760:/ Outer Seven relation to the text (only the English Knowledge (XXG) has it as a standalone article while the other wikipedia languages tend to speak about a different speeds in europe in a separate article covering multiple terms). I think you are right that looking at "two speeds" in the integration process is the normal way to look at the speed attribution of European integration - "multi-speed europe" seems to be more of a compromise for a general term that even covers terms like Europe-a-la-carte (which I expect more to be a British invention). The table itself is a compressed way to look at the speed attribution (there are more than 100 treaties in Europe that could be joined or not) that only makes sense when looking at other terms covering the speed attribution of the European integration process. So may I assume that you think the speed attribution has been overemphasized with this article? Note that in Germany and France the Core Europe idea had been covered in the media for decades very often so I would not say it is overemphasized in itself but the other terms seem to have come up around that idea (mostly trying to counter that position) so that one may need to check the article structure again to reflect the two-speeds idea a bit better.
1405:, but the core/two-speed/variable geometry/multi-speed is first and foremost about further integration inside the EU - and only as a collateral bonus it is contemplated whether it can be applied to non-EU states in the form of "advanced partnership", "everything, but institutions" or whatever. But this is a separate issue - the main issue was to find a solution to the reluctance of some EU members to integrate further in some areas and to allow the more willing states to advance further without being held back by the reluctant EU members and without resorting to outside-of-the-EU arrangements (like Schengen initially). As we can see the Enhanced cooperation mechanism is already applied instrument achieving this goal. About the alphabetical order - maybe we should raise this issue at
1382:
themselves always on the front side (i.e. "Core"). Others have a "willing clause" attached. - As to the table itself, well, it was not so much about treaties but about pillars / areas / function groups. So NATO is just a fact foundation for military integration, same goes for Euro on financial system integration and so on. You may choose other facts as the foundation to show integration levels but I humbly ask for selection and integration to allow the reader to have an easy view where the impression of Core/Multispeed comes from. And sure: no alphabetical order please. ;-)
1413:
But what about these in between? I feel uneasy to give "importance" ranks to the different initiatives, but let's see if you will agree with my suggestion - the Euro is obviously quite important. Then comes
Schengen and then the rest of the opt-outs (CSDP, PJC, CFR) - PJC is also a CVM. Next I will put the Enhanced cooperations (Divorce, Patent), then Prum, then Symbols. Resulting in something like (but, remember I said I'm uneasy making these 'decisions' - and it will become more problematic if/when more vectors emerge):
189:
179:
158:
1312:
sorted by class/color and time/year. The current tables removes the support to give an impression of what multispeed is about - which is that some countries push forward while other countries stay out of some options for an extended period. The tension between them is what this article should talk about and the fact support in the table should point to the foundation (when the actual text about the facts was cut was the only thing that was left to point to the fact support of the idea).
1494:
France-Germany motor and that it was at the heart of the 'core/two-speed' idea, but obviously the practical actions already put the EU on the 'variable geometry/multiple-speed' track - and unfortunately for us, Knowledge (XXG) editors, some states take decision of non participation in some activities and thus complicate our work at describing the EU cooperation and integration. For example, currently in the works is another partial cooperation initiative -
280:
259:
290:
74:
53:
22:
84:
1401:
Luxembourg - but we shouldn't disregard the existence of either of these). In the table I tried to put all cases where we have partial participation not by all EU members, so that we have a complete overview of the multiple integration vectors. NATO is entirely separate organization and its most important member state is non-EU and even non-European. Yes, NATO is a major element of the
907:
relation of having a bunch of formally unrelated treaties and the action to replace them by a single law like the treaty of lisboa. The reader is not given an idea about the tendencies of countries acting towards a strict integration and countries trying to hold off the process arguing for cherry-picking on elements. Overall, the most-parts-deleted article is greatly misleading.
368:
1358:
group of 'core' states, their participation is not uniform across all initiatives (or you have to restrict this group to a very few states and it becomes meaningless). So, the current situation is not one of 'core'/'two-speed', but one of 'multi-speed'/'variable geometry'. And I don't see how we can apply 'single scale metric' - it's more akin to a
575:
although that it is not quite like idea of a federation inside the confederation model that was en vogue a few years back. It can be shown by selecting a range of items from the 100+ integration elements and depict the central cluster as well as the movement into that direction. Of course, using another selection would yield a different result (see
1332:
related to the EU. The second is that it covered only the 'biggest' differentiating initiatives, but omitted others. The third is that it included non-EU states, while at the same time omitting major EU initiatives adopted by third states (such as customs union and single market - the core of the EU itself).
