European Union/Frequently asked questions

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.

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

No they were not, only the mentioning of them in the text.

The European Constitutions would have enshrined them and given them legal status, yet they exist without this. The flag was adopted in 1986 and will continue to be used even without a constitutional status. The other symbols were also adopted in a similar manner.

The EU is not unique in this, 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.

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.

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 neutral and objectively as possible, neither taking a support or critics point of view. When it is important to discuss the positive as well as the negative issues about 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 base rather than on a separate section at a very abstract level.

An example where both positive and negative consequences are discussed is given here as an example (From the Common Agriculutural Policies section (CAP)-the most important policy is that of subsidised minimum prices for agricultural products) " This system has been criticised for under-[...] 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 econmy 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 [...]-Germany plan for unified control over Europe.

Is the EU a federation or an international organisation?

The EU is a sui genius entity, it has developed from an international organisation but also bears some hall marks of a more state-like entity. Thus, it can neither be described as a "country" or a traditional international organisation. So in the article we do not treat it as either, but attempt to base the article around the EU's own particular character. The structures of the EU can be extremely complicated and the issue of it being a country/organisation particularly contentious among editors.

Why is there a 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 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.