Talk:European Union

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Merging to Europe[edit]

I think I don't agree with redirecting this page to Europe, especially when there is useful content (like my customs addition from February) lost in the process. Was there another discussion somewhere about merging, apart from the 2008 one on this talk page? I'd like to read it if there was. Jjtkk (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it was already established that we wouldn't have an article for the European Union, so I redirected it back to the Europe page. I scanned the article, but must have overlooked your newly added content. I have added it to the Europe page. Globe-trotter (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, the problem is it kinda doesn't fit there. Do you know where this was established? I'd like to know the reasoning and possibly reopen the discussion. Jjtkk (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess Globe-trotter was referring to the discussion at Talk:Europe#EU Eurozone and Shengen. Vidimian (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, that one I saw but that's just two users (and one of them not really sure). I believe the decision not to have EU article needs wider discussion, especially since several users contributed to this article constructively since 2008. Jjtkk (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edge3 merged this article into Europe without any discussion, so restarting this one. I believe the European Union does merit its own article, even though it will invariably overlap with Europe. There are a lot of travel implications with regards to the EU that are not applicable to non-EU countries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

EU is not synonymous with Europe as a whole. These should be separate topics. K7L (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of the information in the EU page is already in the Europe page, so there is some duplication that we'll have to address. Furthermore, this page covers the Schengen Area and the Eurozone, which is not synonymous with the EU. Perhaps we should have a page for the Schengen Area alone? Edge3 (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, maybe we could summarize the overlapping info in Europe, and provide more detail in EU and Schengen Area pages? Edge3 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no point for a separate article on the European Union. Everything that is of interest to the tourist are the Schengen area, the Euro and the irregular airline ops regulations. The former two are not even homogenous across the EU and spread beyond it, and the latter is not even covered in this article. Nobody goes to visit "the EU", except perhaps from official state delegations. This is entirely redundant article and everything worthwhile here is already covered in Europe. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought the merger was a good move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The main objection to the merger was the placement of the VFD tag, followed a few minuted later by the REDIRECT.
I agree with K7L in that the European Union is not the same as Europe. The European Union has some (although definitely not all) of the trappings of a state. Also worth noting that few travelers go to the United States to visit every single State there. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
But as PrinceGloria said, travelers don't intend to visit the EU. Wikivoyage:What is an article? states that articles are created only for places. The EU is not a place; it is merely an economic and political union. (Note that the United Nations is covered as a cultural attraction, not as a multinational organization.) Most of the things in Europe that a traveler would be interested in -- culture, food, language, transport, sleeping, climate, etc. -- are not affected by EU affairs. Edge3 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The EU is most certainly a place. The United States is also 'merely an economic and political union' as are pretty much all countries in the world. I'm not sure what else you would need? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The EU is not a tourist destination by any means. One goes to visit "the USA" (when one is from Europe). One goes to visit "Europe" (when one is from the USA). One doesn't go to visit "the EU". It is not dependent on the legal status, it is just how people plan their travels. The EU did never get established as a tourist destination distinct from Europe in the tourist's minds. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with PrinceGloria on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The European Union is an entity and place with real travel implications. It merits a extra hierarchical region article. See Template:Extraregion
It certainly does not belong in Europe which is much larger and includes countries such as Russia that will not becomes EU members for the foreseeable future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The Schengen Area and the Eurozone do not belong in this article because they are not synonymous with the European Union. Some Schengen countries are not in the EU (i.e. Norway, Switzerland), and some EU countries are not in Schengen (i.e. UK, Croatia). The same is true for the Eurozone. The only thing that all of these countries have in common is that they are located in Europe.
The Europe article already covers the EU, Schengen, and the Euro in great detail. That article could also be expanded to mention that some countries do not participate in any of these agreements, and that the implications on travel will vary by country. Edge3 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the Schengen Area being not synonymous with the European Union. The Eurozone is however a construct of the EU, and a country does need to be part of the EU (or at the very least be given an explicit exception by the EU) in order to use the Euro currency officially.
As an aside, I believe that Europe is an article much bigger in size and scope than the countries that constitute the EU. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

<indent reset> I am getting lost here. All arguments raised here for the existence of this article are very encyclopedic and sophistic, such as "EU is different from Europe" or "This issue is exclusively EU". But I believe this is not Wikipedia, this is Wikivoyage, where we take a practical approach, and we should answer two questions when deciding whether an article exists:

