution splits the powers between federal level and member states is foremost one thing: it is clear and sane and it works for the most part (the subject of EP is still a weak point I think). Looking at the bunch of EU treaties and how those delegate powers on some subjects, well, most people would call it a mess and obviously it simply does not work in many ways and it certainly stumbles when something unusual happens. The tendency in Europe however is to make it work. There is always a drive to consolidate (the Treaty of Lisbon originally started under the name of "Reform Treaty").

So, if you make the impression that Europe will fall apart and that those decades of adding more integration will be cut off such that the federal concepts will vanish, well, be sure to provoke harsh objections. That European Federation thing is on the mind of many people and some war dog presidents in the U.S. have certainly pushed more people in Europe to focus to the common values of the old continent. (and by the way, the military of the EU has silently pushed into the direction that Europe could leave the NATO without sacrificing their security which certainly was not the case in the last century where European countries were pretty much dependent on some military services only provided by the U.S. forces. In reality now the Core Europe countries might declare joint forces by tomorrow... it's been all prepared behind the scenes and it is just on hold for doing some diplomacy to get more countries aboard. Let the U.S. get into another Gulf War and see the results appear promptly). Guidod (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fail at the most basic level. The European Commission is not a government, it is a civil service. The nearest thing to a government is the European Council which has no legislative power. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see any meaningful way in which the European Commission can be described as a government. The main decisionmaking bodies in the EU continue to be the Council / European Council (with the Parliament afforded decisionmaking power in specific areas). It's fair to say the Commission is more like a civil service than a government, given its role in the legislative process is only to propose legislation. Also, if you were to shift this argument to claim that the Council / European Council constitute a government then that's also problematic given the two bodies are simply composed of government ministers from the member states. Blankfrackis (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Warsaw Pact, the USSR, CIS and Russia-Belarus union are not included in this article?

Or the Eastern European integration is not considered relevant here?--Dojarca (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because those are either defunct (Warsaw, USSR) or virtually inactive (CIS, Union State). 199.90.28.195 (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CIS is active.--Dojarca (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How active is it? Georgia has withdrawn and 3 other countries didn't bother to attend the meeting in October of last year. It doesn't seem like it is actually doing much, the CIS page here certainly doesn't indicate vigorous activity. --199.90.28.195 (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See Post-Soviet states Alinor (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

article focus

See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill speech date

The date given for Winston Churchill's speech on a United States of Europe at the University of Zurich may be wrong. It lists the date at 9 September 1946, but a book edited by Churchill's grandson gives the date of the speech as 19 September 1946. In general, the source citation for the speech does not seem to be very reliable. Source: Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches ed. Winston S. Churchill (New York: Hyperion, 2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.195 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Boson (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

On what basis is Coudenhove-Kalergi 'the first' to consider European integration?

I am puzzled by the assertion that One of the first to conceive of a union of European nations was Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who wrote the Pan-Europa manifesto in 1923.'

Just off the top of my head I can go back to at least the late 17th century and mention William Penn and his An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the Establishment of a European Dyet, Parliament or Estates (a link is provided at the end of the Wikipedia entry on Penn). So, is there any particular reason for focusing explicitly on Coudenhove-Kalergi? PS. I do realize, that C-K was prominent in pushing the issue, but he was by no means the first to think of European integration.

Mojowiha (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

reorganise the table?

Hi,

I thought it would better to organise the table of states and agreements at [6] by the color code they have on the map raughter than the alphabet. Thoughts? --U5K0 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reorganised and added some links (more needed). I think it's better now than it was before.--U5K0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article has one table with different EU agreements:

Current table in the article

European Union Agreements State Map EU EEA Customs Union EMU (Euro) Schengen CSDP ESA Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs Yes Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurocorps, EU BGs Yes Finland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs Yes France Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurocorps, Eurofor, EU BGs, EGF Yes Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurocorps, EU BGs Yes Greece Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs Yes Italy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurofor, EU BGs, EGF Yes Luxembourg Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurocorps, EU BGs Yes Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs, EGF Yes Portugal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurofor, EU BGs, EGF Yes Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eurocorps, Eurofor, EU BGs, EGF Yes Estonia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs ECS Malta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs CA Slovenia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU BGs ECS Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes No EU BGs Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes Not yet implemented EU BGs CA Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Yes EU BGs Yes Sweden Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Yes EU BGs Yes Hungary Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Yes EU BGs ECS Latvia Yes Yes Yes ERM II Yes EU BGs CA Lithuania Yes Yes Yes ERM II Yes EU BGs CA Poland Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Yes EU BGs ECS Denmark Yes Yes Yes ERM II Yes No Yes United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes No No EU BGs Yes Bulgaria Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Not yet implemented EU BGs No Romania Yes Yes Yes Obliged to join Not yet implemented EU BGs, EGF ECS Norway No Yes No No Yes EU BGs Yes Croatia Candidate No No No No No No Iceland Candidate Yes No No Yes No No Macedonia Candidate No No No No No No Montenegro Candidate No No Unilaterally adopted No No No Turkey Candidate No Partial No No EU BGs CA Andorra No No Partial Unilaterally adopted No No No Liechtenstein No Yes No No Not yet implemented No No Monaco No No de facto, with France Yes Yes, via France No No San Marino No No Yes Yes Open border No No Vatican City No No No Yes Open border No No Switzerland Application frozen Bilateral treaties No No Yes No Yes Albania SAA, EU application submitted No No No No No No Bosnia and Herzegovina SAA No No No No No No Serbia SAA, EU application submitted No No No No No No Kosovo under UNSCR 1244 Early talks No No Unilaterally adopted No No No

Another similar table was the following one:

Table that includes NATO

Overview of European Integration Country EU member /EEA single market NATO /Eurocorps contingent Schengen signed/active Eurozone accept/currency Albania Applicant 2009 No No Andorra No No (has no military) No 2002 (de facto) Austria 1995 No/staff 1995/1997 1999/2002 Belgium 1957 1949/1993 1985/1995 1993/2002 Bosnia and Herzegovina No Candidate No (fixed rate 1998 / adopting in 2013) Bulgaria 2007 2004 2007 (27.3.2011) 2007/No (fixed rate 1998) Croatia Candidate (since 10/2005) 2009 No No Cyprus 2004 No (blocked by Turkey) 2004 2004/2008 Czech Republic 2004 1999 2004/2007 2004/No Denmark 1973 1949 1996/2001 (ERM 1999)/-No- Estonia 2004 2004 2004/2007 2004/2011 Finland 1995 No 1996/2001 1999/2002 France 1957 1949/1992 1985/1995 1993/2002 Germany 1957 1955/1992 1985/1995 1993/2002 Greece 1981 1952 1992/2000 1993/2002 Hungary 2004 1999 2004/2007 2004/No Iceland (EEA 1994)/Candidate (6/2010) 1949 (non-mil. since 2006) 1996/2001 No Ireland 1973 No No (dependent on UK) 1999/2002 Italy 1957 1949/staff 1990/1997 1993/2002 Latvia 2004 2004 2004/2007 (ERM 2005)/-No- Liechtenstein (EEA 1994)/-No- No (has no military) No (one border open) No (uses Swiss Franc) Lithuania 2004 2004 2004/2007 (ERM 2004)/-No- Luxembourg 1957 1949/1996 1985/1995 1993/2002 Macedonia Candidate (since 12/2005) Candidate (blocked by Greece) No No Malta 2004 No 2004/2007 2004/2008 Monaco Indirectly (via France) No (has no military) 1995 (via France) 2002 Montenegro Candidate (since 12/2010) Candidate No 2002 (adopted) Netherlands 1957 1949/I.Corps 1985/1995 1993/2002 Norway (EEA 1994)/-No- (vetoed) 1949 1996/2001 No Poland 2004 1999/staff 2004/2007 2004/No Portugal 1986 1949 1992/1995 1993/2002 Romania 2007 2004/staff 2007 (27.3.2011) 2007/No San Marino No No (symbolic military) No (borders not enforced) 2002 Serbia Applicant No No No Slovakia 2004 2004 2004/2007 2004/2009 Slovenia 2004 2004 2004/2007 2004/2007 Spain 1986 1982/1994 1992/1995 1993/2002 Sweden 1995 No 1996/2001 1995/No Switzerland No/(EEA vetoed) bilateral single market No 2005/2008 No Turkey Candidate (since 10/2005) 1952/staff No No United Kingdom 1973 1949 no (cooperation 1999) no (opt-out) Vatican City no no (only Swiss Guards) no (borders not enforced) 2002