1501:
Anyway, let's wait for your evaluation of the ordering, and if we all agree on the order we can discuss potential mergers of subsequent groups. But this really gets very arbitrary...it looks like us imposing artificial "hard boundaries" where such don't exist (if each subsequent group had a subset of
1488:
Yes, some of the classes may be merged and 1&2 is a prime example - but this means that we entirely disregard Prum/Symbols. And while there are some arguments for disregarding Prum as an external treaty (albeit with specific clauses of supremacy of EU law and that it's open to other EU members) I
1255:
The term is certainly used by the
European (especially UK) press, so it should appear in Knowledge (XXG), even if only a redirect to a paragraph in another article. It is a real concept - some states have a more federalist agenda than others, and in different areas. Unfortunately it is a word used a
1079:
Thanks for the attempt. I still don't understand why the expression "multi-speed" is in there. Is it possible to begin the article with a sentence that says "Multi-speed Europe is the concept of....(whatever it is)." At the moment it tells me that the concept has been debated, but doesn't say what it
775:
Guidod, this is not an academic journal, we are an open encyclopaedia and in order for us to have credibility we need to cite what we claim. Those are the rules of
Knowledge (XXG). This is not philosophy, and if it was I'd remind you that rationalism is not the only strand, here on Knowledge (XXG) we
1469:
I guess that I have to check your arguments in detail but it may be delayed for tomorrow. But let me intervene with one thing - you can not divorce France and
Germany as they are at the heart of the "Core Europe" idea. If it's the SchÀuble-Lamers-paper or other documents, it was them to have brought
1357:
mechanism is institutionalization of this possibility, but we already have such discrepancies in integration, so let's see what they are - because each states has different preferences and objections - for each particular integration initiative we have different set of adopters. And while there is a
973:
Although I agree that this is an important topic and the article is filled with good information, I have nominated it for deletion. The title is very confusing and the article seems to be about one aspect or point of view of a larger topic. Wouldn't it be better to present the information in a more
510:
See everywhere that I've tagged as 'citation required'. Without these, the text reads that an editor is making it up - in other words, original research. If these citations cannot be provided soon, the associated assertions will have to be deleted. (The concept is widely used in the media and so it
1362:
than a single scale. And that's why a table helps us to show the differences of integration. We have UK on the one side (participating only in 2 of the possible deviation initiatives) and
Germany/Belgium/Luxembourg/Austria/Slovenia (5) participating in all of these. And in-between we have all kinds
1331:
article - but somebody ordered it alphabetically) divided the states in only three color groups - green EU member (participating in
Schengen, Eurozone, NATO), yellow EU member (not participating in all of these), non-EU state. The first problem with that table is that it included NATO, which is not
1311:
Having a table with many many columns might be good for
European Integration but for the article of Core Europe / Multispeed-Europe you need a table that puts countries into classes per "level of integration". A single scale metric. The original table was using color for that and the countries were
1139:
OK, I should explain. I'm probably your classic dumb reader here. Yes, I'm an
English speaker, but I'm not English, nor even British. I'm in Australia, a very long way from Europe. Our media pays scant attention to political and other goings on there (except sport, of course). So, I'm starting from
1022:
I've only just come across this article. Never before heard of Multi speed Europe. If Multi speed Europe is a concept, I would dearly love to know what that concept was. Good articles start off by defining the title. This one doesn't. Not to my reading anyway. Major changes are needed to make it at
885:
However, I have tried to get support by other authors interested on the topic over the last weeks - it seems there is neither enough interest in en-wikipedia nor de-wikipedia to join in. I have learned long before that there is not use to fight deletionists alone - so I don't revert the deletion. I
816:
concept that is skipped by deletions. Obviously, the concept of just a "few days before deletion" is overreacting on articles with long text since the authors are not paid to quickly get after clarification requests. It is merely impossible to run through all clarification requests in a short time.
615:
unless and until you find a reliable external source that is saying the same thing. If you can't find appropriate citations, those parts of the text will have to be deleted. This follows from the five tenets of wikipedia as given when you were welcomed to wikipedia. As a sign of my good faith, I
534:
then you can easily see that there is nothing worth about it "to be deleted if not proven" because the prove is waiting next door. As many wikipedians I have not written the full of this article and it would be you to help to get article into a better shape. And as many wikipedians I don't have the
1454:
Comments: exact ranking of some groups is 'not easy/blurry' (between 6/7/8; 8/9/10); 11 - these two are ranked lowest, because they haven't covered criteria for Euro/Schengen/PJC - but generally speaking they 'want' to get inside all these, so unlike the UK these are not 'reluctant', but still got
1412:
So, you propose that we select some of the partial integration initiatives and order the states according to that (currently they are ordered by date of EU accession)? But how do we solve the issue that they are not supersets of each other? The top and bottom groups are obvious (the 5 and the UK).