  1. Will people look for an article on that - given the number of travel guides devoted to the EU specifically as opposed to Europe or its geographic regions, which is zero I believe (I was literally at a huge travel bookstore yesterday), I would say the chances that people would is negligible
  2. Is this a practical destination or travel topic - no it is not, EU has minimal practical implications for the traveller, even given its general importance, so discussing everything that is important about it takes about two short paragraphs and the said contested table. Moreover, the most important "travel issues" about the EU result from comparing EU countries to non-EU countries (or, more specifically, Schengen countries to non-Schengen), which makes discussing EU outside of the wider European framework pointless. Last but not least, you cannot really cover Europe without going through all those "EU" issues (of which aren't many), so content redundancy is unavoidable, while trying to split it between articles i purely artificial

--PrinceGloria (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

# Is this a practical destination or travel topic - Yes it is:
* Monetary Union - This affects most travelers inside the EU, not outside.
* Healthcare - There is a common healthcare framework throughout all EU countries that all EU residents can take advantage of
* Free movement of goods - There are no tariffs when taking goods between different EU countries.
* Customs Union - One customs framework for brings goods into the EU
* Free movement of capital - no restrictions on moving currency between EU members
* Free movement of workers - no restriction on EU residents moving to and working in another country
* Free movement for the non-economically active - same as the above, but more relevant for travelers
The claim that there are no travel implications to the EU is frankly rather absurd. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To imply that it was claimed that "there are no travel implications to the EU" is absurd, and if we are trying to go to absurdity (e.g. ignoring or misinterpreting what was said) just to defend this article, I guess it just goes to show how poor a position it is to defend it. At any rate, while theoretically the EU has many implications for the traveller, it can all be practically summed up in a few sentences. No need for a separate article. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I hardly think so. I quickly put 7 separate points together and doubtless more can be found. I think the strong position is clear for all to see. In any case there is a need for a separate article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Free movement of workers is mostly irrelevant. Free movement of goods and customs union can be covered in one or two sentences, and this is closely tied to Schengen anyway. Free movement of currency in one sentence, and it is a marginal topic for most tourists, and if you are carrying a lot of cash or transferring huge sums of money, there are still special regulations and restrictions resulting from anti-fraud regulations. Healthcare concerns only EU citizens, not tourists from outside of it - if we want to get into grainy detail, an article on "using healthcare in a foreign country" would a better choice to discuss that IMHO.
There are many ways in which the European Union affects travellers, but to group it all under one topic is quite encyclopedic and a good topic for an essay. Hardly anybody would be looking for specifically a concoction of all information related to how EU impacts travel, but nothing else. We could just as well have an article on "NAFTA vs travel" or "ASEAN and tourism" (yes I know that those organizations are less prominent in terms of their impact on travel-related regulations), but this is purely encyclopedic IMHO. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess maybe you don't understand the whole aspect of people from Portugal traveling to Sweden are still travelers, and internal rules and privileges extend to them in a significant way.
Actually we are also discussing ASEAN, and I advocated for the redirect of that article precisely because it has no traveler implications. The same really cannot be said for the European Union, which has many internal travel implications. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
While I believe PrinceGloria has made many good points in this thread, Andrewssi2's final point about the contrast between the EU and ASEAN is also a good one. I'm OK with there being an article on the EU, providing that it is linked to instead of duplicated in the Europe article, which should have only a brief summary of the points that are in this article (and probably none of the tables that might be in this article), much as the London article links to Heathrow Airport and has only a brief summary of how to get to and from the airport. However, I'm still concerned about the messy differences and overlaps between Eurozone countries (not all in the EU), EU countries, and Schengen countries. Will all those require separate articles now, as all of them in some ways affect travellers? Some practical decisions need to be made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There you go - EU is too multi-dimensional and its implications to be able to cover it appropriately without the larger framework of the entirety of Europe. Heathrow Airport is a very different case than the EU. The EU is not a geographic area we can carve out of a larger part of the world and describe seprately. It is also not a travel topic that can usefully be described separately - all that can happen is that an artificial split and massive content duplication can be made between Europe and European Union.
I also couldn't resist dropping the ASEAN reference as a bait. It cannot be said that it has no implications for travellers - let us take the ASEAN Single Aviation Market as an example. That said, devoting an entire article to it is as useful in a travel guide, as it would be to devote an article to the EU. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Ikan Kekek's suggestion is reasonable. I have no problem whatsoever in culling information from this article so that it relates only to travel into and inside the EU, and doesn't overlap content in Europe proper.
ASEAN is a good talking point as to where the line for extra hierarchical articles should be drawn. They is a great diversity of opinion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How do you propose to handle the messy overlaps between the EU, Schengen, and the Euro Zone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The messy overlaps are actually a greater issue than just Europe. Take French Guiana, for example, that is part of South America, France, the European Union, the Eurozone and implements the EU freedom of movement, however does not implement Schengen! This is a good example of why an extra-hierarchical approach is needed.
Although Schengen has its origins in the EU, it is clear to see that it is more relevant as part of the Europe article due to its arbitrary application as well as its reach outside of the EU.