I think that both of these can be easily combined - in addition to the first one the second one has NATO column and some comments/notes.

But both of these templates deal mostly with EU initiatives (ESA and NATO are the sole exceptions) and participation in EU-initiatives is already shown at Multi-speed Europe (including differences in EU members participation and the participation of non-EU states in EU-initiatives). That's why I think that here we should have a section/table dedicated to non-EU initiatives specifically and the participation of EU members in these non-EU initiatives:

Table about Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives

Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives Map showing European membership of the EU and NATO   EU member only   NATO member only   member of both   ESA and EU member countries   ESA-only members   EU-only members Participant EU NATO ESA France x x x Germany x x x Italy x x x Belgium x x x Netherlands x x x Luxembourg x x x United Kingdom x x x Denmark x x x Ireland x x Greece x x x Spain x x x Portugal x x x Austria x x Finland x x Sweden x x Lithuania x x c Latvia x x c Estonia x x c Poland x x c Czech Republic x x x Slovakia x x c Hungary x x c Slovenia x x c Malta x Cyprus x c Bulgaria x x Romania x x c Norway x x Iceland c x Switzerland x Turkey c x c Croatia c x Macedonia c c Montenegro c c Albania c x Serbia c Bosnia and Herzegovina c c UNMIK c Ukraine c Canada x s United States x Participant EU NATO ESA x - member c - candidate s - associate member

What about combining tables1&2 and restoring the section "Participation of EU members in non-EU initiatives"? Alinor (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this table from International organizations in Europe?

International organizations in Europe

State (51) GNI wage UN CoE OSCE EU EEA CU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Albania 3,950 332 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free ALL WTO NATO ICC 39.6 Andorra 41,130 UN CoE OSCE x EUCU EU visa-free € obs ICC VWP Armenia 3,100 UN CoE OSCE EaP obs CISFTA CIS visa-free AMD WTO CSTO sign 48.9 Austria 46,850 2,758 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA PfP ICC VWP Azerbaijan 4,840 UN CoE OSCE EaP CISFTA CIS visa-free AZN GUAM obs PfP 14.0 Belarus 5,540 528 UN obs OSCE BRU EAEC CUBKR CIS visa-free BYR obs BSA CSTO 15.5 Belgium 45,310 2,464 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Bosnia and Herzegovina 4,700 590 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free BAM obs MAP ICC 13.9 Bulgaria 5,770 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU EU visa-free BGN WTO BSA NATO ICC 17.8 Croatia 13,810 1,020 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free HRK WTO NATO ICC 5.3 Cyprus 26,940 2,235 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU EU visa-free € WTO CA ICC 1.4 Czech Republic 17,310 739 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen CZK OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Denmark 58,930 3,226 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen DKK OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Estonia 14,060 1,098 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ECS NATO ICC VWP Finland 45,680 2,758 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA PfP ICC VWP France 42,680 2,468 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Georgia 2,530 UN CoE OSCE EaP Requirements GEL GUAM WTO ID ICC 49.7 Germany 42,560 2,754 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Greece 28,630 1,851 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Hungary 12,980 516 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen HUF OECD WTO ECS NATO ICC VWP Iceland 43,220 UN CoE OSCE EFTA EEA EUFTA Schengen ISK OECD WTO NATO ICC VWP Ireland 44,310 2,733 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU EU visa-free € OECD WTO ESA PfP ICC VWP Italy 35,080 1,967 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Kazakhstan 6,740 425 UN appl OSCE PCA EAEC CUBKR CIS visa-free KZT obs KSA CSTO 12.2 Kosovo 3,240 CEFTA Requirements € 29.0 Latvia 12,390 632 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen LVL WTO CA NATO ICC VWP Liechtenstein 113,210 UN CoE OSCE EFTA EEA EUFTA EU visa-free CHF WTO ICC VWP Lithuania 11,410 668 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen LTL WTO CA NATO ICC VWP Luxembourg 74,430 3,636 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Macedonia 4,400 460 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free MKD WTO MAP ICC 21.5 Malta 16,690 1,626 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € WTO PfP ICC VWP Moldova 1,590 249 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA obs CISFTA CIS visa-free MDL GUAM WTO PfP ICC 41.3 Monaco 203,900 UN CoE OSCE x EUCU 1 Schengen 2 € sign VWP Montenegro 6,550 699 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free € obs MAP ICC 27.5 Netherlands 49,350 2,673 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Norway 86,440 6,079 UN CoE OSCE EFTA EEA EUFTA Schengen NOK OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Poland 12,260 612 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen PLN OECD WTO ECS NATO ICC 13.5 Portugal 20,940 1,405 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Romania 8,330 515 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU EU visa-free RON WTO ESA NATO ICC 25.0 Russia 9,370 675 UN CoE OSCE BRU EAEC CUBKR CIS visa-free RUB disc. obs RSA CSTO sign 4.9 San Marino 50,670 UN CoE OSCE x EUCU Schengen 2 € ICC VWP Serbia 5,990 461 UN CoE OSCE CEFTA EUFTA EU visa-free RSD obs PfP ICC 11.0 Slovakia 16,130 857 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO CA NATO ICC VWP Slovenia 23,520 1,405 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ECS NATO ICC VWP Spain 31,870 2,056 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen € OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Sweden 48,930 2,910 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU Schengen SEK OECD WTO ESA PfP ICC VWP Switzerland 56,370 UN CoE OSCE EFTA bilat 3 EUFTA Schengen CHF OECD WTO ESA PfP ICC VWP Turkey 8,730 1,123 UN CoE OSCE cand EUCU Requirements TRY OECD WTO CA NATO 9.0 Ukraine 2,800 287 UN CoE OSCE EaP obs CISFTA CIS visa-free UAH GUAM WTO CA PfP sign 30.9 United Kingdom 41,520 3,712 UN CoE OSCE EU EEA EUCU EU visa-free GBP OECD WTO ESA NATO ICC VWP Vatican City n/d obs obs OSCE x EUCU 1 Schengen 2 € obs 7.1 Euler diagram showing the relationships between various supranational European organisations.   high income ($12,195 or more)   upper middle income ($3,946 - $12,195)   lower middle income ($996 - $3,945) 1 These countries are currently not participating in the EU's single market (EEA), but the EU has common external Customs Union agreements with Turkey (EU-Turkey Customs Union in force since 1995), Andorra (since 1991) and San Marino (since 2002). Monaco participates in the EU customs union through its relationship with France; its ports are administered by the French. Vatican City has a customs union in effect with Italy. 2 Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City are not members of Schengen, but act as such via their open borders with France and Italy, respectively. 3 Switzerland is not official member of EEA but has bilateral agreements largely with same content, making it virtual member.

