Talk:European Union/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Interesting

It's interesting that in the UK these rules get a lot of reporting. I can honestly say that I've never heard people speak of them, or newspapers report them in Spain. On the other hand the Spanish have a different view of government. They expect little from it and are happiest when it just leaves them alone. If they can, they just ignore it. (OK, so it's a sweeping inaccurate generalisation - but what do you expect at these prices?)--Bob^{bing up} 17:25, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooooh, tell Rembutt Ryan! Sounds like Libberty-arian heaven!!! He should move. ħuman 04:34, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually anarchy was quite popular in Spain during the civil war.--Bob^{bing up} 04:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that's three Clash! songs all wrapped up into one... ħuman 04:38, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Macedonia

As recognised by the UN and the EU the official name of the country is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It calls itself "Republic of Macedonia". Which should we use?--Bob^{bing up} 04:22, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Use what it calls itself. Yould you call the US "Former Colonies of the United Kingdom Now Known As the United States of America"? So why the fucked up naming, aren't they stable yet? ħuman 04:33, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah ... but who is more important? The UN and the EU or Wikipedia? The WP article is locked which suggests to me there may be some debate in WP. (What?? Never!)--Bob^{bing up} 04:34, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The problem is Greece. they think that Macedonia is their name.--Bob^{bing up} 04:35, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's country articles are full of debate about exactly what the country should be called, by whom and where. As we're not claiming to be an authoritative encyclopedia, shall we stick with Macedonia? I don't see us having articles on Greek provinces anytime soon. Totnesmartin 05:59, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Howabout FYR Macedonia? If it's good enuff for the Eurovision Song Contest then it's good enuff for me. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:55, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

There goes my first suspect. Bugler would never watch the Eurovision Song Contest. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 07:01, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, using the Eurovision Song contest definition appeals to me a lot. It's such a wonderfully quirky of deciding on the correct name that we should make it official policy. Only works for Europe of course. <joke>Perhaps we should change the UK article to: Le Royaume-Uni.</joke>--Bob^{bing up} 11:11, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

If we're using Eurovision then we have inherited the title 'Nil points'. The Balkan/Baltic voting blocks would have mad a mockery of the whole process if it wasn't a mockery in the first place. Silver Sloth 11:15, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Funny as that all may be, I think if anyone ever links to it, it will be as "Macedonia", won't it? So that should be the title, at least (opening line, "Macedonia, also known as the blah blah blah... It is also a Greek province, and we no article on that". The higher-level (country vs. province) topic should get the "clean" name, lower level gets a set of parens after it ("Macedonia (Greek province)")? ħuman 16:37, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

The Republic of Northern Macedonia. --Boredsocialist (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What actually is the EU for?

This probably seems like a remarkably stupid question, especially to people in Europe, but actually is the purpose of the EU? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with increased economic cooperation and created a sense of community to prevent more shooting wars, but otherwise I don't know why the EU exists. For some reason I'm trying to learn more about the European Community and thought that RW would be a good starting point, but there seems to be remarkably little detail on the EU here. I imagine I'm asking a lot, but could someone(s) expand the article to include some of why the EU was made, current function, a little about the history, the differences and relationships between the Council of Europe, Eurozone, European Economic Area, EU Customs Union, and the rest of the blather in the imagine in the article?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The question was not stupid a couple of years ago but today it certainly is. Two Goldman Sachs men are usurping the presidencies in Greece and Italy. The cards are already turned up on the gaming table: it all was about establishing a Bancocracy. National sovereignties stood in the way. -- Brasov 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I like to think of the EU as an organisation to further transnational cooperation and general tolerance towards other cultures. After all, the spanish culture, for example, differs quite a bit from the swedish or the greek. Maybe as a precursor to a world where two countries who have a disagreement instantly start a war. After all, at least in Europe, the EC/EU era has seen some decrease in tension of international relations. France and Germany, for example, were more or less constantly at war for the better part of the entire modern age. However, this may be merely correlation, not causation - after all, Europe was the center of two quite devastating wars in the first half of the 20th century.

