Template talk:Structural evolution of the European Union Arc…

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Structural evolution of the European Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

SEA

I have added Single European Act in 1987.

The Timeline is wrong. The European Union didn't start until the Treaty on European Union or Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1992

Hard to understand

This chart is rather hard to understand. Some squares are unlabelled, some entities appear twice, and it's unclear what entities merged off of or joined with others vs. what jurisdictions they had. -- Beland 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the image cleanup tag. The chart appears to be significantly improved since the tag was placed. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Euratom

Euratom didn't come into effect until 1957, unlike the chart shows, but I don't know how exactly to change it. 68.40.190.93 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ECSC

The ECSC lasted until 2002 now it looks like it ended in year 2000.Benkeboy 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New design

Absolutely wonderful. —Nightstallion 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Title bar needed

This table badly needs a title bar to explain what it is. My attempts have failed miserably so I've walked away rather than risk ruining it. --Red King (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This template is mostly used as in-text illustration, and the surrounding text in the various articles should explain and introduce this timeline with a colon, IMO. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement

As somebody introduced the Western European Union I think its' necessary to introduce also the Schengen Agreement! Can somebody do it? Sinigagl (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Schengen is only one part of the cooperation, like the euro. The WEU is a separate organisation. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? The Schengen Agreement has been inserted in the TEC from the Treaty of Amsterdam and called Schengen acquis. It is part of the european integration: before there were separate institutions, then everything is done by the EU institutions.

There should be a new bar beginning in 1985 and going into the European Community bloc beginning from 1999.

In fact WEU should not be disappearing while going into the EU in the graph: as you told it's still a separate working institution.

Sinigagl (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the WEU remains in the timeline! It's just that the Amsterdam Treaty moved some of its elements under the EU's CFSP. The Schengen acquis is not, and has never been an organisation, no matter under which circumstances it was formed. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably I'm not so capable to explain.

For sure Schengen was an organization: it had an Executive Committee which has been created under the agreement from 1985 (actually from 1990) to 1999. But even if it was not an organization this is not the point: Schengen is a piece of EU evolvement.

Just like the WEU. What I wanted to say was that the Weu bar should not disappear as it does now from 1999: it should remain a (thinner) band, because WEU it's still working, even if some part of it has been taken by the EU's CFSP.

Sinigagl (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. Are you using Internet Explorer? That browser messes up the table. In Opera and Firefox, the WEU bar is still there after 1999, just thinner. -

\mathrm {S}

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. But what about Schengen? Sinigagl (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ECSC & Euratom

The recent changes look good, and I think its good the WEU is there, in particular the better grouping of "European Communities". However after that I don't think it makes clear that the other two communities were operated by the EEC - while they were separate, it make it look like they were totally autonomous.- J Logan ^t: 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the pillar

While it all looks great now, Euratom and ECSC were/are part of the EC pillar,* they may all have their own little area but they are technically all part of the same European Community and this doesn't reflect that. It looks like they are totally detached from the EU and the Community method.- J Logan ^t: 19:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The EU was built on the European (Economic) Community, and expressly not the other two. This can be quite confusing because prior to Maastricht the words "European Community" were commonly used to refer to the European Communities, but Maastricht renamed one of the communities, the European Community and left the other two mostly untouched.

This kind of links in with what I'm saying on the European Communities Talk page. Legally speaking the European Communities still exists, in the sense that there are still legally distinct communities (the EC and Euratom) which share the same institutions. Rather than showing the European Communities as ending with Maastricht, I proposed to show them along with the EU pillars as two overlapping semi-squares. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unintelligible

It took me a long time to figure out that this timeline was not saying that the EU does not exist, and even then I could only figure it out because I knew that to be false. A naive reader would think that the EC was founded some time after the Maastricht Treaty, and that the EU is scheduled to come into being perhaps in 2009. The Czech timeline is much clearer. This really needs to be cleaned up. (In the meantime I labeled the dates of the founding of the EC and EU.) kwami (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new version

