Talk:European integration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

article focus

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)