1201:
I see the issue, HiLo, and I've tried to explain what the concept means in the lede. I'm wondering whether it might be useful to give more real-life examples of cases where a multi-speed Europe actually exists in practice in the lede, to illustrate the concept, rather than the theoretical ones we
737:
myth is a good example because the "reputable media" has called the myth to be the truth while the opinion of native speakers was called WP:NOR according to the rules. In the discussion we managed to allow references to some blog-articles which makes the article look like it is well-referenced but
552:
No, you haven't written all the article but you have added a lot of new material which you have not supported with citation. My POV (which you don't know) â or yours for that matter â is irrelevant: all that matters is that any claims are supported by citation. If you don't have time to find the
457:
The table on Inner Europe visualizes the integration process - and unlike some pictures it can be easily updated as soon as some member countries enter another step in the integration process. From my point of view it also easier to see where countries opt-in to follow the integration process very
1493:
so lightly - yes, the declaration of their acceptance is about a symbolic issue and this has much less practical consequences than any of the other initiatives - but when we compile a class of 'uber-integrators' we can't disregard the symbolic importance. I agree with you that so far the EU had a
1400:
But I don't think that it's "the first 6" vs. "the rest" - such view is coming because right after the first 6 comes the UK (who integrates to the bare minimum), but we have 'big integration' from some of the much more recent members (for example
Slovenia - yes, it's small and insignificant, like
881:
some kind of invention by an editor. A missing reference is however showing only a potential for a personal theory. You used your prejudice on the topic as a ruling that it is not potentially but clearly OR. Obviously you had not been checking with google for evidence that the questioned elements
700:
I haven't read all this discussion above, but this article definitely needs citations badly. Making it more encyclopedic and removing original research seems necessary, above all. The term "two-speed Europe" is clearly a favourite among pundits in their crystalballing about the EU's future, but I
579:
for examples). Still I have the impression that your opposition on depicting the direction in the integration process towards an inner europe comes from doubts that such a thing exists in the first place. Surely, more references would be a good thing to any article but the real importance of that
1120:
Without telling its background - e.g. the schÀuble-lamers-paper of 1994 - the concept of Core Europe still looks faint. It wasn't just a rough concept but more like a definite proposition. Since the
British guys were opposing it may be that the idea did not spread as much in the english-speaking
1455:
ranked near the bottom, because they don't yet participate in three of the 'majors'. These issues will be solved when/if Denmark abolishes its opt-outs and most aspirants for Euro, Schengen, PJC manage to satisfy the requirements for joining - but currently we have to deal with this complexity.
1366:
I don't object coloring these 5 differently from the rest (to emphasis that they participate in all initiatives), but I don't see a sensible way of coloring the rest, because there are no 'tier groups' (e.g. integration initiatives are not supersets of each other - you don't have to be Eurozone
574:
A selection of information can be misleading in itself. The emphasis on multi-speed (Europe a la carte) elements in European integration during the last years can quickly lead to the impression that every country just chooses what it likes. That is far from reality. Instead you do have a "Core"
906:
The current article does not hint on the SchÀuble-Lamers-Paper explaining the idea of Core Europe. It does not give a hint on the different characterisations of the multi-speed europe ideas, like a federation inside the confederation with its own institutions. It does not tell the users on the
793:
An academic journal would demand reliable sources or evidence of rigorous research. In Knowledge (XXG) too, we cannot make siginificant assertions unless these are cited. Consensus does not replace facts and evidence, it is used to reach a credible evaluation of them. Any material that remains
525:
Let's face another fact - many of those "citation needed" can be looked up in other articles on Knowledge (XXG). Take the NATO parts for an example and the articles on NATO - if you flag "Malta and Cyprus are considering a NATO membership" as "citation needed" and you would please compare to
1381:
I do follow your argument but the view is different. This article has a concept - it talks about the ideas of Core-Europe and Multispeed. Of course we can find lots and lots of exceptions to the rule. But where did the impression come from? Sure we can see that the "first EU" countries seem
421:
This is tagged as dubious: "Ireland only reluctantly agreed to stay out of the treaty to avoid creating a physical border between the Republic and Northern Ireland because the UK had refused to sign." While I agree it is need of a citation, I do think it is a widely held view as to the
776:
need empiricism. Without evidence your assertions are nothing. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Please provide a citation to anything that is questioned or questionable. If it is true, then you shall have no problem providing them.-
648:. I do still hope that you had just been exaggerating to make a point - so I am still interested to hear what makes you think that one can not wait for the article to evolve into a better shape and to get more references over time. I think it is worth it, you don't?