I realise it a little squashed but this better reflects the time passed between the treaties. It also gives more emphasis to the EU, so that people like the user above won't say we're trying to say the EU doesn't exist. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were trying to say the EU doesn't exist, I was saying that a naive reader will take your chart to state that the EU might be founded in 2009, with the Lisbon treaty. Your version isn't any better. You have "EU pillars" at 1993, but there are two probs: 1. how is the reader supposed to know that means the same thing as "European Union" without first reading the article? (which many people won't do: that's why we have charts!)—I mean, if that's the case, then according to the chart there's also been an organization around since 1967 called "EuroComms"—and 2. the letters are struck out, "~~EU pillars~~", so as to be almost illegible at first glance.

IMO what we need for easy comprehension is a continuous area of blue from 1993 that is clearly marked "European Union", with "pillars" parenthetical. kwami (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Could you give me an idea of what you think it shoudl look like? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, which is why I simply tagged 1993 as "(EU founded)", but here's a suggestion that might be of some use:

The "pillars" column should go. It appears to be something other than the EU because it is a separate block of color. (Yes, the same color, but how often have you wondered whether two discontinuous colors on a map are really the same or not?) Also, the vertical text format is bad, unless you can override the underscoring, because each underscore strikes out the letter beneath it. I suppose an EU row above the pillars—something like "European Union (↓pillars↓)", maybe?—that forms a solid blue space with the post-Lisbon era so that it's clear these are the same thing. (For 1967, just overriding the underscoring should be sufficient IMO.)

Then of course we'd have the lesser problem (as we have now) of the EU appearing to be distinct from the pillars, but maybe your current solution of arrows and a runner of blue framing the pillars is sufficient to clarify that it's not.

And my suggestion would disrupt the continuity of the EEC → EC. Are they currently meant to be the same entity under different names, which graphically they appear to be? I wouldn't want to mess that up, but don't have an idea that would allow us to do both. kwami (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually never mind, I withdraw my proposed changes. What we really need is an image. The table is impossible to edit and really limiting. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me now. Very clear. I'd only recommend some minor touch ups, such as the eliminating the blank space after coal & steel, adding the missing EU outline under CFSP, and perhaps adding a gap between EURATOM and EEC so that the EU pillars don't take a bite out of the EEC in the transition to the EC (not sure if the latter would be an improvement or not). But even as it stands, I think it's clearly superior to what we now have. kwami (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple touch ups to your sandbox. Are they an improvement? kwami (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Display issues

Has anyone else noticed how this template looks when it's printed? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like this:

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost two years on and this issue has yet to be addressed. Turning this template into an svg images should seriously be considered. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Years changed

Celebrations to mark the 50th birthday of the EU (March 2007)

Someone changed the years. The Treaty of Paris (1951) is now listed in the year it came into force (1952). This is irritating. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I realise the Treaty of Paris is the "1951 Treaty of Paris" and not the "1952 Treaty of Paris", but otherwise the date a treaty was signed is of relatively little value. Similarly the EU and its pillars were created in 1993 not 1992. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Who told you this? Just read Wikipedia. Header Maastricht Treaty: "This article is about the European Union treaty of 1992." And can't you remember EU celebrates 50th birthday two years ago? --Kolja21 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

EU founded in 1948?

First the dates have been changed, now the year 1948 (Treaty of Brussels) was added.[1] What's the benefit of destroying the international version of the timeline? It's troublesome that the English-speaking Wikipedia gets its own EU history, different from all other languages/countries. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Wow. Impressive use of WikiMedia tables! --Rebroad (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes

Hi, Ssolbergj. There are certain things that don't look good with your latest changes:

The text looks crushed in some of the fields: EPC, "Unconsolidated bodies", Pillars.
The text spacing is not the same in all fields, which looks strange.
The total width of all columns is now 103% (plus the new "shading columns") which some browsers don't render correctly.
Removing the cellpadding entirely makes things hard to read, especially since the years and the names of the treaties are squashed straight to the grey lines without any space.
The abbreviations in the treaties line are a loss of information. Especially "EU est." is not understandable at all for a first time reader. The height of the whole chart shouldn't be a problem; if there's a 'compactness problem' at all, then in the width of the chart. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem to write out the treaties in full.
The grey lines were purposely only drawn to the bodies they are relevant for. E.g. the Treaty of Paris has nothing to do with the "unconsolidated bodies", therefore the line should not extend down to the bottom but only to the ECSC. The same applies to the Treaties of Rome and the Merger Treaty.
The background of the template shouldn't be white but transparent. Otherwise it interferes with some users' personal colour settings.
While the shading on the right is a nice idea generally, there's a problem with the "pix.gif" image. It leaves an artifact the middle of the field (at least with Internet Explorer). Is there no way to get the shading effect without using an image?

I'd like to fix the above problems or at least find a reasonable compromise. Any objections? --Informatico (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree than spacing, line-height and padding should be uniform where it's appropriate. Nevertheless, I think the overall design should be as compact as reasonably possible.
The ideal thing is of course to have width sum of 100%. In this case, the number did perhaps surpass 100 when I was trying to make the shading fields work. Let's fix it if we can, but I don't see what harm it does to the rendering, especially since "width=100%" is specified in the top of the table anyway (doesn't that override the sum of other widths?)
I agree, the treaty names should have some padding to their left. The same might go for the years, but I don't think they look bad at all right now.
I think most people will understand that "EU est." means "EU established". When you start introducing the long and formal names of the treaties (e.g. "Treaty of European Union" in addition to the short name), it creates an unnecessary inconsistency when you e.g. just as well can write simply "EU est."
Ah, alright now I see what you meant by removing some of the gray lines. Originally they were meant as "points in time" marking each treaty on the timeline. I'm not so sure the system of "drawing to the bodies they are relevant for" works very well in practice; especially since it's impossible to do it in the part of the timeline where there is no white space.
Could you elaborate on what you said about "some users' personal colour settings"? Isn't the background of wikipedia articles always white?
If I knew how to remove the "pix.gif" image successfully, I'd do it. But the table seems fine in my IE.

Additionally, I'd like to say that compactness is of course an important aspect. It has to do with accessability (e.g. for smaller screens) above all. There should be as few line-breaks as possible. But one should also take into consideration how this timeline is pasted into tens of articles almost as a "see also" collection of wikilinks, and not for the sake of having a big, centrepiece illustration. The timeline should look nice, but as compact and small as reasonably possible IMO. - SSJ ☎ 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your latest changes and the 'shading' looks much better now. I found out what the problem was: it wasn't the 1x1 pixel image but rather the "|" after the image. It was just so small (because of the "font-size:0" you also removed) that it wasn't bigger than a pixel or so.

What I still think is ugly is that the font lines are so cramped in several fields. Especially the 'PILLARS' field is hardly readable anymore. It would be better to restore the line-height to the original values (1.2em) in all fields and reduce the font-size instead in some fields (for instance the headlines). What I don't understand: if compactness is really such an issue, why did you foil that by increasing the font-size of the headlines?

As for your questions:

If the sum of the percentages is bigger than 100%, the field that surpasses the 100% will be shortened in some browsers. In IE, you can see that Lisbon is smaller than Amsterdam or Nice although they have the same percentage.

The   to the left of the years etc. makes the proportions incorrect since now the space to the left is too big. It would be better to use a sensible padding value instead -- since that's what padding is there for typographically. (The same applies to all fields with text inside as even though the text is centered, it may touch the edges of the fields if the browser window is resized to certain values.)

I don't insist in using the formal names (I agree with the inconsistency argument) of the treaties but I don't think that abbreviations such as "Agr.", "est." or even "SEA" provide enough information, especially if the chart is printed out and one cannot hover the mouse over it to see where the link would go. It would be better to write out the names in full if there is not just a "Treaty" or "Treaty of" missing (which would not create inconsistencies) and to find another solution for Maastricht. One way to solve the problem might be to write "EU" instead of "PILLARS". This would also tackle the compactness issue you're worried about since it would require less vertical space even with sensible font-size and line-height settings (as I said, the "PILLARS" field is hardly readable at the moment).