References

File:Eur lisbon vladivostok.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eur lisbon vladivostok.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding things

Hi,

I was looking at all the tables above and I thought it would be a good idea to add information about NATO, OSCE and CoE to the table (it'll complicate the map colour scheme but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it). Also I was wanting to add a section about pan-European meteorology organisations such as EUMETSAT, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and EUMETNET but I thought it would make more sense to have an environment section instead. Anyone know what else could go in there? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of possible additions:

• EUMETSAT
• European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
• EUMETNET
• European Civil Aviation Conference
• Eurocontrol
• European Common Aviation Area
• CERN
• European Molecular Biology Laboratory
• European Southern Observatory
• EFDA
• European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
• Institut Laue–Langevin
• Energy Community
• European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity

Sign --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Except EFDA and Energy Community all added, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&oldid=563725220#Overlap_of_membership_in_various_agreements TeraCard (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Vancouver via Vienna to Vladivostok

I like this phrase better than the Lisbon version. It has alliteration at least in the English language, so it sounds more poetic. OSCE has many of its meetings in Vienna, and Vienna for some time was one of the neutral window on the iron curtain. Certainly an over-romanticized phrase, but not quite inappropriate in this context. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OSCE, Council of Europe not subordinate to European Communities

I reverted the move of one Euler diagram showing Council of Europe, into a section named "European Communities".

I also reverted the removal of the Euler diagram showing the OSCE.

Diffs: move and removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes you did. There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article. TDL (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Euler diagram showing the OSCE? TeraCard (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I explained it pretty clearly directly above, did I not? TDL (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you did not. OSCE, CIS have their own first level sections in the article, there is consensus that it is within the scope of the article to talk about CIS and OSCE at that level. But still, you keep removing the Euler diagram. You gave no explanation. BRD is not meant for simply reverting, you shall provide a reason. TeraCard (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I have explained my position several times now. If you haven't understood, then I suspect that there might be WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty here. I'll repeat my past comments below, and you can tell me which parts you do not understand:

• "There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article."
• "what's the point of having these two similar images? the new one doesn't really show "European" integration."
• "the second Euler diagram is not helpful."
• "no consensus to add the second, redundant, poorly formated map."

Your new map is poorly formatted, extremely cluttered, less functional, redundant to the old map, makes the article look like a mess in the layout you insist on with no text wrapped around it, and includes organizations that don't even belong within the scope of this article which focuses on European integration, not global integration. And that's not even getting into all the factual errors your map contains.

I see you are new here, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you've attempted to change the map 3 times now, and 3 times I've reverted you, and provided a clear explanation for why I disagreed with the changes. Wikipedia is a WP:CONSENSUS based project. All changes to articles need to a consensus to be made. As I've explained to you several times now, I object to your change in the map. There is obviously no consensus to make this change. As per WP:BRD, you need to establish a consensus on the talk page before continuing to make the change. Bullying others to try to force your desired changes into the article is not appropriate for a collaborative project. Continuing such behaviour is likely to end in you losing your editing privileges. Please self revert to the long-term, status quo map so that we can discuss the changes you are proposing on the talk page. TDL (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Now let's look at your language competency:

"There is no need for two images showing the same thing. The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." - They don't show the same thing. Please look up "same" in a dictionary. "The only thing the new image adds" - You already contradict yourself. TeraCard (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Same: identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned". Unless you are trying to argue that the "European Union" in your image is not "identical" to the "European Union" in the old image, then you are mistaken. Yes, your new image contains more (unrelated) organizations, but clearly both images show the same organizations twice. (That's obviously the "thing" I was referring to.)

As you haven't refuted the points I've raised above, I'll assume you don't have a valid argument. Please don't change the map again until there is a consensus. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at Template_talk:Supranational European Bodies, seek a WP:30 or start a WP:RFC. Edit warring to force your changes in isn't the appropriate solutuion. TDL (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since image A shows OSCE and CIS, and image B does not, the statement "There is no need for two images showing the same thing" can be true while at the same time it has no effect on inclusion of image A. Furthermore you didn't link a definition of "need". TeraCard (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't structure my response using mathematical logic (I could have, as I have university level training in the subject.) I was under the impression we were having an informal discussion.

That being said, you've now forgotten about the second sentence of my statement: "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." Both parts of my statement are key: a) the new stuff is only tangental to this article, b) it is not helpful to depict the members of the same organization twice.

Since a) is satisfied, this implies that all that is left is repeated organizations. And since "there is no need for two images showing the same thing" (which comes from WP:PERTINENCE), the new image is not helpful. a) argues that there is nothing new of significance in the new image and b) argues that there is no need to depict the old significant stuff twice. a) alone isn't a sufficient condition to argue for removal of the image. Were it not for b) you could have argued that "two images depicting the same organizations are still useful." Hopefully that clears up your confusion so we can go back to talking about "European integration" rather then semantics and logic.

Back on topic, what is "wrong" with the {{Supranational European Bodies}}? I understand you don't like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. TDL (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

1) You fail again: I have not forgotten "The only thing the new image adds is stuff that is not relevant to the scope of this article." 2) You show no proof that I ever was confused in the discussion here. TeraCard (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to discuss the map or not? If you are just here to attack other users, then there is not much use in having a discussion. TDL (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning fails again: "If you are just here to attack other users" - you know I am not, my intro in the section refers to OSCE. And who started: "Now let's look at your language competency"? Oh, yes, it was /not me/, but the only other party that takes part in the discussion here so far. TeraCard (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if you took offence to my statement about your language difficulties. It was certainly not meant as a criticism, just a statement of fact. You've repeatedly misunderstood or misinterpreted what I've written, making it rather frustrating to communicate with you. Now instead of telling me how much I "fail", can we go back to talking about the map? TDL (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed "Mints euros" to "Monetary Agreement with the EU" to address your concerns. TDL (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. UNMIK flag is still wrong. I don't see any further error. But the flags are not standard, the widely used ones are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_sovereign_state_flags . Now one more "statement of fact": If you write things that are wrong, and I understand them that way, then it is not me misunderstanding any correct thought of you, but it is you writing wrong things and later claiming to have meant correct things. If you rank higher in a language proficiency test for the English language than me, then that does not mean that your statements are free of errors or that if there are errors, I am not able to detect them. TeraCard (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the flag of Kosovo to the UN flag. In the future, such issues should be raised at Template_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies or File_talk:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.svg rather than simply removing the image here.

