Talk:Institutions of the European Union

Institutions of the European Union was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 23, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

A summary of this article appears in European Union.

European Union High‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Merger proposal

I'm proposing to merge in the institution section of European Union law. I'm really not sure why the European Union law should have an institutions section at all, so I'm proposing to move in any useful information into this article and then delete the section from the European Union law article. Caveat lector 01:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, EU law has no need for the information, should be covered here. I'll start copying over useful information (if it does not have a citation then I will copy it here until it does or something so it doesn't bugger up the GA chances. - J Logan ^t: 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the info was duplcated or weaker, I've put in a section on acts and procedures though but all that data I've left on the law page as it is relevant there too. I've srunk that section down and given an overview for understanding but it still needs a general clean up like the rest of that article.

On the CoA point, it may not judge on laws but it is a judical body - it judges and controls the other institutions in a judical manner - even if it doesn't have cases as such, hence its name being that of "Court". It is too small to survive on its own (there is very little data on it anyway) and they ought to be kept seperate of the "political instituions" section - (and there is little point in a section called "institutions" in an article of that name). - J Logan ^t: 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Auditors

copied from Talk:European Union

I know the sentence about the Court of Auditors looked a bit out of place in the main paragraph on governance, but the reason I moved it out it out of the legal system section was that, despite its name, isn't a law court and has almost nothing in common with either the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance. I just feel that putting all of these courts together gives a misleading impression of the functions of these bodies which can only add to the confusion already created by the name of the Court of Auditors. Caveat lector 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a judical body though. It may not deal with law but it is does not lie within the executive or legislative branches hence it would be misleading to place it with those. I reckon it makes more sence for judical bodies to me mentioned together, their overall role within the government is the same even if they are dealing with different elements. - J Logan ^t: 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Court of Auditors is not a judicial body. It does not have any judicial functions. Its name is a misnomer. The Europa website says the same thing. Caveat lector 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to have a look at this quiz by the Oxford University Press. Caveat lector 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, this official document issued by the Court of Auditors confirms that the court has no judicial powers. Caveat lector 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know it does not have judical powers, but its function is of a judical nature. In that it composed of judges that judge, if you know what I mean. - J Logan ^t: 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think I do! The Court of Auditors is not composed of judges. They do not judge anything. There is no requirement that members have any legal experience. They are accountants. Caveat lector 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did a judge have legal experience! And they judge the accounts. However thinking about it in this case do we even need to mention it? It is far from important and is only an institution to give it independence. (we still need to sort it out for the institutions page of course be we can continue this on that talk page?) - J Logan ^t: 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree: The Court of Auditors is pretty insignificant. I'll remove the reference to if from this article and respond to you on the institution's talk page. Caveat lector 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cheating! Its no fun if you agree to disagree! I demand you oppose my argument! :) - J Logan ^t: 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the case in point there is no separation of powers in the community. Both the Commission and the Council exercise both legislative and executive powers. Caveat lector 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing legislation isn't exactly legislative power in the parliamentary sence. And yes the Council has both, but that seems to be changing with the European Council taking most of it on. Not sure what is left (aside from their own national implementation power). But how does that affect the CoA?

On the point though, to compromise we could have it as non-political instituions? However I think we need some expansion on the CoA information, there is very little but I can't think of anything to say about it. After all it is only an institution for legitimacy reasons. - J Logan ^t: 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hello, I am the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any questions regarding this GA review or GA reviews(of me) in general, do not hesitate to ask them. Regards, Daimanta 11:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Once a position is agreed, it has to be approved by Parliament again by an absolute majority"

