European Union/Frequently asked questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The page seeks to provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the European Union article. If you have a question please check this page before asking on the talk page. Thank you for your time.

Contents 1 Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution? 2 Why isn't there a criticism section? 3 Is the EU a country, a federation or an international organisation? 4 Why is there a sports section? 5 Why is there such limited information on Culture in the EU?

[edit] Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?

The symbols were not abandoned with the constitution, but they are no longer mentioned in the text of the new Treaty of Lisbon (Reform Treaty).

The failed European Constitution would have enshrined them and given them legal status, but the replacement Treaty of Lisbon does not. However they still exist and are still used without this status. The European flag was adopted in 1986 and will continue to be used even without constitutional status. The other symbols were also adopted in a similar manner.

The EU is not unique in this respect, other countries do not give their national symbols legal status: for example the Flag of the United Kingdom was never formally adopted as a national flag, let alone enshrined in the constitution, and has its position by de facto status only. Another example be the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E Pluribus Unum being commonly used as such.

[edit] Why isn't there a criticism section?

A separate criticism section should focus on overall, conceptual criticism on the whole idea of the European Union. After much discussion it was decided that this is not a good idea. Note that there is no "support section" either; this is an encyclopedia article, not a pamphlet meant to persuade people whether the EU is a good or bad thing. When it is important to discuss the positives and negatives of certain European Union issues, these are mentioned in the paragraph dealing with that issue. Thus the style of the article is to deal with criticism on a topic by topic basis rather than on a separate section at a very abstract level.

Is there nothing wrong with the EU at all? Of course many things are wrong; but a neutral point of view on overall conceptual criticism does not work. Instead the editors involved do their best to write as neutrally and objectively as possible, neither taking a supportive or a critical point of view.

An example where both positive and negative consequences are discussed is given here as an example (From the Common Agricultural Policies section (CAP)-the most important policy is that of subsidised minimum prices for agricultural products) " This system has been criticised for under-cutting farmers in the developing world. The overproduction has also been criticised on environmental grounds in that it encourages environmentally unfriendly intensive farming methods. Supporters of CAP say that the economic support which it gives to farmers provides them with a reasonable standard of living, in what would otherwise be an economically unviable way of life."

But is there no conceptual criticism about the whole idea of the EU? While in its implementation there can be much criticism on the EU, we find it hard to find something fundamentally wrong with the aims of improving the economy of the Union to the gain of all members, as well as the effort to put all kinds of discussion platforms in place to prevent escalating conflicts within Europe. The separate issue approach (as outlined above) is well suited to deal with criticism of the implementation of the EU ideas. However, we agree that if there was a relevant body of decently grounded studies voicing conceptual criticism this should warrant a separate criticism section. However, the only sources for conceptual criticism on idea of the European Union as a whole is provided by some extremist publications that have no academically rigorous background, and are more personal opinions of the authors of these publications then based on objective facts. The problematic and dubious quality of these sources makes that these arguments simply cannot be incorporated in an article that aims at objective and high quality coverage of the subject.

An example that has been inserted as a criticism section several times, based on these unreliable extremist sources, is along the lines that the European Union is nothing more than a continuation of Nazi-Germany plan for unified control over Europe.

[edit] Is the EU a country, a federation or an international organisation?

The EU is a sui generis entity; this means that it is unique, making classification as a country, federation, or International organisation difficult.
The EU has developed from an international trade organisation aimed at improving the economy and thereby fostering peace in Western Europe. Nowadays the EU also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity; like an anthem, a flag, a common currency, but also representation among other countries in international organisations like the G8. However, other properties of countries, like a fully-fledged defence force, or the power to make laws binding to the whole area are not part of the EU's mandate.
This means the EU can neither be described as a federation or country, nor as a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as any of these, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. Nevertheless, to promote consistency within Wikipedia, we borrow ideas from both the international organisation structure and the country articles.

Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy?
No this is not an easy issue. The problem with an approach between two extremes (in this case organisation and country) is that it is not easy to agree where to place the EU between them.
Some editors believe that the EU will evolve into a true federation in time to come, and the article should reflect this by adopting a structure very close to the style of Wikipedia country articles. Other editors doubt this, or even think it very unlikely, and argue most, if not all, country specific sections should be omitted. All agree that the direction of the EU is hard to predict, and that we should be very careful when speculating about this, as it is basically speculation.
This all means that structure and status of the EU is extremely complicated and the issue of it being a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors.

[edit] Why is there a sports section?

Further information: Talk:European Union/Sports section

This is a very difficult issue. In brief the issue shares many elements with the previous question, whether to treat the EU more as an international organisation or more as a country. Some editors believe that a country article ought to have a section discussing sport as an important aspect of national culture, and that the EU should be treated as a country and have such a section. Others believe that the EU as an organisation has a negligible impact on sport, that anyway sporting culture varies widely from state to state, so the topic should not be mentioned in a summarising article such as this.

[edit] Why is there such limited information on Culture in the EU?

Again this issue shares many elements with the question whether the EU should be considered more like a country or more like and international organisation.
There is however another issue at stake here. A lot of the culture of Europe (literature, painting, music; or even Roman / Greek antiquity) originated long before the EU was founded. While this culture is undeniably part of the cultural heritage of the EU countries, it is just as much part of the culture of the European non-EU members: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the mini states (Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City), the republics of former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Montenegro), and the eastern European Moldova Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
Hence, discussing the culture of EU would at best mean duplication of the culture of Europe, which would be unwanted for reasons of maintainability of a consistent content of Wikipedia. At worst this may imply that the EU claims some rights to the shared culture of the whole of Europe, thereby denying this right to non-EU countries. Therefore it was decided to limit the culture section very much.