1158:
setup - cross-check with the most integrated countries as found in the table of this article. Explanations can draw the lines from there to now but I am currently not investing in new text portions as far as it would be just a target of petty-minded deletionists.
1264:). So the article or paragraph must be properly based on primary sources. This is of course true of every wikipedia article but all the more so with this one because of the tendency of some journalists and politicians to use it as a soap-box. So to summarise, "
930:, www.cer.org.uk/pdf/e335_federalism.pdf and muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v015/15.3schwarz.html come up in a simple google search). So you can certainly give a summary of the SchÀuble-Lamers proposal - this is entirely legitimate and indeed welcome. --
1367:
member to join Schengen or vice versa) - so we can have two colors ("all initiatives" vs. "not all initiatives"). Also, I don't object having description of 'core'/'two-speed' and 'variable geometry'/'multi-speed' as text - if someone wants to add such.
1396:
I see as a problem in the article the deletion of the explanation of core/two-speed and variable geometry/multi-speed. And we can't sensibly 'replace' this explanation with a table - with or without coloring. We need both an explanation and a
1140:
scratch. The article seems to be suffering from having been written by people who know their subject inside out but, understandably, cannot conceive of a reader who has never heard of it. So, I'll be your test reader. Educate me, please.
811:
In a formal Request for Deletion it is good practice to look at the text and allow the information to continue. That is even true for a new article where the new elements are questioned. For older articles one would have a whole
1470:
it up. Also it shouldn't be that much of classes as it would hard to depict them in a coloured country map - see the picture I had added last week using three base colors with two shades per color while the multi-color map in
1038:
May be you should read an earlier version, i.e. before the relevant parts were deleted. Having uninformative and confusing articles, well, that's what user RedKing believes the Knowledge (XXG) should look like.
701:
don't think that should necessarily mean that it deserves a separate Knowledge (XXG) article. I think a concise and encyclopedic version of this article could be transformed into an excellent section in both
616:
welcome you to examine articles that I have edited and, if you find any assertions that are not supported by citation, to add a citation request tag {{cn}} where appropriate. The rules apply to everyone. --
383:
808:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an academic journal and its technical foundation is uncapable to do so. Knowledge (XXG) may not be cited in academic texts. Asking for academic alignment is a false claim.
733:. It is not carved in stone and therefore the wp-articles actually demand that you adhere to proper reasoning. I had run a number of debates where the fundamental rules were just wrong - the
709:. A well-written text wouldn't have needed these bullet points. Furthermore, the European integration article has a table which overlaps quite nicely with the table in this article. -
535:
time to do more than my spare time allows to and there is always that hope that other wikipedians are interested in clarifying things that they think are bit different from their POV.
636:. - Sure there is evidence beyond that. When I was sick of fighting deletionists I had filed once a request for deletion on one of my articles that had not a single reference. I said
686:
again because you seem to have forgotten them. Fundamentally, if the material is sourced then it stands. If it is not sourced, it is deleted. That is not 'deletionism'. --
756:
might not be a good thing however. Actually the whole article has assembled a number of terms like "Core Europe" and others - in the German variant one has even added the
140:
1660:
1656:
1642:
1057:
Right, I tried to get back to the basics of the concept, with new editing. It is better when Knowledge (XXG) articles are written by people who know the topic ;-)) --
437:
Added a reference from Hansard. I'm sure there are many others -- this is a frequently held viewpoint, so I'm sure one could collect a few other citations for it. --
1798:
130:
496:
The interesting thing would be more of what parts you would like to challenge. Is it a dislike for the whole concept or do you just need a citation in some place?
632:
I have running back and forth for a week how to explain it to you. Basically, classic western philosophy says that proper reasoning is the basis of good action.