I don't insist in the grey lines to be drawn only to the relevant bodies, but at least they must be drawn everywhere where there is white space. By removing the " " bits, several of the empty fields don't show the border correctly anymore in some browsers. (I had corrected that in my last version but now it's broken again.)

Users can define their own stylesheets for Wikipedia which may use other backgrounds than white.

--Informatico (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the extra 3% (or something) in width messes up the rendering in some browsers, then we should obviously get rid of them. With that being said, I think it would make enough sense to have a smaller width for Lisbon, as it is the latest treaty, has just come into force, plus the fact that writing "European Union (EU)" requires relatively little space.
What do you mean by "headlines"?
Yes, I did consider using style="padding-left:2px" instead of &nbsp ;, but the latter takes less space (i.e. tidier code) and the difference wouldn't be that big. Perhaps padding-left would be better though.
I would have agreed with you if we were talking about some obscure abbreviations. But I think "Paris Agr." and "EU est." simply cannot be misunderstood in this context. "Est." is for instance extremely common. "SEA" should perhaps be replaced with "Single Act" (often used name).
What browser are you using? "Pillars" looks good to me both in Opera, Firefox and IE.
Please, do write background:none into the code if you want to, but IMHO, transparent vs. white for the wiki users who are using special stylesheets must be one of the least important reasons to write additional code. And I don't see the point if one can't adjust the transparency of the "shading" fields.

- SSJ ☎ 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the widths.
Headlines = the first 3 lines (signed, in force, treaty).
I'll try and fix (and harmonise) the padding tomorrow.
Single Act is OK, but I still don't understand why a second line would be a problem (especially as also the "EU est." breaks onto a new line if the browser window is too small - so it wouldn't really make a difference anyway).
I use IE 8 with Windows XP. Strangely, on Vista (also with IE 8) the borders are displayed correctly also if the cell is empty.
I don't really mind about the background thing. The font sizes and padding are more important to fix. As for the pillars (and some other fields): if you mark the text, no line should be "overshadowed" by the subsequent line; the same applies to the underlining of the link (if you hover the mouse over it) which shouldn't interfere with the following lines. Otherwise the lines are just too close to each other, which is a typographical nightmare. I'll have a go at fixing that tomorrow where it's wrong.

--Informatico (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course "Maastricht (EU est.)" breaks into two lines on a small enough screen, but that could be said of any piece of text in this template. It does make a difference that we choose shorter options: it reduces the number of line breaks on smaller screens. I don't believe anyone thinks that a line break is beautiful per se, and I just wrote why I think compactness (e.g. fewer line breaks) is important with regard to accessibility etc.
I don't think potential "overshadowing when marked" and "interfering underlining when the mouse hovers over the link" override what I consider to be the only essential requirement: that the letters themselves don't overlap. There is no Wikipedia policy on this, so please don't write as if something simply "is wrong". Let's discuss it instead. If you think the letters are too close, then that's an honest opinion, but it's not a given rule that 'text shall not overshadow when marked' etc.
Where do you want "harmonisation"?

- SSJ ☎ 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

By "wrong" I didn't mean a specific Wikikedia policy but some simple rules of Typography which existed long before Wikipedia.
I do understand your compactness argument, but it just makes no sense to me to remove the padding of the cells and to reduce the line-height, if on the other hand, you foil the gained compactness by other changes such as:
- increasing the font size of the 3 headlines and making the treaty names bold
- adding the "shading" rows on the right
- adding the timeline marks on the bottom

Don't get me wrong: I think that the latter two changes make the chart look better. But not if the price for that is that the core information (the cells with the actual text) is made worse.