The Eurozone is not particularly messy from the traveler's point of view. Each country that has joined the Eurozone simply has its official currency as the Euro. The 'region' aspect of the Euro isn't really relevant, since it has no bearing on the 'Free Movement of Capital' implemented by the EU that covers all currencies. Apart from not having to convert currency between countries I really do not see many additional traveler concerns with the Eurozone itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You don't need any extra-hierarchical approach, you just need for the French Guiana guide to tell people what are the entry requirements. Let political scientists or whatever you call people who write papers on those dissect the case.
As concerns the Eurozone, all we need is a table in the article on Europe, which we had, telling people what currencies will they need if they plan to visit particular countries. PrinceGloria (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Europe is a continent-level article for a wide area extending from Portugal to Russia. It should be an overview only, not a dumping ground for large quantities of EU-specific information. Europe is not the EU. K7L (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I also concern that the existing Europe article could give the impression that all European countries belong to the EU.
It would be great if we could move on and discuss what should be in scope for the European Union article and how it relates to the Europe article. I believe there should be some common ground in the content at least. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Guys, can we not overcomplicate things? I could agree that there are far too many references to the EU and EU-specific topics in the Europe article, but why not simply remove the redundant ones (as if it was important for a traveller whether Austria joined in 1995 or 2004) rather than create a separate article? If we remove the redundant bits, there is not enough content to even make a wax figure of Elaine Page out of it, not to mention an article nobody would be looking for. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there's plenty of EU-specific information which directly affects the traveller. If Austria uses the Euro and is Schengen, we say so. K7L (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. We have already established there is plenty of traveler relevant material. I dont see what further intransigence on this will acheive. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Merge. As Prince said, people do not travel to the "EU", but to Europe. Information in this article of a more "Understand"-like character could be moved to Europe and be shortened when appropriate - after all if one wants to learn the nuts and bolts about the European Union, WP is the place for that. Information that has more practical implications could be made into templates which would be put into those particular countries where they apply, something along the lines of Template:Schengen and Template:Euro. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion has used a great deal of energy and that point has been raised already, as have the counterpoints.
Rather than just continue to go in circles around this, I will go forth and spend some time today adding the practical travel information for the EU to this article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. We already agree that there is overlap between the EU and Europe articles that needs to be addressed. I've started to trim information about the Eurozone from the Europe article, since that info is already covered in the EU page. Edge3 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a "Value added tax" section, since it's relevant to any non-EU citizens visiting the EU. Hopefully, we can figure out over time whether this actually belongs in an EU article, or whether we can fit it into Europe. Edge3 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Having read through the whole article in its current version, I would no longer countenance the idea of merging this information to Europe. There's too much content here for that to be a good idea, and it's clearly relevant to travellers, so I think those who disagreed with the merger made a good call. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not personally ready to draw that conclusion yet. We're still trying different ways to present this content, and the discussion should continue until we reach consensus. Edge3 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I am strongly of the opinion that this article should be kept. See Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Index_articles. Pashley (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This article shouldn't exist. It doesn't qualify for Wikivoyage:What is an article? guidelines. The European Union is not a destination. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
People have actually gone here, much like people have actually gone to the Moon. How is it not a real place? Furthermore, this is currently a travel topic, not a "what is an article?" destination. K7L (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
People have also gone to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the East African Community. The EU is a political union, it's outside the scope of travel. If it were a travel topic, it should look like United Nations, i.e. be a guide for people who want to see the institutions buildings themselves. This article clearly deals with destination-like information, like getting a visa. Globe-trotter (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it is worthwhile to gather this information in one place. What is wrong is that many country articles still repeat the lengthy blurb about Schengen anyway. They should redirect here. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Globe-trotter : You are not saying anything that hasn't already been discussed above. This article is not a travel destination but a travel topic. It is not describing a political union but instead a traveller related information specifically for the EU. Maybe you want to read the content inside first to verify this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Traveller related information for the EU". We could also make a NAFTA article and add "traveller related information for NAFTA". It's an article that doesn't need to exist, and just combines a lot of unrelated information in one article. All information here should already be present at the Europe article, so what's the point of writing it again here? Maybe if information would get unwieldy at the Europe page, we could have a separate travel topic about getting in to Europe. But it should have a more focused article title, such as "Getting in to Europe" or "Schengen Area", and deal with a clear topic a traveler would want to read about. Now you'd have to consult the European Union article if you are flying to Switzerland, even though Switzerland is not a part of the European Union! Globe-trotter (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you completely. Also your comment about flying to Switzerland also doesn't make sense at all, since why would someone read this if they are flying to a non-EU country such as Switzerland?
This is a relevant travel topic for WV. This is not relevant information for Europe because (in case you are not aware) Europe is much bigger than the European Union.
Please read through the extensive discussion above. The article is not in the Europe region hierarchy and is a separate travel topic. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany and UK; exception for 112?[edit]