As for the rest of your commentary, while it is entirely true that I can make mistakes in my typing, in every case that you've accused me of "failing" or using flawed logic, there was nothing incorrect with my statements. You've interpreted my statements in quite peculiar ways, but that doesn't make my statements "wrong" as you claim. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but it seemed rather obvious to me that, for example, when I spoke of the "same thing" I was not suggesting that the two images were exactly the same in every conceivable manner (which is the assumption that you made) as this was quite visibly not the case, but rather that they depicted the same organizations twice. Neither interpretation is wrong, but contextual clues should have made my meaning clear. TDL (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As stated 21:01, 9 July 2013, they didn't even show the same organisations, you failed again? TeraCard (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, you really should learn how to compose a proper sentence in English before telling others that they "fail". I've tried to be polite and wade through your garbled use of the language and reliance on logical fallacies, but this latest gem of a comment by you is oh so hypocritical I actually laughed out loud. It looks more like Engrish to me. Here's a hint: learning English via internet memes was probably not a wise choice.

Anyways, us adults are busy building an encyclopedia. If you'd like to discuss the content of the article, then I'd be happy to engage with you, but I won't be responding to your juvenile taunts any longer. TDL (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia - EEA relation

I reverted the unsourced removal of Croatia from the EEA member list. Source: http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement.aspx "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States."

Diffs: removal revert

TeraCard (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you evidently didn't read the whole source you linked to. The footnote says: "31 EEA States, once Croatia's accession to the EEA has been finalised". Other sources: "As well as becoming the 28th member of the European Union, Croatia has applied to become a member of the European economic area ...", "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA ..." "Croatia will soon become a member of the EEA". There is a discussion at Talk:European_Economic_Area#Croatia on this. TDL (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not read the whole because the intro says "The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States.", which I took as "28 EU Member States are part of the EEA". If the website is not false then at least it is inviting misunderstandings. I don't know what means "brings together". TeraCard (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the article European Economic Area which also claimed it wrongly. Thanks for your research on the matter. TeraCard (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not very clear. I'm not sure what "brings together" is supposed to mean... TDL (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More regional integration

The article Post-Soviet states lists

• Community of Democratic Choice
• Black Sea Forum for Partnership and Dialogue
• Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation
• Central European Initiative
• Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations
• Union State of Russia and Belarus

TeraCard (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

This side should also include critical voices of the union. Otherwise this information will be biased. The idea of the European project has been considerably challenged over the past few years due to severe financial problems in different countries. EU is a top-down political project and true integration cannot be supported by the citizens in general when the leaders does not support the idea that true power comes from the people instead of vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.68.230.163 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European integration. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218090444/http://www.ataedu.org/article_new.php?id=107 to http://www.ataedu.org/article_new.php?id=107
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026034312/http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_412_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_412_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Membership possible

What's the principle behind this map?

For instance, why it does not indicate that membership is possible for Russia and Kazakhstan, two countries that have some area in Europe?--Reciprocist (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European integration. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615203243/http://telegraf.by/en/2011/10/belarus-sohranila-uchastie-v-vostochnom-partnerstve to http://telegraf.by/en/2011/10/belarus-sohranila-uchastie-v-vostochnom-partnerstve
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026034319/http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_413_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_413_en.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/77332/-initial-agreement-reached-to-establish-parliamentary-assembly-of-european-parliament-s-eastern-neighbors-.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European integration. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702112935/http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/pages/what-is-the-eusbsr to http://balticsea-region-strategy.eu/pages/what-is-the-eusbsr
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eupolitics.einnews.com/pr-news/163328-ukraine-reconfirms-its-aspiration-for-closer-integration-with-the-european-union
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730093911/http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_414_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/customs_unions/article_414_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511182858/http://government.ru/eng/docs/13088/ to http://government.ru/eng/docs/13088/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511115359/http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/sarkozy-sounds-basis-mediterranean-union/article-165541?Ref=RSS to http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/sarkozy-sounds-basis-mediterranean-union/article-165541?Ref=RSS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014234356/http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/last_politics/morocco_satisfied_to/view to http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/last_politics/morocco_satisfied_to/view

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European integration. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europeanunionplatform.org/category/eu-visa-policy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181404/http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/evaluation_2010-canada-esa_eng.pdf to http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/evaluation_2010-canada-esa_eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204041258/http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114881,10745118,Polska_dolaczy_do_waznego_europejskiego___klubu__.html to http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114881,10745118,Polska_dolaczy_do_waznego_europejskiego___klubu__.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106044608/http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2409215,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2409215,00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge with 'United States of Europe' and 'Federalisation of the European Union' articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Each of the 3 articles covers largely the same content, managing a single article would be more efficient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.40.102 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If material is replicated, it should be removed per WP:FORK
  • United States of Europe is essentially speculative fiction, disconnected from reality. It is not about the real world today or anytime soon.
  • Federalisation of the European Union is about the EU, but again describes opinions about the way that the EU is developing. The EU itself (meaning the Heads of national governments) say it is not a federation and only a very small minority of countries wish it to become one. IMO, there is a strong case for that article to be deleted outright because it is a conspiracy theory.
  • European integration again is not about the EU but much of it is so in fact. In principle it should only describe real integration that has happened, like the CAP, CFP, the Single Market (EU+), Schengen (EU- and +) etc (is there a cetera?). Any WP:CRYSTAL material should be deleted.

That is my 2c worth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Snowball closure please, sick of seeing this kind of nonsense merge requests. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6447:A3BC:35B5:A746 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing obvious Eurasianist/Duginist propaganda

The entire section on "Future of European integration" needs either to be removed entirely or substantially rewritten in lights of events in recent times. There is zero prospects now of Russia being part of any European integration. Wikipedia should not be peddling obvious Duginist Eurasianist propaganda like "EU-Russia Common Spaces". Anything called for by Putin and his puppet Medvedyev is now to be considered obsolete and outdated. I will remove, at the very least, the sections "Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok" and "Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe" unless anyone has a decent argue why they should be retained? DojoIrl (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the obvious reason that Putin did in fact say this. Of course actions speak louder than words, so either he didn't mean it or he had a dream of a pan-European Union lead by the Glorious Vladimir the Impaler. It should stay on the record. The problem with it as it stands is that there is no off-setting material. Nothing about his opposition to any sovereign decision by Georgia or Ukraine to apply to join the EU. Nothing about his 'persuading' Viktor Yanukovych that Ukraine really should apply to join the Commonwealth of Independent States instead. And of course finally his decision to wage war on Ukraine and thus destroy the prospect of any Russian alliance with the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future. So yes you are correct that the idea is dead in the water but no, you are not correct to try to do a Nineteen Eighty-Four job on the historical reality. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Most integrated countries" section

92.224.214.174, this is not your personal article, it is not for you to decide what it should or should not say.

1. The term "group" in a European context has particular connotations. The intersection set of countries that meet the arbitrary test of eurozone ∩ NATO is simply a "list", nothing more.
   1. In particular, a Wikipedia article should not include material on editors' assessment of what qualifies a state for membership of a Wikipedia list
2. It is self-evident that the US and Canada are not European countries; to mention them is just background clutter
3. That four eurozone countries are not members of NATO is no more (or no less) significant that there are ten (?) european members of NATO that are not eurozone countries. More clutter.
4. per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia covers what is, not what might be. The plans of Croatia, Bulgaria and Finland are just that: plans. When they are realised, they can be added. Not before.
5. whether a state has "drive on the left" or "drive on the right" is utter trivia unless (as was the case many years ago at the Norway/Sweden border) drivers must cross to the other side at the border.
6. whether or not a state uses the Latin alphabet is also trivia. The variety of languages is far more significant.