wikilink "absolute maojority" , Daimanta 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Caveat lector 15:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the background section I am kind of missing why the coal and steel union was formed. Can somebody insert a short reason why it was formed? Daimanta 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about this article is that I am missing the "why" of this article. This article lists all the institutions but not when or why they were formed. This needs to be elaborated. Regards, Daimanta 12:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do on these. It is a big question - esp. on ECSC - but I should be able to get something for you on this. - J Logan ^t: 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? - J Logan ^t: 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The catch is the more history we include, the more we duplicate information in the History of the European Union article. Answering the question of why the institutions exist isn't really that different form answering the question of why the EU exists. Caveat lector 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but duplicate information is always going to happen. If you leave it out, the article will become more like a list instead of a full fledged article. You can already see it by the references to the main article of every institution in every paragraph. I think it is necesairy for making THIS article comprehensible. The article should always stand on itself as much as reasonably possible. Regards, Daimanta 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to give it more of a slant to the institutions, even though there is repetition of data in terms of treaties. I think it isn't too bad though as it is giving information about the institutions - I tried to steer away from giving too much info on why the ECSC was created, I don't think that is the principle of this article, it should be found in the others. - J Logan ^t: 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the article is GA worthy. I will wait 5 hours for any comments. After that I will grant it GA. Regards, Daimanta 10:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Ok, the article has passed. I would like to thank the authors of this article for making this a GA and Caveat Lector and JLogan for completing my requests. Regards, Daimanta 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work! - J Logan ^t: 18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities with Germany?

There is a section dealing with similarities between EU institutions and Swiss government. I think there are also many similarities to German system of government. For example, the role of the Council is similar to German Bundesrat and the system of exclusive competence and shared competence between member states and the EU is similar to competences between federal and Länder level in Germany. The Bundesrat has annually rotating presidency and it's composed of representatives of the Land governments, etc. Should somebody write something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.99.38 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kelemen's book

I have been perhaps to quick to revert an anon's inclusion of Mr Kelemen's book. I did it because the phrase "EU laws are more detailed when compared with member states laws", seemed rather strange to me as EU directives are generally less detailed when compared to the national law which implement them. I do not have access to the book but I have looked at this article by the same author. I gather that his core theory is actually not that EU laws are more detailed, as such, but rather that there are more of them and disputes which in the past would have been with on a "man to man" basis would now end up in the courts. Or in other words, in the past the relevant government minister would have called in the industry chiefs for a "chat" but now governments have less scope to sort out ad hoc solutions and disputes over complicated EU rules are likely to end to in the courts.

The rules are detailed but this isn't his main point. In any case, this isn't about comparing federal or confederal structures, the subject of the rest of the paragraph, but about the normative consequences of EU rules. I'm not sure where this belongs in Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong here.

In any case, I don't think making a statement and footnoting a whole book qualifies with citing sources. Please give page numbers.

Please free to report this to an admin, if you want. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

google books In member states, the holes are normally pluged by a minister directly, in the EU, it's the courts, they do this IN PURPOSE, it's not an accident, or a mare technicality. The USA do this too, they both use overdetailed laws, to have a level of executive control over the states, that they don't "officially" have. You getting the trickery now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.106 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book says nothing approaching what you're trying to attribute to it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of comparison section

I am wondering to what extent the comparison with Germany etc. is relevant to an article on "Institutions of the European Union" (as opposed to the constitution of the EU, for instance).

The newly added section comparing the EU with the USA looks like original research, in that there are no citations mentioning a comparison between the two entities. I am not even sure what the purpose of the USA column is.--Boson (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new US bit doesn't seem right, partially because it is powers rather than institutions, but I think comparison is necessary. The EU is hard to get to grips with, if you draw comparisons with this or that it can help people to understand how it applies. Germany is a good example due to the federal system and the involvement of the states in federal politics, particularly by drawing the similarities between the Council and the German upper chamber. Swiss system is of course obvious. US house of rep because of the separation of powers - no comparison on Europe.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

number of institutions will increase to seven

This statement in the lede follows a list of seven institutions. Am I not getting something or is this just rubbish? Tomeasy_{T C} 07:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is dealt with in the Lisbon section, I've reduced it to a line, I do wish people would stop randomly quoting treaties without good reason. It just takes up a shed load of room for no reason and can be confusing.- _J.Logan`^t: 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clearly stated where each of the institutions is located

I propose we clearly state at each subsection where that institution is located:

European parliament.

Location:Brussels.

description....

Do you agree?--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the location for an individual institution, you can click on the link to the main article. I'm not sure the location needs to be put in the summary for each institution.