I have some concerns about this series of edits.

  1. It seems to duplicate information about the EEA that already appeared immediately after the new section that was added
  2. It provides more information than it is probably necessary for a traveller to know about the practical consequences for Croatian travellers of not yet having tchnically subscribed to the EEA agreement (might be relevant in an EEA article. see and and also and also health services while travelling:
  3. I'd also love to see some evidence for this statement: "Calling 112 with a mobile phone without a SIM card is possible, but a few countries handle these calls differently, Germany and UK ignoring them altogether". --W. Frankemailtalk 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I made the edits in question.
  1. The information about EEA is indeed there, but I did not see it before the edit. I think those countries or the fact the article is relevant also for countries outside of EU should be clearly noted in the very beginning of the article.
  2. I thought about leaving Croatia unmentioned, but found no elegant way to do so without actually lying.
  3. The information on 112 is at Nieminen: SIM-lösa nödsamtal är frustrerande för nödcentralsoperatörerna, a column of a director at Finnish 112, on the website. It is in Swedish, but might be understandable enough that you can ask for translation or clarification on some specific points. As I understand the article should be reliable and correctly quoted (except that I see Germany and UK have decided on, not necessarily implemented, the change).
--LPfi (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid response, LPfi!
I don't speak Swedish but I've phoned an old friend in Gotland and got her to translate it for me and it certainly supports your edit that I reference above as (3). I'll also hope to contact some friends in Germany later this evening and ask them to run some experiments. Meanwhile, my own experiments do give some support to your edit (3). Wickedly, (since it's a criminal offence to make a frivolous emergency call in Scotland), I made some tests with 4 different GSM mobiles: a German market Nokia, a UK market Samsung and Sony and an Australian market LG. When I removed the SIM cards, all 4 initially showed the message "No SIM. Emergency calls only" so my first assumption was that your edit was mistaken in the case of Glasgow. I then dialled 112 with each of the 4 phones with identical results: "No network found" or "Network problem" or "No signal" (This is in the centre of Glasgow right next door to what used to be Strathclyde Police headquarters where there is a super signal strength from 5 separate providers). I then dialled 999 with each of the 4 phones and the result was identical messages. Finally, and to my chagrin, I called 111 (the Australian emergency number) with the Australian market LG and immediately got the emergency operator saying "What is your emergency?" without ever even hearing a ringing tone. Shocked, I apologised for the mistake and explained the mid-dial. I'll do some googling tonight, but it seems you were right. --W. Frankemailtalk 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
w:000 Emergency is the distress call in Australia. I'd think 1-1-1 is New Zealand? K7L (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Make more traveler orientated?[edit]

Is it just me, or does this article, especially the 'Understand' section look like a Wikipedia article rather than something genuinely useful to a traveler? In particular I find the table too technical and detailed. Can we reduce the columns from:

  • Country
  • EEA?
  • Symbol3
  • Currency
  • EU member
  • Schengen
  • Time


  • Country
  • Currency
  • Schengen
  • Time

? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

+1. In particular, the table currently overlaps heavily but not entirely with the one in Europe (now templated out to Template:Europe reference table. I'd like to re-use the same table here and alter the text to fit. Jpatokal (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Great! Just to be clear, should I make the change here first or did you mean you will implement the change? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Plunged forward and did it. Jpatokal (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like some of the columns were added back in somehow. Removing again. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking some of the countries should be removed where they're outright non-EU, non-Schengen, non-Euro currency, non-EEA. Russia, for instance, has nothing to do with the EU and doesn't belong here even if it is partially in Europe geographically. K7L (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually it was using a Europe template. I created an alternate table that is restricted to EU members and is less encyclopedic. Are there any affiliated non-EU countries that should be included?
I also removed the EuroRail/Interrail columns, since this is covered in Europe and is not specifically belonging to the EU. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

EU regions outside of the European continent[edit]

Are we trying to give an exhaustive list? If so, what about New Caledonia? Is it part of the EU? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, Greenland? I presume the ones not listed are non-EU? K7L (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Are we trying to rewrite Wikipedia? What's the relevance of this list? PrinceGloria (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If any of this article is relevant, such a list would be relevant. Is my reasoning wrong? If so, how? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is written to say "when you are coming to the European Union (as commonly understood), here is some practical information applying to all EU countries" and not "there are some bits of land all over the world that are formally pieces of the EU, but actually mostly governed under different rules so brace yourself for a list of exceptions". PrinceGloria (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the real question is whether the traveller would reasonably be likely to presume or expect that Greenland were part of the EU if we remained mute on this point. If not, no need to mention its status. K7L (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, French Polynesia apparently has its own currency, so I'm not sure what anyone can assume. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it can be explained better, but that list IS exhaustive. Those territories are part of the European Union. Other territories (such as French Polynesia) are actually not part of the EU. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also Greenland is not part of EU (although it is complex, since all Greenland citezans are actually Danish, and therefore EU citizens)
I think the confusion around 'what is the EU' for travelers is highlighted here. Just because a territory belongs to an EU country does not automatically mean it has the EU travel implication. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


What does this sentence mean?

"Kosovo and Montenegro also use the currency, but they are not part of the Eurozone in any way."

In what ways are they not part of the Eurozone that are of practical relevance to travellers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The information is not that relevant. It can be excised. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't completely sure; that's why I asked the question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Euro is the official currency there but they don't issue them. The Euro is used in Kosovo and Montenegro like the American dollar is used in Ecuador and Panama (and in practice in most smaller Latin American countries?). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a somewhat interesting fact, but what effect does it have on travellers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just a fun fact, frankly talking... You pay with euros there just as you would in France or Germany. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Kosovo and Montenegro were removed from the list. I've just reverted that edit. How could excising mention of their use of euros possibly help travellers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I understood from the discussion above that the fact that these countries use the Euro is not relevant to travelers to the European Union. Kosovo and Montenegro are not EU members, so traveling to them is out of scope. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned before, nobody goes to travel to the European Union. They travel to Europe, but there are certain implications associated with visiting countries that are members of the EU. We should consider this article to be a topic page, rather than a destination page. Edge3 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The information that is not that relevant is that they are not official members of the Eurozone, so I edited the passage to mention that only in passing. The fact that they use Euros is at least as relevant to travellers as the fact that Greenland, also not an EU member, does not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion only goes to show how redundant and artificial this article is PrinceGloria (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You've made your point, but you're in the minority right now, so perhaps the best thing you could do would be to suggest ways to make this article more relevant and useful to travellers, with the proviso that you'd prefer for the article not to exist. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we're done with the discussion, and that suddenly we are deciding stuff by majority here. I believe we are now in a trial period, trying to see if the experiment of creating this as a standalone article works or not. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless it would be good form to demonstrate a constructive attitude when discussing WV content. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Edge3, this seems to be more appropriate as a travel topic than as a region. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In any case, this is not an experiment. That particular odd status only applies to new templates to discourage their use, so that they may be nominated for deletion for lack of use. :) K7L (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Travel topic?[edit]