Wikipedia operates on consensus. It is not acceptable to arbitrarily discard other editors' contributions without discussion. No-one wp:OWNs any article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are the sources to the above claims? Please respect WP:NPA. 92.224.214.174 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed this section as it seemed like mostly trivia/OR and any encyclopedic information was already covered elsewhere in the article, especially the table "Multi-speed Europe". (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of section Most integrated countries

This section exists since almost a decade. Without any talk user:Buidhe removed it [7]. I strongly object to this process.

I also object the way the removal was presented "mainly trivia, see talk", there was nothing at the talk about "mainly trivia". 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Visa Waiver Program

User:Micga removed the Visa Waiver Program from the section "Common membership of all EU member states" [8].

The section name and the content [9] do still not match, since the facts listed are not only memberships. So, what was the motivation behind the removal? 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy to check that four EU countries do not participate in the Visa Waiver Programme. Thus, you misplaced it.Micga (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Micga - can you use the edit summary field in the future to make clear why you reverted something? Looking at Visa Waiver Program I now see Romania and Bulgaria are not included, so yes, I made a mistake. Which are the other two? 77.11.87.107 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Multi-speed Europe

I restored the article Multi-speed Europe. User:Micga merged it here. The topics are related, but Multi-speed Europe is a clearly restricted to processes after 1945 and centered around the EU. Also, the overview tables at Multi-speed Europe are readable, but the very large table at European integration hardly is usable at all, two of the flaws:

1. It does not fit horizontally nor vertically on FHD screens.
2. Some columns mix different agreements.

77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Restore version of 2022-09-04

I restored the version as of 2022-09-04 [10] replacing the version as of 2022-11-02 21:35 [11]. The edit summary: restore article to state before massive undiscussed changes, including merging in other articles, removal of decade old content etc. 08:23, 4 September 2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&action=edit&oldid=1108418896

It's not only the massive changes, but also

1. adding a hardly usable table called "Multi-speed Europe", cf. Talk section above.
2. adding unexplained terms e.g. "General pan-European integration" (listing three organisations e.g. "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe") and "Specialised pan-European integration" (listing fields of work)

Also, if there is "pan" vs. "regional" - what is "Multi-speed Europe" doing outside this? In contrast, the 2022-09-04 version had a section "Geographic scope" clearly indicating one aspect of the integration and addressing it. 77.188.28.121 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no consent for such arbitrary rollbacks. The section titles were indeed not clear enough. But they are just a detail. You could have simply modified them.Micga (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't point your finger at the IP for calling you out. You alone have conducted hundreads of edits without zero explanation, including content removal, unexplained additions, unsourced additions, and plenty of WP:OR additions. This is generally speaking, non-constructive behavior, contrary to Wikipedia ethos. You could have sought consensus for such a major overhaul, or, at the very least provided reliable WP:RS for your numerous additions and/or edit summaries. Archives908 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] @Micga: There was no discussion, let alone consent, for the massive changes you made. See WP:BRD. You made a very bold change; it has been reverted; now you produce a case for why it should be included. Without the unsourced editorialising for starters. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to here. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Cautious changes 2022-11-04

user:Archives908, user:John Maynard Friedman, user:Micga, user:WeifengYang - starting from the restored version 2022-09-04 and the changes by WeifengYang today, I moved some sections and applied little fixes. Do you agree with these changes? There is probably more to do, but to have a common ground I would like get your input. I also put them into one edit by restoring WeifengYang's version and then undoing this [12], so you can see the kB changes too. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP user- while I appreciate your WP:GF edits, there has been major disruptions on this article recently and your rapid editing style is not helping. Some of the wording in your edits were also not proper in terms of phrase and grammar. I have restored the last stable version accordingly. Feel free to propose any changes you see beneficial here for us all to review/reach consensus rather than clogging up the edit history. Thanks. Archives908 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1. "there has been major disruptions on this article recently" - that's why I restored and applied cautious changes
2. "your rapid editing style is not helping" - please explain, I only made very few edits, only
   1. moved text
   2. fixed obvious bugs
   3. add very limited amount of text
   4. changed the section names inside Geographic scope
   5. ... if you see anything else please tell, and if so, say if you disagree
3. "Some of the wording in your edits were also not proper in terms of phrase and grammar." - well, then fix that, it's a wiki, see WP:OWN, or at least point out what was wrong and why
4. "Feel free to propose any changes you see beneficial here" - The proposal is in the article history. You can use the diff function.

77.11.87.107 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to fix your mistakes. It is because of your rapid editing that you are missing your own faults. If you actually take the time to REVIEW your grammar/prose then others wouldn't have to clean up your mess. I have asked you politely to propose potential changes to the article beforehand, yet you seem to have an issue with that. Therefore, I ask again, any major changes should be discussed here given the recent turbulent editing on this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing rapid. Respect WP:NPA. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] 77.11.87.107, WP:BRD says that User:Archives908 was entirely within policy. You made a Bold edit, Archives908 Reverted it, so now we Discuss it. Given the recent history of rapid-fire edits to this article with disruptive effect, the reversion was justified. So explain what changes you want to make and why you believe that they need to be made. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 please read WP:BRD again. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for edit warring, as there is no consensus (at least not yet) for the edits they are repeatedly making. Given their persistent block evasion, please feel free to let me know if there is further disruption to this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As the block evasion has now extended to the article itself, I have temporarily semiprotected it. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu ^t/_c for taking swift action to protect this page, which has seen an awful lot of disturbances as of late. We shall keep you appraised should such disruptions continue following the expiry of the page protection. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert of cautious changes 2022-11-04

user:Archives908 "Out of control editing pattern- these changes require consensus." [13] - please explain and make sure you respect WP:BRD. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

user:Archives908 has been notified at their talk page [14] and s/he decided to revert the edit that placed the notification [15]. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You're funny, dear IP. My talk page isn't the place to discuss changes to THIS article. Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

user:Archives908 will you explain and make sure you respect WP:BRD? 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Reinsertion of bugs 2022-11-04

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=1120009948&oldid=1120009696
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=1119994786&oldid=1119988253

user:Archives908 please explain why you re-insert the same bugs twice. 77.11.87.107 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Open for discussion

With the disruption caused by IP users now being reverted, I am open to any serious and consensus-building discussion on the subject. I by no means consider myself exempt from criticism or immune to challenges against contents, though it is the parties contesting someone else’s legitimate contributions that have to make their case in the discussion as firsts, and not the opposite way. Regardless of that, the reckless support practiced recently by some editors for the kind of disruptive behavior that we saw being caused by an IP user, has to cease, once and for all.Micga (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Putting all the blame of "reckless editing" on the IP user is unjust, as most editors have had concerns with your editing tactics. Not sure why you would reinstate your edits before seeking consensus, as you have already been advised to do. Nonetheless, since you, and you alone, seem to be hellbent on maintaining your version of this article, you should present your suggestions/recommendations here. I personally see nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. Archives908 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I shall try to be as specific and precise as possible:

• 1. Prior to the fuss created by the IP users User:92.224.214.174 and User:77.11.87.107 you altered on numerous occasions my contributions and I neither opposed it nor engaged in edit war; I do not have a problem with that at all, as opposed to the indiscriminate rollback
• 2. the IP user was the one that rolled back my edits instead of making changes, while the present problem has been caused by the fact that when I undid the IP’s rollback, it was reinstated by user JMF without providing any grounds, encouraging the IP user to abandon aby restraints and subsequently to engage in edit wars also with both of you
• 3.Only when the latter occured, you both reported the IP user to have him blocked, but then again, the article was rolled again back (this time by you) to the version prior to my edits, again without providing justification or at least attempting to discuss it
• 4. both you and JMF throw around claims of POV, ADVOCACY, OR etc, but do not feel conpelled at all to deliver further on these claims;
• 5. moreover, both you and JMF brand the edits as „undiscussed” but at the same time you along with JMF feel both exempted from discussing yours; edits of both of you are also often contradictory , e.g. JMF deleted the section on most integrated countries but now it is restored though the rollback
• 6 your ostensible will to engage in consensus building can be accurately depicted by the fact that I asked you several specific questions in the ANI in regard to the contents and got no explanations; you both simply feel exempt from the very actions that you demand from others
• 7 altogether, my impression is that you want in practice to hold a hearing rather than a discussion, or putting it in different words, you demand in fact from others to seek your prior approval for all their contribs rather than to have a consensus-building discussion; otherwise you would challenge here some specific parts, contribs etc and pehaps revert them, as you did unopposed by me prior to arrival of the IP user, instead of doing an indiscriminate and entirely unexplained rollback
• 8 finally , it would be quite hard for me to discuss an indiscriminate rollback of numerous contribs. But most important, I do not see why I should be the one to explain myself for every edit. Such demand amounts in fact to turning the cat by the tail, as it is principle the rollback that is the origin of the problem and that has to be justified as first,
• 9 The article should thus be reverted to the version prior to the IP, later remaining of course available for your potential amendments. Doing otherwise is simply an act of arrogance and lack of respect for someone else’s work .Micga (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

All I see here is you continuing to deflect, deflect, deflect. While completely avoiding discussing your proposals for this article, after being asked to do so. Myself, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2), among other editors have had to warn you of your non-constructive editing tactics on the recent ANI discussion regarding your edits. As discussed at the ANI, all of your edits were unexplained, vastly unsourced and lacking any WP:RS, and contained concerning amounts of WP:OR. Therefore, you have failed to garner WP:CON to reinstate your version of the article. Further, you have ignored all warnings, including at Multi-speed Europe where you continue to push blanking/redirecting the article after myself and AngusW🐶🐶F have had to restore the article due to zero consensus. Please cease this disruptive pattern of editing. Archives908 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m not deflecting. I just expect you to justify the rollback with anything else than general impressions and you fail to do so, as you also did when asked specific questions in ANI. The passages contested by JMF were in the article or in articles merged into it already before my edits, while those branded by you as OR were a tiny percentage of the entire body and in no way justified an indiscriminate rollback, not to say that you could simply have marked them as such, in order to make me deliver the sourcing. There were no other contesting parties, except for the IPs.Micga (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You made hundreds of edits with zero edit summaries and zero reliable sources. And now, to your own admission, you included OR content. It's not my responsibility to chase down sources from you or decipher what is your OR and what could potentially be backed up by reliable sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. Archives908 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I admit failing to source in some rare cases few passages properly, not inserting OR. Again, this may justify a revert, not an outright rollback.Micga (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

To be even clearer, per WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It is not our job to chase down and verify every one of your dozens of updates. Your past editing record is such as to make rollback of a block of unexplained edits the only rational response. It is for you to show that they are WP:DUE, satisfy WP:NPOV and are not WP:OR. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so to start with: the structure. In its current form it is an utter chaos lacking any logic e.g. some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given unjustied prominence. Various types of organizations are mixed up. The section on EU contains plenty of bodies unrelated to it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches, while the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct section. Further, the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top… etc

I attempted to sort that through making sections: one dealt with the general integration (unspecialised initiatives and bodies, unrelated to a specific field or economy branch, also unrestricted to a particular part of Europe, with CoE, OSCE and the EU being the principal bodies), another section dealt with specialised integration (initiatives and bodies focused on a specific area or economy branch and unrestricted to a particular part of Europe, both those related and unrelated to EU), while a third one dealt with initiatives and bodies restricted to a certain part of the continent, both general or specialized ones. What was wrong with that? Is the structure of the current version in any way better and more logical than the previous one? Micga (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear users Archives908 and JMF, we can now witness exactly the kind of constructive and insightful remarks in the discussion that I have expected from you. Remember that you are the only ones left to discuss with, as both IP users involved have been blocked.Micga (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you took a minute to read my first reply attentively, you would have seen that I already made my position very clear. For the second time, I see nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo. Whether the structure of the article is more or less "logical" then the current version is completely relative based on perspective. What is clear, however, is that your proposal(s) have not garnered any support from a single other editor. My concern is that you will again make hundreds of rapid edits, without any edit summaries. Thus, making it extremely difficult for other editors to review changes. Which is the same concern others have already warned you about following your edits at European Union. My second and primary concern is the fact that your proposals are lacking any credible sources to back up your statements. Your word or opinion does not count as a WP:RS. Finally, based on your last comment, remember that editors have WP:BUSY lives outside Wikipedia and you can not expect/demand immediate responses. Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER project. Archives908 (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please focus on the subject instead of producing personal observations? I try to do that and to discuss my edits cases by case. To start, I have now raised some specific issues concerning the structure. As for the support, it sadly seems there is scarcity of editors interested in the topic. Micga (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm very focused. No WP:PA's have been made here- only valid concerns which continue to be ignored. Archives908 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, this is deflecting. I ask you above all to reply here to the following part of my post: „Some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given unjustied prominence. Various types of organizations are mixed up. The section on EU contains plenty of bodies unrelated to it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches, while the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct section. Further, the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top… etc.” The respective wikilinks already embedded in the body of the article demonstrate it clearly. If you find that any part of the fragment above is wrong or requires additional sources, please indicate it. As of now, you mostly concentrate on rapidity of my edits and lack of their edit summaries, carefully avoiding at the same time to discuss the essence. Micga (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No deflecting- only expressing concern. Mixing and mashing your proposals without much detail is making it hard to understand what exactly is your end goal. To avoid an incoherent discussion, please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. For instance, about the EBU, how does the respective section violate WP:DUE. Please specify how it violates policy and what exactly you propose to fix the policy violation. Archives908 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

here you are:

I propose the hierarchical sorting of sections and organisations as in my version:

1History

2Theories of integration

2.1Proto-integration period (1940s)

2.2Explaining integration, 1948 onwards

2.3Second phase: analyzing governance, 1980s onwards

2.4Third phase: constructing, expanding and consolidating the EU, 1990s onwards

3General European integration <— That is: intergovernmental initiatives and bodies restricted neither to a specific part of Europe nor to a specific subject