1530:
The map legend lists three colors and their meanings, but the map itself uses four colors. It is unclear what the two shades of blue (blue/azure) represent. --
1803:
1793:
346:
106:
422:
attitude/reasonings of successive Irish governments. (Although, due to the usual diplomatic reasons I doubt the Irish government would say so publicly.) --
1220:
Yes, that's much better. Thank you. Exactly the kind of thing I was after. If you now do go down that path of more realistic examples, you will to define
738:
you shouldn't look too closely. It's a compromise born in months and years of discussions - as a fundamentalist you may want to restart the whole thing?
241:
1828:
607:). I have attached a number of citation requests to sentences or paragraphs which seem to be expressing an opinion or drawing a conclusion from what
336:
828:
You seem to have missed the fundamental point in wikipedia that we should not write the material first and then look for citations to justify it. We
1813:
231:
97:
58:
458:
tightly - not like Core Europe but sharing some attributes with it - while other countries have opt-outs that are unlikely to change next year.
1833:
1823:
312:
882:
were in fact no original research and/or editor opinion. You could have done so - and in my opinion you should have done so before deleting.
1818:
1808:
992:
Multi speed Europe is a concept in itself. Sorry, but I don't see the purpose of creating confusion by merging it into a different one. --
1628:
402:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
1576:
1288:
951:
858:
Since no supporting evidence has been produced, I have deleted the material that is clearly original research and/or editor opinion. --
511:
certainly deserves an article. But it has to be based on reliable citations, not made up or made to be more sigificant than it is). --
706:
1258:'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean â neither more nor less.'
1638:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
303:
264:
1773:
202:
163:
33:
644:. It is only the opinion of those who make wikipedia as to what weapons they choose. You can not deny that, it's part of the
1703:
379:
553:
citations, then don't add the material. Without citation, it is just your opinion and nobody is interested in that.--
1474:
is less impressive I think (alteast as far as it is about the multi-speed concept). Anyway, more about that later.
1422:
Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Greece, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia (miss one of Divorce/Patent and some of Prum/Symbols)
1498:
where the participants are all Eurozone states and 6 non-Eurozone states, including Denmark. Complicating further.
431:
1406:
1122:
927:
1659:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
477:
The article contains many grand assertions that are not supported by citation. It reads as editor opinion and
1261:
39:
21:
1694:
1622:
1614:
1580:
1610:
983:
1335:'core Europe'/'two speed' is about having a 'core' group of states going 'faster'/'ahead' in integration
730:
1754:
I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to
1723:
1678:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1666:
1354:
1111:
1062:
997:
729:@RedKing wake up, the wiki-rules are just a combination of opinions based on the consensus-process, and
311:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
89:
1613:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1629:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090214194351/http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm
1755:
1471:
1402:
1342:'multi-speed'/'variable geometry' is about one group of states going 'faster'/'ahead' in integration
1328:
975:
753:
734:
702:
576:
813:
395:
1767:
1558:
531:
1204:
1739:
1606:
1549:
I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry?
1535:
1277:
935:
863:
837:
799:
691:
621:
558:
516:
486:
399:
1663:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1502:
the integration initiatives of the former group it would be OK, but the situation is not such).
641:
1679:
1632:
1490:
1210:
979:
481:. If the article is to remain in place then the citations requested are urgently required. --
645:
604:
1719:
1507:
1479:
1460:
1387:
1372:
1317:
1296:
1229:
1164:
1145:
1130:
1107:
1085:
1058:
1044:
1028:
1012:
993:
959:
912:
891:
822:
784:
765:
743:
653:
585:
540:
501:
463:
178:
157:
1686:
1434:
Ireland (has Euro, but no Schengen and PJC and one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
683:
637:
612:
478:
295:
679:
1734:
It couldn't be just a chainsaw edit, because it gives one of the contexts for Brexit. --
1550:
752:@Ssolberg addtional citations are a good thing. Making it a part of a long article like
1759:
1645:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1554:
1495:
711:
102:
1685:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1652:
289:
279:
258:
1787:
1735:
1718:
This article Needs to be updated to include Brexit and remove references to the UK. (
1531:
1440:
Czech Republic, Poland (no Euro and CFR, one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
1273:
931:
859:
833:
795:
687:
617:
554:
512:
482:
442:
427:
194:
926:
got a reliable source (SchÀuble-Lamers). What's more, there are commentaries on it (
1446:
Bulgaria, Romania (no Euro/Schengen and PJC, but participates in almost all others)
1431:
Cyprus (has Euro, but no Schengen and one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
1503:
1475:
1456:
1383:
1368:
1359:
1313:
1292:
1225:
1160:
1141:
1126:
1081:
1040:
1024:
1008:
955:
908:
887:
818:
778:
761:
739:
649:
581:
536:
497:
459:
1007:
See my proposal for resolving this issue in the "Article focus" section above.