There was talk above about this being properly a travel topic, not an extra-hierarchical region. So are we going to change this to a travel topic? Why or why not? I guess it's unusual as a travel topic, but there's a question about how much this is really a region. As a "region," it includes French Guiana. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Some danged fool created United States of America as a region, and it includes Guam. Go figure. K7L (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the US is not a region; it's a country. Besides, there are other issues in this case, having to do with the complicated overlaps between which countries use euros (a couple of which aren't in the Eurozone officially, but who cares?), Schengen countries, and the EU. So does this article serve the traveller better as an extra-hierarchical region or a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the United States is not so clear cut w:Commonwealth_(U.S._insular_area) Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And there are separate articles about those territories, especially the ones that have different immigration and visa rules. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to see to what extent the article on the US "includes" territories like Guam should look at United States of America#Regions. The short answer is that they are mentioned, but that the reader is directed to separate articles about them. Now, could we please get back to discussing whether the reader/traveller is most benefited by this article being an extra-hierarchical region article or a travel topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If the article is to exist (and I'm still not sure whether it should), it should be a travel topic. Travelers do not view the EU as a destination. Instead, they are more concerned about the implications on travel, such as immigration and customs. The scope should be narrowly defined. "Stay healthy", "Stay safe", and "Connect" currently seem out of scope because they can be easily covered in Europe and fit more appropriately in a region article rather than a travel topic. Edge3 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree -> 1) this is clearly a travel topic, not a destination, 2) it is still not clear whether this article should exist separately from Europe at all. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of this, such as the ability to use national health coverage in other member nations or to call 1-1-2 in an emergency, is EU-specific. It doesn't apply to Russia, for instance, or Belarus. I see no reason why any of this belongs in Europe due to its size and due to it only applying to EU (or EFTA) members. K7L (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, but that's a different issue. Let's see if we can come to a consensus on whether this article should be changed into a travel topic or stay an extra-hierarchical region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we already have reached a consensus on this question. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks this page should remain as a region article. . Edge3 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The European Union should clearly be a Travel tropic, not a region or any other kind of destination. Though I would still support putting the content into the Europe article or in articles of individual countries (by using templates like for instance Template:Schengen) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Then in 24 hours, if no-one objects, this article should be changed to a travel topic, without prejudice to the question of whether it may eventually need to be merged or redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree to change to travel topic. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree to change to travel topic (very nice article btw, as a EU citizen I learned new stuff from it). Jjtkk (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to a travel topic, but then I faced the issue of how to breadcrumb it, so I breadcrumbed it to Europe. That's kind of annoying, in the sense that it still seems like a regional article. Should it be breadcrumbed to "Preparation"? I also classed it as Usable, but it might be a Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would breadcrumb it to Preparation. Note that there are other "Preparation" articles that are related to single countries, such as Avoiding a transit of the United States, but that article is still breadcrumbed to "Preparation". Edge3 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, any objection from anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No objection. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Duty must however still be paid on goods that you wish to resell"[edit]

Are we sure about that? Everyday, hundreds of companies across the EU are shipping tons of goods across EU borders without paying any customs duties. The only trick here is that they have to pay VAT somewhere, so if they don't want to do it in both countries, they need to keep good records of what is being sold where.

There may be some obscure regulation requiring private individuals, rather than companies, to pay duties on wholesale amounts of goods, but I find it highly illogical. Perhaps this applies to cigarettes, alcohol and other goods that are taxed specially (most countries have an extra excise tax on them and extra restrictions that vary), but I still believe this is not about duty but rather limitations. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, it's pretty much about the German customs seeking cars coming from east for tobacco and Finnish customs seeking cars from the Tallinn ferry for booze. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Citation: "You can bring home anything you buy in another EU country, without stopping at the border or making a customs declaration. The only condition is that your purchases must be for your own or your family's personal use, and not intended for resale." LINK
You may find in practice that some countries care more about this than others. The United Kingdom is rather vigilant in this regard. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is about VAT, and some types of goods for which special rules on taxation exist that differ between countries (alcohol, tobacco, cars). There is no way you can pay customs duties on anything bought legally in the EU transported to another country. You may encounter restrictions or special taxation on select goods, but certainly not customs duties. This part is misleading.
If this part was to be useful, btw, we should do some research and at least outline which goods and what quantities may be subject to such controls. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
PS. I am not sure how this relates to duty-free shopping. E.g. whether you may run in trouble if you claim VAT refund under the pretence of being from outside of the EU and then travel with some goods of high-value to another country. But then I guess customs has no way of telling whether you claimed your VAT refund or not.
It does apply to certain goods such as tobacco and alcohol and is implemented throughout the EU although it is possible each country has different policies. LINK
The point of the text is simply to indicate that transporting goods (and we can be specific about tobacco and alcohol) through the EU is not completely free from restrictions. This is still an exceptional scenario since the traveler would have to be transporting basically a truck's worth of beer and cigarettes before the customs agents noticed. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Reworded the text to reflect the above. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