My suggestions for harmonising the layout: First the "must-have"s:
- changing the line-height to 1.2em in all cells where there is text
- changing the cell-padding to 1px in all cells where there is text
- removing the   pseudo-padding in the headlines
On that basis there would be several possibilities to play with in order to gain compactness, for instance:
- changing the width of Merger and Single Act (now 12% / 12%, might be 7% / 17% or so) to get the EPC field less high
- reducing the font-size in the 3 headlines
- reducing the font-size of "Treaty of Paris expired in 2002" and "Unconsolidated bodies" to 95% so that they require less space if broken onto two lines (this would also better distinguish them from the "real" organisations)

or similar. I think there are enough ways to make the chart more compact without crushing the text and making it look typographically bad.

--Informatico (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the whole thing if these line-height adjustments can be as they are. I don't think a line-height of 85% in these places give a typographical nightmare. Are you OK with this as a compromise? - SSJ ☎ 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of "compromise" would that be? It's even more crushed than before! Now the EPC has no space between the lines at all anymore with Internet Explorer 8. What kind of browser or screen are you using? I don't see how 20 pixels height more or less can be a problem. Unless you're trying to squeeze the chart onto an iPhone or something like that.

Line-heights shouldn't be percentages at all but always a typographical unit such as "em" or similar.

As you seem to try to squeeze the EPC field as much as possible (for some reason I don't understand), I've now abbreviated it. You know I don't like these kinds of abbreviations, but that's still better than having no space at all between the lines . --Informatico (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The abbreviation is bad and inconsistent with the rest, let's drop it.
Em is used across the template now. line-height:0.95em for "pillars" looks fine in IE8, Opera and Firefox. There is at least one pixel between the letters. One of the reasons why 0.95em is needed here is because normal line-height stretches out the height of the EPC field drastically (looks terrible in Opera for example).

- SSJ ☎ 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the pillars still look cramped to me in IE 8 but it's on the brink of what's still acceptable. By "having no space between the lines" I didn't mean the pillars but the EPC -- which now finally looks like all the other fields (i.e. OK). In exchange I'll accept the pillars as they are now. --Informatico (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The WEU

I guess the real question is: how important the WEU is to the EU and does it really deserve the same amount of space as it given to the European Economic Community? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to say that if we are to have the WEU in this template, we should definitely not exclude the Treaty of Brussels. The Treaty of Brussels appears to be the entire essence of the WEU today.

Trying to decide how much space one element "deserves" in relation to the rest will get us nowhere I think, but I can see what you mean. This template clearly doesn't have a scope that includes all of European integration. The pan-European Council of Europe is for example not included (and nor should it IMO). The WEU did however start off with a more exclusive membership, very similar to the ECSC. The weak beginning of the WEU wouldn't have been included in this template if the organisation and the treaty had disappeared early on. The systematic integration of the WEU into the EU system that began with Amsterdam does however IMO justify the inclusion of the WEU in this template. Even more so considering some drastic further integration into the EU/disintegration of the WEU might happen very soon WEU#Current_status_and_future. - SSJ ☎ 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the WEU should be kept for the above reasons. I wouldn't mind too much if the Brussels Treaty went and the chart started with 1951/2. But I don't think that's essential unless one were worried about the space available in the chart (which I don't think is a problem).

But there's another factual error still included in the chart, which should be corrected sometime soon. The first pillar of the Maastricht EU was not just the European Community but the European Communities. Currently, the chart looks like the European Communities ended with Maastricht, which is not true -- they existed until Lisbon entered into force.

Article A of the original (1992) version says: "The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by this Treaty."

