Talk:Multi-speed Europe

Ireland's attitude to non-Schengen membership

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 attitude/reasonings of successive Irish governments. (Although, due to the usual diplomatic reasons I doubt the Irish government would say so publicly.) --SJK (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --SJK (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Inner Europe

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 tightly - not like Core Europe but sharing some attributes with it - while other countries have opt-outs that are unlikely to change next year. Guidod (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research

The article contains many grand assertions that are not supported by citation. It reads as editor opinion and WP:SYNthesis. If the article is to remain in place then the citations requested are urgently required. --Red King (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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? Guidod (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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 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). --Red King (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's face another fact - many of those "citation needed" can be looked up in other articles on Wikipedia. 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 NATO#Future_enlargement / Enlargement of NATO 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 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. Guidod (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it is easy to copy the citation.

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) – or yours for that matter – is irrelevant: all that matters is that any claims are supported by citation. If you don't have time to find the citations, then don't add the material. Without citation, it is just your opinion and nobody is interested in that.--Red King (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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" 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 European Regional Integration 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 comes for those articles that are in doubt. Guidod (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you still don't seem to get it. My opinion is entirely irrelevant. So is yours.. If you make statements then you must support them by citation (WP:CITE). 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 you observe to be the facts on the ground - these offend against WP:SYN 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 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. --Red King (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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. It is only your opinion that counts. - 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 WP:NOR and the master of wikipedia refused on the basis of WP:POINT. 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 WP:GAME. 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? Guidod (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole basis of Wikipedia is that it is not based on the 'proper reasoning' of individual editors. We report the proper reasoning of notable writers, we do not initiate it or create it. It is not your opinion that counts, only the opinions of reliable sources. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN 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'. --Red King (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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 don't think that should necessarily mean that it deserves a separate Wikipedia article. I think a concise and encyclopedic version of this article could be transformed into an excellent section in both European integration and Member State of the European Union. 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. - SSJ ^t 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@RedKing wake up, the wiki-rules are just a combination of opinions based on the consensus-process, and consensus can change. 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 Ich bin ein Berliner 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 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? Guidod (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@Ssolberg addtional citations are a good thing. Making it a part of a long article like European integration 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 Inner Six / Outer Seven relation to the text (only the English Wikipedia 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. Guidod (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. This is not philosophy, and if it was I'd remind you that rationalism is not the only strand, here on Wikipedia we 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.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An academic journal would demand reliable sources or evidence of rigorous research. In Wikipedia 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 uncited will be deleted shortly. --Red King (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an academic journal and its technical foundation is uncapable to do so. Wikipedia may not be cited in academic texts. Asking for academic alignment is a false claim.

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 Wikipedia:Cleanup 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. Guidod (talk)

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 must start from the reliable sources and then summarise what they say. --Red King (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Since no supporting evidence has been produced, I have deleted the material that is clearly original research and/or editor opinion. --Red King (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have finally revealed Your Personal Opinion in judging that something is "clearly" 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 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.

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 just put up a marker since I regard the current article as highly misleading. Guidod (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

confusing / disputed

The current article does not hint on the Schäuble-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 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. Guidod (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So you have got a reliable source (Schäuble-Lamers). What's more, there are commentaries on it (http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/an-unrealistic-dream-/67439.aspx , 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 Schäuble-Lamers proposal [and of course the contrary views] - this is entirely legitimate and indeed welcome. --Red King (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Article focus

See Talk:Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#multi-speed_europe. Alinor (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

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 general article such as European integration? Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See my proposal for resolving this issue in the "Article focus" section above. Alinor (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 all meaningful to an uninformed reader. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia should look like. Guidod (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I tried to get back to the basics of the concept, with new editing. It is better when Wikipedia articles are written by people who know the topic ;-)) --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 actually IS. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, just improved it again. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Without telling its background - e.g. the schäuble-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 world as it had in the Franco-German areas (were knowledge about is almost common sense). Guidod (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 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. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The best starter is in the historic Inner Six 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. Guidod (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 give: the most obvious examples are the Euro and Schengen Zones. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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 Schengen Zone. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The term is certainly used by the European (especially UK) press, so it should appear in Wikipedia, 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 lá Humpty Dumpty 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.' (Through the Looking Glass). 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, "keep but needs a lot of work".--Red King (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody to share his thoughts on this proposal for change? Alinor (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

fact table and speed classes

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 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). Guidod (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The previous table (that is currently at European integration 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 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).

'core Europe'/'two speed' is about having a 'core' group of states going 'faster'/'ahead' in integration on all vectors than the 'periphery' states.

'multi-speed'/'variable geometry' is about one group of states going 'faster'/'ahead' in integration on one vector than the others, second group of states on another vector, third group on third vector, etc.

These are discussed as potential options for future arrangement, and the Enhanced co-operation 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 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 Radar chart 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 of different configurations of state groups and initiatives mix.

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 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. Alinor (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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 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. ;-) Guidod (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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 table.

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 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 European integration, 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 Talk:European integration where the previous table is moved.

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). 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):

1. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia (participate in all)
2. France, Malta, Portugal (all, but miss in some of Prum/Symbols)
3. Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Greece, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia (miss one of Divorce/Patent and some of Prum/Symbols)
4. Hungary, Latvia (no Euro, but most others; may miss only in Prum/Symbols)
5. Lithuania (no Euro; miss one of Divorce/Patent and some of Prum/Symbols)
6. Cyprus (has Euro, but no Schengen and one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
7. Ireland (has Euro, but no Schengen and PJC and one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
8. Sweden (no Euro, one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
9. Czech Republic, Poland (no Euro and CFR, one of Divorce/Patent; some of Prum/Symbols)
10. Denmark (no Euro; has only Schengen, CFR, Patent)
11. Bulgaria, Romania (no Euro/Schengen and PJC, but participates in almost all others)
12. UK (has only CSDP and Patent)

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 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. Alinor (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Schäuble-Lamers-paper or other documents, it was them to have brought 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 European integration#Eurozone is less impressive I think (alteast as far as it is about the multi-speed concept). Anyway, more about that later. Guidod (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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 don't think we should disregard Symbols 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 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, Wikipedia 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 - Euro Plus Pact where the participants are all Eurozone states and 6 non-Eurozone states, including Denmark. Complicating further.

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 the integration initiatives of the former group it would be OK, but the situation is not such). Alinor (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-speed European Union map

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. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Developments?

I just saw this article. I think it is very interesting. Could we put it somewhere in the entry? http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9476 PLEASE HELP! --Gironauni (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bolded countries

Why are several countries bolded? [1] --80.187.106.76 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Austria is fully integrated

But neither bolded nor marked as blue in the map of europe. - 13th May 2015

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-speed Europe. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uned.es/dcpa/invest/cidel/documents/ARENA_Report22005_text.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214194351/http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm to http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/multispeed_europe_en.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Urgent Update Needed

This article Needs to be updated to include Brexit and remove references to the UK. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

It couldn't be just a chainsaw edit, because it gives one of the contexts for Brexit. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Restoring article

I restored Multi-speed Europe to its 17 October 2022 version as there was no consensus to merge that to European Integration. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)