1651:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
928:
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/an-unrealistic-dream-/67439.aspx
886:
just put up a marker since I regard the current article as highly misleading.
285:
184:
79:
670:
the proper reasoning of notable writers, we do not initiate it or create it.
1779:
1743:
1727:
1708:
1594:
But neither bolded nor marked as blue in the map of europe. - 13th May 2015
1584:
1562:
1539:
1511:
1483:
1464:
1391:
1376:
1321:
1300:
1281:
1233:
1215:
1168:
1155:
1149:
1134:
1115:
1089:
1066:
1048:
1032:
1016:
1001:
987:
963:
939:
916:
895:
867:
841:
803:
788:
769:
757:
747:
715:
695:
657:
625:
589:
562:
544:
520:
505:
490:
467:
446:
73:
52:
1623:
http://www.uned.es/dcpa/invest/cidel/documents/ARENA_Report22005_text.pdf
1425:
Hungary, Latvia (no Euro, but most others; may miss only in Prum/Symbols)
1353:
These are discussed as potential options for future arrangement, and the
438:
423:
308:
1428:
Lithuania (no Euro; miss one of Divorce/Patent and some of Prum/Symbols)
1573:
207:
1416:
Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia (participate in all)
832:
start from the reliable sources and then summarise what they say. --
1202:
give: the most obvious examples are the Euro and Schengen Zones.
1363:
of different configurations of state groups and initiatives mix.
527:
1419:
France, Malta, Portugal (all, but miss in some of Prum/Symbols)
362:
15:
1437:
Sweden (no Euro, one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
611:
observe to be the facts on the ground - these offend against
1633:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm
206:, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
1617:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
666:
based on the 'proper reasoning' of individual editors. We
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
407:
403:
374:
952:
Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe
1551:
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476
678:, only the opinions of reliable sources. Please read
640:
and the master of wikipedia refused on the basis of
307:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1655:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
416:
210:
topics of a cross-border nature on Knowledge (XXG).
1443:Denmark (no Euro; has only Schengen, CFR, Patent)
662:The whole basis of Knowledge (XXG) is that it is
1125:(were knowledge about is almost common sense).
597:My opinion is entirely irrelevant. So is yours.
1641:This message was posted before February 2018.
417:Ireland's attitude to non-Schengen membership
8:
580:comes for those articles that are in doubt.
19:
253:
152:
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject European Union
47:
1605:I have just modified 2 external links on
1327:The previous table (that is currently at
1346:than the others, second group of states
1023:all meaningful to an uninformed reader.
1598:External links modified (February 2018)
255:
154:
49:
1799:Mid-importance European Union articles
549:Then it is easy to copy the citation.
7:
1154:The best starter is in the historic
595:No, you still don't seem to get it.
321:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
301:This article is within the scope of
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
1804:WikiProject European Union articles
1794:Start-Class European Union articles
1350:, third group on third vector, etc.
794:uncited will be deleted shortly. --
634:It is only your opinion that counts
118:Template:WikiProject European Union
38:It is of interest to the following
1572:Why are several countries bolded?
1409:where the previous table is moved.
707:Member State of the European Union
216:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Europe
14:
1609:. Please take a moment to review
1287:Anybody to share his thoughts on
601:you must support them by citation
1829:Low-importance politics articles
1489:don't think we should disregard
366:
288:
278:
257:
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1621:Corrected formatting/usage for
341:This article has been rated as
236:This article has been rated as
135:This article has been rated as
1814:Mid-importance Europe articles
1585:20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
1526:Multi-speed European Union map
1282:13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1234:22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1216:19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1169:10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1150:09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1135:09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1116:08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1106:OK, just improved it again. --
1090:08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1067:08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1049:08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1033:07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1017:07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1002:21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
988:13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
599:. If you make statements then
1:
1834:WikiProject Politics articles
1824:Start-Class politics articles
1472:European integration#Eurozone
1449:UK (has only CSDP and Patent)
940:12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
917:11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
896:12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
877:in judging that something is
868:20:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
842:12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
577:European Regional Integration
432:10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
324:Template:WikiProject Politics
315:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1780:08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
1744:17:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
1728:17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
1709:02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
1339:than the 'periphery' states.