3.1Council of Europe

3.2Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

3.3European Union

4Specialised European integration <— That is: initiatives and bodies unrestricted to a specific part of Europe, though devoted only to a specific subject; both the intergovernmental ones as well as some established non-governmental ones if standard-setting or crucial for a certain industry branch

4.1Trade

4.2Aviation

4.3Energy

4.4Telecommunications

4.5Standardisation

4.6Education

4.7Research

4.8Health

4.9Defence

4.10Space

5Local integration initiatives in Europe <— That is: intergovernmental initiatives and bodies restricted to a specific part of Europe

5.1Low Countries region (Benelux)

5.2British Isles

5.3Nordic countries

5.4Central and Eastern Europe

5.5Black Sea region

5.6Baltic Sea region

6Multi-speed Europe

6.1Concept

6.2EU inner framework

6.3Outer European environment of the EU

6.4Summary of European integration uniformity and progress

6.5Common membership of all EU member states

6.6Core Europe: uniformity and non-uniformity

6.7Overlap of membership in various agreements

6.8EU exclusive mandate

7Beyond Europe

7.1Europe-centered organisations extending outside

7.2EU and other regions and countries in the world

7.3Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Union

7.4Collective Security Treaty Organisation

7.5Organisations related to European languages in the world

7.6World integration

8Future of European integration

8.1Extent

8.2Depth

8.3European identity and diversity

8.4Advocacy and opposition

instead of the current:

1History

2Theories of integration

2.1Proto-integration period

2.2First phase: explaining integration, 1960s onwards

2.3Second phase: analyzing governance, 1980s onwards

2.4Third phase: constructing the EU, 1990s onwards

3Citizens' organisations calling for further integration

4Overlap of membership in various agreements

4.1Common membership of member states of the European Union

4.2Most integrated countries

5Geographic scope

5.1Beyond geographic Europe

5.2Limited to regions within geographic Europe

5.2.1Nordic countries

5.2.2Baltic Sea region

5.2.3Nordic-Baltic Eight

5.2.4Low Countries region (Benelux)

5.2.5Black Sea region

5.2.6United Kingdom and Ireland

5.2.7Central Europe

5.2.8Eastern Europe

5.2.9Danube region

5.2.10Balkans

6Council of Europe

7Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

8European Free Trade Association

9European Broadcasting Union

10European Patent Convention

11European Communities

12European Union

12.1Competences

12.2Economic integration

12.2.1Free trade area

12.2.2Customs union

12.2.3European Single Market

12.2.4Eurozone

12.2.5Fiscal union

12.2.6Aviation

12.2.7Energy

12.2.8Standardisation

12.3Social and political integration

12.3.1Education

12.3.2Research

12.3.3Health

12.3.4Charter of Fundamental Rights

12.3.5Right to vote

12.3.6Schengen zone

12.3.7Visa policy in EU

12.4Defence

12.5Space

12.6Membership in European Union agreements

13Future of European integration

13.1European Security Treaty

13.2Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok

13.3Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe

14Beyond Europe

14.1Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

14.1.1Ties with partners

14.2Commonwealth of Independent States

14.3Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations

14.4EU and other regions and countries in the world

14.5Other organisations in world

14.6European languages in the world

14.7World integration

15See also

16Notes

17References

18Further reading

Justification as stated above:

• Various types of organizations are mixed up.
• the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct primary section
• meanwhile, the section on EU contains plenty of bodies not originating from, subordinate to or dependent on it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches (e.g. Eurocontrol, European Civil Aviation Conference, Energy Charter Treaty, European Space Agency, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements etc. etc.) - therefore, I propose taking these subject-specific subsections out of the EU section and grouping them into a section dealing with specialized integration in Europe in general (That is: initiatives and bodies unrestricted to a specific part of Europe, but devoted to a specific subject, both governmental or some established or standards-setting non-governmental ones, important for a certain industry) and not only within EU framework, so that the existing contents are compatible with the title of section
• Some non-governmental associations (e.g. European Broadcasting Union) have been given disproportionately high prominence without justification while some important intergovernmental bodies are barely mentioned, if at all (As for the invoked EBU, it should stay of course, but only as a part of telecommunications subsection of specialized integration section, and not as a primary-level section equal in prominence to the one of the EU; I make this statement naturally under the assumption that I do not have to explain obvious and basic things such as the difference in significance between EBU and EU, do I?)
• disproportionate attention is given to several incidental and ephemeral Eurasianist proposals, in spite of none of them being taken up up anywhere else in Europe; this applies specifically to the current subsections 13.1European Security Treaty, 13.2Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, 13.3Concept of a single legal space for the CIS and Europe); I changed the name of the first subsection from an over-detailed one focused on a specific past event concerning an incidental proposal for “European Security Treaty” to a more general and persistent one of “relations with the Collective Security Treaty Organization”; whereas the remaining two subsections describe some remarks which were not only incidental but also made in each case by a single obscure Russian scholar, both of these concepts failing to make it into the mainstream European political discourse or to reverberate in any other way throughout Europe, thus lacking notability, and therefore, I removed these two passages, the only instance of me doing so in the entire article; In general, the six Eastern Partnership countries plus Turkey have been at least since 2014 the only states east of the EU border with more or less remote prospects of joining the EU if they desire to do so, retaining them mostly only due to persistent and unambiguous pressure exerted by the new EU countries on the original ones; in contrast, there have been no serious discussions or expectations related to any future increased commitment of Russia and Kazakhstan to the European integration, while after February 2022 any such future prospects have been explicitly ruled out by consensus among EU members
• the section on the future is at the bottom, but the organizations focused on it have an own one at the top

Micga (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed your concerns/proposals, however, I still believe that the current state of the article is more than acceptable. Granted, as with most articles, there could be some minor improvements done but I do not think such a massive overhaul is critically necessary. I have asked you to provide which wikipolicies are in violation with the current state of the article. Yet you have been unable to specify which policies are in direct violation. For example, with regards to the order of the table of contents; please specify which policies are in violation. Furthermore, some of your justifications appear to be WP:OR. Making claims which are not backed up by any WP:RS is not acceptable. This is something you have been advised of before, yet I do not see any sources provided alongside any of your justifications above. Therefore, I'm quite perplexed how you expect other editors to agree to such a massive re-write. Perhaps that is why your proposal has not been able to garner a consensus thus far. I will kindly ask a second time if you can specify which policies are being violated and explain how your amendments will rectify those violations, while providing credible sources to back up your justifications listed above. You may also request a WP:RFC and see what other uninvolved editors/Admins think of your proposal. Archives908 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• As for the layout, it is incompatible with WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:BODY and WP:UPFRONT.
• The passages „the European Community, clearly belonging to the history of EU as its direct predecessor, has its own distinct primary section”, „the section on EU contains plenty of bodies not originating from, subordinate to or dependent on it, in particular in the subsections dealing with specific areas or economy branches (e.g. Eurocontrol, European Civil Aviation Conference, Energy Charter Treaty, European Space Agency, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, European Committee for Standardization, European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements etc. etc.)” and „EBU should not have a primary-level section equal in prominence to the one of the EU” do not require sourcing as they are easily verifiable simply by the sourced contents of the respective articles describing these bodies.
• The sections on Eurasianist proposals violate WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:FORUM.
• Which parts of the justification do you consider WP:OR? Indicate these, please. Micga (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

'Common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok' describes 2010 situation

The subsection is obsolete. Russia has attacked Ukraine in 2014 and fights a big war since February. Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole subsection is based on one text by Putin. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed those pieces XA1dUXvugi (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless if it is "highly unlikely" (and I agree with you on that), it was still discussed as a proposed concept. Rather then blanket deletion, it would serve greater purpose if the section was updated to reflect recent events. Perhaps placing an "update section" template is a more rational approach for now. Archives908 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Meta: Lots of European integration articles

There are lots of articles concerning European integration: Enhanced cooperation, Differentiated integration, Multi-speed Europe, International organisations in Europe, this one, etc.