I saw the following in the article:

One euro equals 100 cent, commonly referred to as "eurocent"

I lived for a while in Germany, visited many other Eurozone countries, and never heard this referred to as a 'eurocent'. (Although some googling suggests that might be the technical name)

Will changing to just 'cent' be more helpful? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, in my experience "eurocent" is frequently used by people coming from countries where Euro is not the common currency. In Germany in a shop it may be obvious that the lady at the counter is asking for 99 eurocents when she says "99 cents", but here outside of the Eurozone we do refer to those as eurocents, as USD cents are just as likely a possibility (and have been the only "cents" in common parlance for decades). I would use both in the text, wherever "eurocents" are incongrous and it is obvious they are being meant in a passage, we may shorten to cents. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is quite far-fetched that any foreign cents would be mentioned implicitly on this page. Using "eurocents" where "not obvious" only makes other mentions of "cents" seem to refer to something else; it is a slippery slope. Therefore I think we should mention cents/eurocents once when introducing the currency, and talk about cents thereafter.
The problem is similar to countries with dollars, pounds, kronas or really any other currency with a name not unique to one country. Some travellers know a currency of that name from home or from some other country, but have to realise that we mean the currency of the country we are talking about.
--LPfi (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In my experience "Eurocents" was more common earlier on (at least in Germany) and is now virtually only used when ambiguity is feared. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have the same feeling. I change the "often" to "sometimes". The important thing is that the reader knows they mean the same thing, and I think it is better to understate the use of eurocent than the other way round. --LPfi (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


What about changing the current banner into the following more colorful one?

European flag banner.jpg

--Andyrom75 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The current one also has flags but has part of the European Parliament building, so it gives off the feeling of an institution, not just a flag, and therefore, though I don't feel very strongly about this, I like it better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Because it is a close up of the flag, there is a flash of red at the lower-left side that for moment makes me think it is a flag of a different country.
Red and blue flag of Taiwan
In general terms however I think it would be good yo replace the existing banner since it does look like a Marriott hotel rather than the center of the European Union. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I won't argue at all vociferously on this point, but the EU is in fact a modern bureaucratic institution, and that building looks like a modern institutional building, so perhaps it gives a really accurate impression to the reader. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Guide and FTT[edit]

What travel relevant content is still missing from the article and needs to be added before it could be promoted to Guide status and nominated for FTT? --ϒpsilon (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I kind of envisaged the article to provide traveler specific information for EU travel rather than be a destination in itself. I think we agreed that no-one really wants to tour the EU specifically, or even visit any iconic destination (Brussels and Strasbourg perhaps?) . Any ideas? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as of now the article is about practical issues and I agree this should be the focus of the article. It wouldn't do any harm to briefly mention "EU attractions" like the European parliament in Brussels with a few sentences.
Right now the article has an Understand section, information about travel documents, customs, money, working, medical issues, passenger rights, 112 and communication.I'm wondering if there are any practical issues that's not mentioned in the article yet (and that should be here instead of in e.g. the Europe or Travelling around the Schengen Area articles). I can't come up with anything important missing, but maybe someone else spots anything missing.
We featured Nuclear tourism in 2016 for the 30th anniversary of Chernobyl, and D-Day beaches in 2014 for the 70th anniversary of the D-day. The Treaty of Rome, one of the most important milestones in the forming of today's EU came into force 1 January 1958, so we could perhaps sort of celebrate EU's 60th anniversary by featuring the article as FTT upcoming December or January and thereby perhaps draw some attention to Wikivoyage. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I would support doing something like that. Brexit (for example) was caused by in part by the EU being regarded as a negative organization that undermines national sovereignty rather than the reality that it (mostly) acts as a positive force for European society. It would be great to show a more human face that people could visit. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi ϒpsilon . Going on from your message to the Pub, I would say that we need a small section on EU visitor destinations at least. I guess some of the main institutions have visitor tours and such ( w:Institutions_of_the_European_Union ). Anything else? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
ϒpsilon, Andrewssi2: Though I doubt I will be able to do much in the way of contributing to the article, I would be happy to support this for FTT in December (preferably) or January, assuming it's promoted to Guide status at that point (and I have full faith that it will be). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I added a short 'Visit' section at the end. I tried to stick with items that were purely about the EU (with the exception of the ECB, although post Brexit it will be the EU bank in all but name)
It has to be said that the list is rather dry (the parliament building in Strasbourg doesn't exactly stack up to Disneyland) ... any ideas to add for exciting EU destinations would be gratefully received. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
That's great. I don't think it gets more exciting than maybe some museums and memorials at most. Europa Park, for example, is about individual places in Europe rather than the EU organization. --ϒpsilon (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There are other articles on my schedule to work on before this one, but is probably the best source for additional information. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"formal" and "official" - chaff to be cut or important distinctions in muddy waters?[edit]

