This is a list of frequently asked questions relevant to editing this article. Certain questions crop up repeatedly on the talk page, taking up time and energy addressing the same questions more than once. This FAQ addresses these common concerns, criticisms, and arguments, and answers various misconceptions behind them.
The discussion page for this FAQ page is at Talk:European Union. Before making major changes to this page, please discuss them there.
Q1: Weren't the flag and other symbols abandoned with the constitution?
A1: The symbols were not abandoned with the constitution, but they are no longer mentioned in the text of the new Treaty of Lisbon. The failed European Constitution would have enshrined them and given them legal status, whereas 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, many 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 only has its position de facto. Another example is the absence of a national motto for the United States (before 1956), despite E pluribus unum being commonly used as such.
Question 2
Q2: Why isn't there a criticism section?
A2: A separate criticism section would focus on overall criticism of 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 in a separate section at a very abstract level.
Question 3
Q3: So, is there nothing wrong with the EU at all?
A3: 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 (CAP) section – 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.
Question 4
Q4: But is there no criticism about the whole idea of the EU?
A4: While in its implementation there can be, and is, much criticism of the European Union, it is simply impossible to address every possible area of criticism. Criticism of the EU is often subjective, depending on personal and political views; some may criticise the economic model advanced by the EU, whilst others may criticise the transfer of certain powers from a national to a European level, fearing loss of sovereignty. Some may simply criticise the institutional structure of the EU, the role of the European Court or even the EU's human rights policy. The number of possible criticisms are almost endless and it is impossible to address them all fully, in a balanced manner. Furthermore, there are already articles on issues such as Euroscepticism which cover many of the points which individuals may wish to add to the main EU article. Because of the multi-faceted and subjective nature of this criticism it has been decided that the inclusion of a criticism section is neither necessary or wise.
Question 5
Q5: Is the EU a country, a federation, or an international organisation?
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, 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.
Question 6
Q6: Is it that easy, we treat it as something special somewhere between country and organisation, and everybody is happy?
A6: 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 European Union 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 writing 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 treated as a country/organisation is particularly contentious among editors.
A7: In brief, the issue shares many elements with the previous question – whether to treat the European Union 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 and that sporting culture varies widely from state to state, so the topic should not be mentioned in a summarising article such as this.
Question 8
Q8: Why is there such limited information on culture in the EU?
A8: Again, this issue shares many elements with the question whether the European Union should be considered more like a country or more like an international organisation.
Hence, discussing the culture of EU would at best mean duplication of the Culture of Europe article, 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.
Question 9
Q9: Why don't the city sizes fit with my idea?
A9: Comparison of city sizes by number of inhabitants sounds easy. It is not. Different countries in the European Union have dealt differently with subdividing large cities. For example, many of the suburbs of Paris are independent, making Paris proper a relatively small city. Berlin has many fewer independent suburbs making it relatively much larger.
This makes comparison of cities on inhabitants irrelevant. Eurostat has realised this and in 2004 created the larger urban zone as an alternative metric which was developed to be comparable across the different countries. We use larger urban zone numbers to compare city populations across EU countries.
Question 10
Q10: What is the legislature of the EU?
A10: The European Union is not a state and it does not have a conventional parliamentary structure.
The EU is an association of sovereign states that have agreed to work together in some matters and only those matters. So in those matters (only), decisions are made either by unanimity (in some cases) or by qualified majority voting in most other cases. Neither the Commission nor the Parliament has any authority ["competence" in Eurospeak] to act in any matter that is outwith the scope of the treaties. The EU has many characteristics of a confederation in matters where (by treaty) collective action is agreed but not otherwise.
It does not have a conventional legislature, and it is a mistake to shoe-horn it into a conventional model. It does not have a Constitution but the fundamental principles of its operation are determined by the (unanimously approved) Treaties of the European Union. Strategic direction is set by the European Council of heads of government. The Parliament is primarily a consultative body: it was a positive choice not to give the ability to propose legislation because the member states did not want their sovereignty usurped. The role of the Commission is to police compliance with the treaties and, where ambiguities arise, to draft Regulations and Directives to make the intentions clear - just as any national civil service does. In doing this, it is strongly guided by experts from member states – it has neither the capacity nor the authority to do so unilaterally. In each sector, it is directed by the national ministers (the Council of the European Union) with that national portfolio.
The role of the Parliament in this is to give (or deny) political approval, or to require amendments.
The EU does not have a Government with a capital G but it certainly does have government: see Institutions of the European Union. Thus there are some activities that are aspects of a legislature but it is just wrong to suppose any direct equivalence with such things as the US House of Representatives, Senate and Administration (Office of the President).
Question 11
Q11: Who is the President of the European Union?
A11: The official title President of the European Union (or President of Europe) does not exist, but there are a number of presidents of European Union institutions, including:
Alongside these the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers or simply "the Council") containing 27 national ministers, one of each nation, rotates its presidency by country. This presidency is held by a country, not a person; meetings are chaired by the minister from the country holding the presidency (depending on the topic, or "configuration"), except for the Foreign Affairs Council (one so-called "configuration" of the Council of the EU), which is usually chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