Are we sure these all need to be a separate article? Are we sure that each of those articles cover its own subject, and doesn't duplicate anything from the others? It seems like a lot.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) XA1dUXvugi (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Answered in Talk:Differentiated integration#Raison d'être/purpose XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what "we are", but I am sure your removal of verified content from Wikipedia is not helping the mission of Wikimedia. 77.11.165.249 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

XA1dUXvugi, you did it again, disguising the edit as correction 77.191.148.102 (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. You have reverted all my edits for no reason. Most of them were replacing the PNG images with identical SVG images.

And you are introducing errors into the page. "In fact, many EU member states are among the 28 NATO members.". That is wrong. I corrected that, but now you're adding it back.

You have also reverted the justified changing of links in the see also section (such as for renamed pages) and the addition of new ones.

@Archives908, @John Maynard Friedman, I relatively new to Wikipedia. I don't want to just revert this person's edits again. How do I deal with this? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you are new. Please read the editing guidelines. Don't mass-remove content without consensus. Your "the article is too long" has been addressed below. You can re-apply your small corrections, but stop mass-removing tables, sections etc. 77.191.148.102 (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit you're reverting did not mass remove content. It removed the table, replacing it with a link to one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_membership_in_international_organisations. If you disagree with that part of the edit, then revert it. But, no discussion was held to add the table, so I don't see why any discussion is needed to remove it. And, it was fine, until you decided to revert the edit.

The rest of that edit did not remove anything. It simply replaced the PNG images with SVG images. SVG images that were added were of higher quality, and were editable, which is what makes the SVG format more attractive. They depicted the same thing as the PNGs. Again, why would there need to be consensus for this?

And now, instead of reverting that table deletion, you revert all my edits. And, you are now trying to add back the corrections I made, correction by correction. I had already done, why are you redoing it, but in a worse way?

Perhaps if you cared to actually read my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=prev&oldid=1153921346, you would see that the changes you're trying make right now to correct what I highlighted about the NATO countries were already made by me. You could at least have copied that.

This isn't my article, but it isn't yours either. It's everyone's. So, please don't revert the entirety of my good faith edit to replace PNGs with SVGs and correct outdated information about NATO's role in Europe. I have reverted the page to my edit, with the table intact. I don't see what your issue can possibly be with this, as it involves no mass content deletion. If you're still unhappy, please discuss it, rather than reverting my work again. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_integration&diff=prev&oldid=1154463795 seriously? What are the issues? This is practically a non-change. All you're doing at this point is removing all the SVGs. What's wrong with them? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

And now you're readding all the SVGs I added, but as your own edits? I don't even understand what the motivation behind this is anymore. It's not taking credit, because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So what is it?

@Archives908 and @John Maynard Friedman: it seems you were both involved in four discussions with this IP-user already on this page, to no avail. What do we do about it? Request article protection? Ignore it? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for revealing the nature of your intention on the talk : ad hominem without interest in listening. The diff is now [16] - clearly visible your controversial edits. It's not only me but also Archives908 that rejects your "Main|International organisations in Europe" [17] 77.191.148.102 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi XA1dUXvugi, thanks for your ping. I'm trying to follow this thread according to WP:BRD. According to that policy, it seems you made a bold edit- which is perfectly acceptable. It was then reverted by the unknown IP- which is also acceptable. However, from that point, the two of you should have discussed any issues here/try to seek consensus before any more reversions took place. I thank you for starting the discussion, and for not contributing to an edit war. In terms of the content, I do not have a preference between your updates, or the last stable version which the IP restored. The IP is correct that generally speaking, blanket deletions (especially when there's sourced info) is something that should have been discussed prior. But, you and I already discussed that in the thread below. For this particular matter, I will not oppose your version or maintaining the last stable version. You may revert to your last edit, if you genuinely feel that it was an improvement. However, I highly recommend that you start a new thread and list your proposal(s) first. This way, should the IP have concerns or feedback, then the two of you (and whoever else) can engage civilly and constructively. The last thing we want is an edit war to clog up the edit history! I hope this helps you both :) Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I only see the talk after 17:14, 12 May 2023 after my edits. RE "So, please don't revert the entirety of my good faith edit to replace PNGs with SVGs" - well, that was the result of restoring. I re-added several of your SVG, but using " " instead of "_" between words. And at least once I decided to use another file. Also the NATO text I adjusted to your version, I think, even without reading your text here. I made a diff between your version and the prior consensus version, to see your mass-edits. 77.191.148.102 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Some parts of this article are problematic in my opinion. Consensus as to what to do with them would be nice

The Aviation, Energy, Standardisation, and Research parts of the European Union category are essentially just lists. As far as I know, this article isn't intended to be a list. Should these sections be removed? Reworked? Kept like they are?

The Beyond Europe section is kind of in the wrong place, being part of a European integration article. In my opinion, it should be removed. This article is already very long, maybe even, too long, and a section whose whole purpose is not being part of the actual article's title is a bit too much in my opinion. What do you think?

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As no activity seems to be taking place on this discussion, or within the article itself, I will simply go ahead with the removal of the Beyond Europe section. Either this will be accepted, or it will hopefully spur discussion, and something else can be done going forward. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Explain your position. What policy violation does the inclusion of this section break? Archives908 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought I did explain my position; the article is relatively long and in-depth about integration within Europe, and its titled *European* integration. As such, I see a whole section dedicated precisely to integration taking place *beyond* Europe as not being relevant to this specific article. I would argue its contents are better fit for Foreign relations of the European Union or Eurosphere.

If this is not the view shared by others, I'm okay with that. I understand that consensus is required to make changes to pages on a collaborative encyclopedia. But for that to be possible, it also requires participation of others. I see you reverted my edit, and I will not undo that, but, it would be much appreciated if there could be some form of resolution of this debate, either definitively in favour, or against, the removal of this section. I reiterate my position: this section is a better fit for those two articles, not this one. XA1dUXvugi (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your more detailed explanation. Because "the article is too long" in your opinion, does not justify or warrant a complete blanket deletion. The "Beyond Europe" section would not fit in Foreign relations of the European Union or Eurosphere because it does not discuss direct political relations/association with the EU. It merely highlights other forms of integration occurring on the fringes of Europe, which makes this article more suitable for it. In fact, some of the organizations like the CIS for example, have nothing to do with the EU at all. So, why would we include them in articles that are centered on the EU? I think in this scenario, the status quo should be maintained. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Schengen map outdated

The Schengen map needs an update, Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen end of March this year.--Stefan040780 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It comes from Wikimedia Commons so I have asked the editor there (who last updated it) if they would please roll it forward. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)