1307:fact table and speed classes
447:11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
1819:WikiProject Europe articles
1809:Start-Class Europe articles
1590:Austria is fully integrated
1563:05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1540:13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
1301:10:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
964:14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
804:16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
789:18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
770:09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
748:09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
716:23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
696:22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
658:21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
626:15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
590:11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
219:Template:WikiProject Europe
1850:
1672:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1602:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1512:17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
1484:11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
1465:07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
1392:12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
1377:11:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
1322:10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
873:You have finally revealed
563:14:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
545:22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
521:21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
506:17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
491:16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
375:A two-speed European Union
347:project's importance scale
242:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
98:WikiProject European Union
1407:Talk:European integration
1262:Through the Looking Glass
468:06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
406:; for its talk page, see
340:
273:
235:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1289:this proposal for change
974:general article such as
1121:world as it had in the
814:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup
528:NATO#Future_enlargement
121:European Union articles
28:This article is rated
1355:Enhanced co-operation
969:Proposed for deletion
875:Your Personal Opinion
90:European Union portal
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1756:European Integration
1714:Urgent Update Needed
1653:regular verification
1403:European integration
1329:European integration
976:European integration
902:confusing / disputed
754:European integration
735:Ich bin ein Berliner
731:consensus can change
703:European integration
394:. Its contents were
390:with a consensus to
304:WikiProject Politics
1643:After February 2018
1123:Franco-German areas
676:opinion that counts
532:Enlargement of NATO
1764:
1697:InternetArchiveBot
1648:InternetArchiveBot
1607:Multi-speed Europe
400:Multi-speed Europe
378:was nominated for
203:WikiProject Europe
34:content assessment
1760:
1750:Restoring article
1673:
1348:on another vector
1256:lĂĄ Humpty Dumpty
1214:
473:Original research
414:
413:
361:
360:
357:
356:
353:
352:
327:politics articles
252:
251:
248:
247:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1841:
1776:
1770:
1763:
1707:
1698:
1671:
1670:
1649:
1568:Bolded countries
1208:
786:
714:
388:30 November 2011
370:
369:
363:
329:
328:
325:
322:
319:
298:
293:
292:
282:
275:
274:
269:
261:
254:
224:
223:
220:
217:
214:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1849:
1848:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1784:
1783:
1774:
1768:
1761:
1752:
1716:
1701:
1696:
1664:
1657:have permission
1647:
1615:this simple FaQ
1600:
1592:
1570:
1553:PLEASE HELP! --
1547:
1528:
1309:
971:
948:
904:
856:
781:
777:
710:
475:
455:
419:
367:
326:
323:
320:
317:
316:
296:Politics portal
294:
287:
267:
222:Europe articles
221:
218:
215:
212:
211:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1847:
1845:
1837:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1786:
1785:
1751:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1715:
1712:
1691:
1690:
1683:
1636:
1635:
1627:Added archive
1625:
1599:
1596:
1591:
1588:
1569:
1566:
1546:
1543:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1499:
1496:Euro Plus Pact
1452:
1451:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1410:
1398:
1364:
1351:
1340:
1337:on all vectors
1333:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1052:
1051:
1020:
1019:
970:
967:
947:
944:
943:
942:
903:
900:
899:
898:
883:
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
809:
779:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
550:
474:
471:
454:
451:
450:
449:
418:
415:
412:
411:
386:was closed on
384:The discussion
371:
359:
358:
355:
354:
351:
350:
343:Low-importance
339:
333:
332:
330:
313:the discussion
300:
299:
283:
271:
270:
268:Lowâimportance
262:
250:
249:
246:
245:
238:Mid-importance
234:
228:
227:
225:
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Midâimportance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
112:European Union
107:the discussion
103:European Union
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Midâimportance
59:European Union
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1846:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1789:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1771:
1765:
1757:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1713:
1711:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1668:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1597:
1595:
1589:
1587:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1577:80.187.106.76
1574:
1567:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1545:Developments?
1544:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1525:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1500:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1361:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1344:on one vector
1341:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:Schengen Zone
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:actually IS.