I should note, however, that this might be wishful thinking. After all, there's currently a crisis in the EU, and although most crisis countries are more or less standing on their own feet again, Greece is still a problem child. This creates some sort of propaganda war between Germany and Greece - German media pictures the Greeks as lazy (just like the Republicans seem to think about welfare recipients, I guess), while Greek media pictures the Germans as Nazis (that works most of the time - the German government tries its best to get rid of the nazi image for modern Germany, which makes it susceptible to extortion). At least that's what we hear about the Greek media in Germany. I just hope that these mutual accusations don't have a lasting impact on the Greek-German relations once the crisis is over.

Anyway, there is a movement in Europe which looks forward to further integration of the European Union, maybe to a united European Federation (the peaceful version, not the Fourth Reich one) and I have to admit that I like the idea. I don't know how large the movement is, and the idea probably won't be furthered much as long as the debt crisis is around. Also, our politicians would have to grow a backbone for a European Federation to succeed, since they are considered quite... pliable at this time. However, a month or two ago there was another step forward towards a united european army (at least it sounded like that in the news... haven't heard about it since), which is supported by the "inner circle" of the EU (BeNeLux, France, Italy, Germany) and would be another step towards integration (and might increase the importance of the EU on the global scale, because we lacked unified foreign policy stuff so far).

Summing up, it's probably safest to say that the EU/EC/ECSC was originally envisioned as an economic cooperation organisation (also, an organisation to keep Germany under control) which made and continues to make up additional goals on the way. --217.81.202.238 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

?

WTF? Why was my edit reverted? ProudTory (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the edit because I can't see any logical reason for why it was reverted in the first place. Feel free to discuss here. Feel free to revert even, but at least try to justify such a decision with discussion. IN fact, I'm going to revert an edit from a week ago on a different article that was similarily reverted without discussion. ProudTory (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Try remembering: this is a wiki site, not your blog. That's the issue we keep running into.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant. I inserted a well known fact into an article. A fact that is often disputed by Europhiles. An important fact which you do not want to hear. I do not understand the contempt for which you seem to hold facts in. ProudTory (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not what you are saying, but how you are saying it that is the issue.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine then. Re-edit it in a politically correct fashion if you like. I don't see what the problem is but whatever. ProudTory (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want it in, write it in a politically neutral way. That isn't hard.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There. I'll pretend for now that this website really is 'politically neutral' and have inserted a faggoty compromise into the article. ProudTory (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress!--Token Conservative (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

'Critics'

This is the problem with so called 'neutrality'. Stupid words are used which don't make any sense. What I've added to this article is a fact, yet it has been disputed by people who have even admitted their ignorance on this issue. Absolutely no historian would dispute the fact that Europe enjoyed peace because it had to, because Russia had nukes aimed at their cities, and they avoided conquest because of a military alliance with the United States. These are facts! facts! Fucking facts! ProudTory (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, then cite a source. That'll help your cause.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My source is anybody who has been alive for the past fifty years, has read a newspaper once a week, and understands how the world works. My source is bloody bleeding common sense! Provide a source for why the earth is round? Or why cows eat grass? Or why people need brains? Do you understand how asinine this whole process is? ProudTory (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So you haven't got one? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you people actually insane? Have you broken out of a mental asylum? Have you taken leave of your senses? I'll name one, at least. Tony Judt. He says it very early in his book on Europe after the second world war. In fact, any history of Europe will point out that the peace and security enjoyed by western europe since the war was because of the twin threat of nuclear annihilation and the benefits of a military alliance with the United States. It literally is like asking 'can you provide a source to back up your claim that people sit on chairs or that people lie down on beds?'. ProudTory (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And Judt is about as left wing a historian as I can bear to read, by the way. ProudTory (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A link would be nice, something that we can actually read. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh jesus christ. It is easily the most widely read book on european history in the world. Its not my job to educate you ignoramuses. ProudTory (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"My source is anybody who has been alive for the past fifty years, has read a newspaper once a week, and understands how the world works"

Because when you think unbiased, reliable information, you think newspapers. Do you read that xenophobic rag the Daily Mail, by any chance? -- 82.38.70.197 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Historians don't deny that MAD added a form of stability to the world, though I have heard arguments that warfare can often be attributed to (or at least explained by) differences in national economic polices. Protectionism pisses off other countries, for example. The various European entities really do look like they have provided fora for differences to be sorted out. The Cold War ended ~25 years ago, if stability was due to MAD then why haven't things reverted to pre-WWII ways? 92.40.253.110 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)