It might be useful to present the information in tabular form in in the Location section. Or perhaps we could include the infobox from Location of European Union institutions, since this is a summary. :--Boson (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the infobox from location of would be needless duplication, it is quite big after all. We have a whole extra article dedicated to this and as the institutions are spread out a bit, it won't be a simple two word line at the top. Locations are already mentioned enough, it is hardly the most important element of the institution; powers and mandate are more important.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:European Parliament Distance modified.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:European Parliament Distance modified.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:European Parliament Distance modified.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I think the template is really helpful in this article. Of course the body text is important, too, but this table gives a first overview. — Allrounder (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luxemburg?

Hello!

In the part European institutions Luxemburg is written. Shouldn't it be Luxembourg instead?

Greetings! --Cleverle (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Boson (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Political_System_of_the_European_Union.svg has no reliable source

the image has no source of the information in it depicted. in source it simply says: own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.245.239 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> Fostering a European identity is unlikely to be a successful method for increasing citizens’ trust in the EU(Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

EU institutions template

This article transcludes the template {{EU institutions}}. This seems to be used only in two places and results in text and images being duplicated. Would it be more sensible to remove the template and merge non-duplicated material into the running text where appropriate? --Boson (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. The template adds nothing useful to the article which is already written in summary format. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t

Images

This article seems to be cluttered with images. Firstly there is the template problem mentioned above, which means that many images are duplicated. Even without that duplication, there are several pictures of parliamentary chambers that don't really add much? Do we really need pictures of so many non-EU legislative chambers, all looking rather similar. And do we need pictures of so many empty conference rooms, whatever the purpose of those rooms. Also, some of the images don't have captions. Shouldn't we remove several of the images, and then think about captions? --Boson (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. We should probably do with two or three. Moreover most of the images we do have have suspect copyright status. The absence of freedom of panorama in Belgium, France and Luxembourg dents our ability to get nice pictures. Even some of the ones we have are probably fairly suspect. The logos are all copyright as well. I'd suggest we go with:

The ECB building (They have freedom of panorama in Germany).
The "family photograph" of EU leaders in the European Council.
An individual (we have plenty of Barroso). — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have made start by removing the logos.--Boson (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams on right

Just below the summary box, on the right of the article, there are two diagrams which seem to do the same job and one of which is not an SVG. Should we remove the non-SVG diagram (it's in French as well!)? Ads20000 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Institutions of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Institutions of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfathomable discourse (1)

In the Establishment and Changes section, we have “In 1957 the Treaties of Rome established two similar communities, creating a common market (European Economic Community) and promoting atomic energy co-operation (Euratom). The three institutions .... “ Similar to what? The reader is left to wonder. Which three? The reader is left to wonder. Boscaswell talk 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In English . . . .

The titles Council of the European Union and European Council are only distinguished by the difference between the word Union in the first reference and its absence in the second. It is possible that the more precise grammar of other languages does distinguish between the two but not in English where Council of the European Union is included, in the absence of a clear exception, in the title European Council. It is obviously unclear since the article on the European Council states explicitly that the European Council is a body of the European Union.

Currently the article recognises the possibility of confusion e.g. (Not to be confused with Council of the European Union or Council of Europe.) but does nothing to remove the confusion. I suggest someone with an intimate knowledge of these bodies resolve this matter. That such confusion should exist in an encyclopedia is highly undesirable.

Currently I make no observation on the similarity between Council of Europe and European Council. Is there a difference?--Damorbel (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it must have seemed like a good idea at the time to have names that are so similar but what were they thinking of?!

The European Council (EUCO) consists of the heads of national governments.
The Council of the European Union (which really should have been Councils since there are many of them) consists of the Government Minister from each state, who is responsible for the policy area being debated. See [[Council of the European Union#Configurations for a list of these policy areas. In practice, it is the acronyms that are used to disambiguate. --Red King (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candy

Candy 2603:7000:CC00:59DC:3CFE:7FB3:F46:F720 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is an orange "original research" banner at the top of the "Comparisons" section. I agree with this banner, and I do not think this section is needed in this article, and recommend its removal.
The lead does not summarise the contents of the article.
I think the article might be better served as a list rather than an article.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Institutions of the European Union

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is formatted as a list: this article might be better served as a list article. There is also an orange banner for original research from 2024 in the "Comparisons" section and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.