I'm still pondering how to best include that in the chart without making it too cluttered or too big. --Informatico (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all of Maastricht, but your quote doesn't seem to indicate that the "European Communities" was a pillar like the CFSP and JHA were. - SSJ ☎ 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Maastricht Treaty says and what was common practice until Lisbon. The first pillar was all three (resp. two after the ECSC expired) communities, not just the EC formerly known as EEC. The European Communities legally existed until two months ago; most institutions, such as the Commission, were officially called "... of the European Communities". The Maastricht Treaty itself also refers to all three communities throughout. Therefore saying that the first pillar was just the European Community rather than the entire European Communities is not correct. --Informatico (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WEU, it perhaps warrants inclusion above CoE as it is related to the evolution of the system where as CoE has been static and separate. Whether it has the same space as EEC is besides the point, this is a graphical representation, not indicating how important each is. However, it would help to clarify things if we had more data on the current status of the WEU. News as dried up entirely and their own website is dead - can't even find out the interim SG. If it is in there though, I agree Brussels should be mentioned.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has literally been no news released on the internet regarding the WEU since EUobserver's article on the future of the Brussels Treaty. Our next opportunity to get an update will perhaps be the official statement after the next formal European Council meeting. I'd also like to ask a journalist to find out when Franco Frattini and other leaders will do what they've said and launch enhanced cooperation in defence. - SSJ ☎ 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can now let it go away quietly by having its stripe end on 31 March 2010... —Nightstallion 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New layout

I have updated the chart to correct the first pillar of the Maastricht/Amsterdam/Nice (MAN in the following) EU. The new layout has the following improvements compared to the previous one:

It is now visible that the European Communities existed until Lisbon came into force, and that they (as a whole) constituted the first pillar of the MAN EU.
Due to the different shades of blue one can see that the MAN EU and the Lisbon EU are two totally different legal constructions (the former was an 'umbrella' for the 3 pillars whereas the latter is an organisation on its own).
It is clearly visible now that Maastricht founded the EU, therefore the (EU est.) is no longer needed, which makes the 'treaties line' more consistent.
By removing the 'vertically printed' pillars column, we get rid of a lot of problems with font sizes, line heights etc., as well as the problem that the appearance varies significantly in different browsers.
The arrows now indicate the individual pillars, at the beginning and at the end of the MAN era.

--Informatico (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this not now show EURATOM being part of the EU until 2009 and then separate from it? If it was part of the EC pillar in 1993, then surely it is as integrated now as it was then?- _J.Logan`^t: 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

EURATOM is still an organisation of its own that is legally separate from the EU (although they share the same Commission etc.). The same applied to the MAN era, where EC and EURATOM (and ECSC) were legally separate organisations. The "European Communities" were an umbrella term for EC, ECSC and EURATOM. On top of that, the MAN EU was an umbrella term for the European Communities and the other two pillars (CFSP and JHA/PJCC not being organisations but intergovernmental policies).

The Lisbon EU is now an organisation with a legal personality. It is the legal successor of the EC. On top of that, the policies of the 2nd and the 3rd pillar were integrated into the Lisbon EU.

Therefore, EURATOM is not part of the EU, just linked to it. There is, however, no umbrella term anymore that would describe both the Lisbon EU and EURATOM. --Informatico (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Schengen Agreement

Should we add the Schengen Agreement? It is listed in the Template:EU treaties and declarations. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

slight error i think. It should been absorbed in the European community, not the CFSP.--217.112.177.211 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite know why I assumed it was incorporated into the CFSP. But I guess you are right; I'll change it. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Try Justice and Home Affairs. In any event the actual Schengen rules originate form 1995 when Schengen was put into effect and not 1985 when the initial agreement was signed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Can I suggest that the final column on the right be widened? It now covers a period of 5 years, but appears very narrow compared to a similar column, such as the Single European Act (6 years). Maybe the same width as Maastricht? The way it is now, it looks like it hasn't been updated. Just a suggestion! Thanks. 86.163.28.35 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

JHA to PJCC

Article claims the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar changed to the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) in 2003, however the timeline conversely indicates this happened in 1999. 81.106.49.232 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Structural evolution of the European Union/Archive 1

SEA

Hard to understand

Euratom

ECSC

New design

Title bar needed

Schengen Agreement

ECSC & Euratom

Under the pillar

Unintelligible

Proposed new version

Display issues

Years changed

EU founded in 1948?

Well done

Latest changes

The WEU

New layout

Schengen Agreement

Suggestion

JHA to PJCC