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
968:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
946:Article focus
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
901:
897:
893:
889:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
853:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
824:
820:
815:
810:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
785:
783:
774:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
745:
741:
736:
732:
717:
713:
708:
704:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
675:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
578:
564:
560:
556:
551:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
533:
529:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
472:
470:
469:
465:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
372:
365:
364:
348:
344:
338:
335:
334:
331:
314:
310:
306:
305:
297:
291:
286:
284:
281:
277:
276:
272:
266:
263:
260:
256:
243:
239:
233:
230:
229:
226:
209:
205:
204:
196:
195:Europe portal
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1753:
1717:
1695:
1692:
1667:source check
1646:
1640:
1637:
1604:
1601:
1593:
1571:
1548:
1529:
1347:
1343:
1336:
1310:
1269:
1268:but needs a
1265:
1257:
1254:
1221:
1209:
1203:
1021:
991:
980:Jaque Hammer
972:
949:
923:
905:
878:
874:
857:
829:
751:
728:
673:
671:
667:
663:
633:
608:
600:
596:
573:
479:WP:SYNthesis
476:
456:
453:Inner Europe
420:
391:
387:
373:
342:
302:
237:
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1762:AngusWđ¶đ¶F
1720:MOTORAL1987
1360:Radar chart
1272:of work".--
1108:Pgreenfinch
1059:Pgreenfinch
994:Pgreenfinch
404:its history
30:Start-class
1788:Categories
1704:Report bug
672:It is not
1687:this tool
1680:this tool
1555:Gironauni
1156:Inner Six
879:"clearly"
758:Inner Six
1736:Red King
1693:Cheers.â
1532:Khajidha
1274:Red King
932:Red King
860:Red King
834:Red King
796:Red King
688:Red King
642:WP:POINT
618:Red King
555:Red King
513:Red King
483:Red King
380:deletion
318:Politics
309:politics
265:Politics
208:European
1611:my edit
1491:Symbols
1205:Pfainuk
922:So you
854:Cleanup
782:.Logan`
646:WP:GAME
605:WP:CITE
345:on the
240:on the
139:on the
1504:Alinor
1476:Guidod
1457:Alinor
1397:table.
1384:Guidod
1369:Alinor
1314:Guidod
1293:Alinor
1226:HiLo48
1161:Guidod
1142:HiLo48
1127:Guidod
1082:HiLo48
1041:Guidod
1025:HiLo48
1009:Alinor
956:Alinor
909:Guidod
888:Guidod
819:Guidod
762:Guidod
740:Guidod
684:WP:SYN
668:report
650:Guidod
638:WP:NOR
613:WP:SYN
582:Guidod
537:Guidod
498:Guidod
460:Guidod
396:merged
213:Europe
164:Europe
36:scale.
1775:sniff
680:WP:OR
398:into
392:merge
1769:bark
1740:talk
1724:talk
1581:talk
1559:talk
1536:talk
1508:talk
1480:talk
1461:talk
1388:talk
1373:talk
1318:talk
1297:talk
1278:talk
1266:keep
1230:talk
1211:talk
1165:talk
1146:talk
1131:talk
1112:talk
1086:talk
1063:talk
1045:talk
1029:talk
1013:talk
998:talk
984:talk
960:talk
950:See
936:talk
924:have
913:talk
892:talk
864:talk
838:talk
830:must
823:talk
800:talk
766:talk
744:talk
705:and
692:talk
682:and
674:your
654:talk
622:talk
586:talk
559:talk
541:talk
517:talk
502:talk
487:talk
464:talk
443:talk
428:talk
408:here
1661:RfC
1631:to
1270:lot
712:SSJ
664:not
609:you
439:SJK
424:SJK
382:.
337:Low
232:Mid
131:Mid
1790::
1778:)
1772:âą
1758:.
1742:)
1730:)
1726:)
1674:.
1669:}}
1665:{{
1583:)
1575:--
1561:)
1538:)
1510:)
1482:)
1463:)
1390:)
1375:)
1320:)
1299:)
1291:?
1280:)
1232:)
1224:.
1167:)
1148:)
1133:)
1114:)
1088:)
1065:)
1047:)
1031:)
1015:)
1000:)
986:)
978:?
962:)
954:.
938:)
915:)
894:)
866:)
840:)
825:)
802:)
787::
768:)
746:)
694:)
656:)
624:)
588:)
561:)
543:)
530:/
519:)
504:)
489:)
466:)
445:)
430:)
1766:(
1738:(
1722:(
1706:)
1702:(
1689:.
1682:.
1579:(
1557:(
1534:(
1506:(
1478:(
1459:(
1386:(
1371:(
1316:(
1295:(
1276:(
1260:(
1228:(
1163:(
1144:(
1129:(
1110:(
1084:(
1061:(
1043:(
1027:(
1011:(
996:(
982:(
958:(
934:(
911:(
890:(
862:(
836:(
821:(
798:(
780:J
764:(
742:(
690:(
652:(
620:(
603:(
584:(
557:(
539:(
515:(
500:(
485:(
462:(
441:(
426:(
410:.
349:.
244:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