So recent edits got rid of a bunch of mentions of terms like "formal" and "official". I think they needlessly change the meaning. For example Brexit means a formal exit from the EU but nobody knows whether what comes out at the other end will be "UK is to EU as Brazil is to EU" or "UK is a non-voting member of the EU in all but name". Similarly there not being a formal agreement between Kosovo and the EU regarding currency doesn't mean there's no tacit understanding - we might not know of it but we can presume it to exist.... the words formal and official IMHO clarify those kinds of situations Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I made those edits because I do not think that these words convey what you are intending. If there is a tacit agreement, you should write that rather than implying it with a shorthand that you understand but that readers may not. It is clear that the UK will have some sort of relationship with the EU, and it is clear that the policy of the UK government is to leave (or "exit") the EU. Even the recent election hasn't changed that. A future election might, but we don't have a crystal ball for that. Adding "formal" into the sentence, you are loading in a lot of meaning that the reader cannot be expected to get from one word. Let's not write ambiguously. Ground Zero (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Saying there is no agreement is not the same as saying there is no formal agreement. Saying the UK will leave the EU is something different as saying it will officially leave the EU - there will likely be some things that could be considered part of leaving the EU that happen before or after the actual day X of Brexit (e.g. UK MEPs giving their farewell speeches) Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. What I am saying is that you are not being clear by only hinting at what you mean by adding "formal" or "official". Either say it in a way that readers will understand what you are saying, or leave it out. Ground Zero (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I think adding such words sometimes make a clear difference, but in the cases I noticed here, I think I have to agree with Ground Zero. For the currency issue there cannot be any unofficial agreement with EU, as there is no body that could make such agreements (although everybody accepting the use is quite obvious). For Brexit, the only thing we know is that it seems they will leave the EU. If it turns out they will exit only formally, then we can add the word (and explain somewhere here, in UK or wherever). --LPfi (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

More history[edit]

I think we should go more into depth on EU history with both its successful times and the times when little or nothing moved forward. It is also peculiar that we don't even mention the fact that Europe currently enjoys one of the most peaceful epochs since the fall of the Roman Empire in no small part thanks to European Unification. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there should be some more on history and on controversies. I noted your wording – and whether EU should go "forward" is in itself controversial, not to mention what direction is forward. It seems the pro-EU folks often do not mind what direction one is going as long as one is moving, while the critics try to figure out how to get democratic control without losing national control. Then there are the populist nationalists, who prefer just stating that EU is bad (cf Brexit), avoiding the issues about how to handle necessities like trade and cooperation without or outside EU. It is easy to write too much (for a travel guide) about these conflicts, but it is also bad that we now give the impression there is no debate. --LPfi (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


There seems to be serious confusion in the Get in section, which mostly tells about Schengen rules instead of EU rules. As a Schengen and EU citizen I have had no need to worry about the corner cases, but as now the article is misleading. Norwegians are lumped together with Australians and said not to need a visa for tourist stays of at most 90 days, while they by my understanding are allowed to stay for any reason as long as their funds permit, and work and study freely. The separate rules for outside tourists to UK or Ireland are mentioned in the lead but not in Non-EU citizens.

I suppose this was written before the Travelling around the Schengen Area article and therefore redundantly handles those cases, while now this article should handle the rest and direct Schengen travellers to the separate article. The division should probably be EU/EEA/EFTA vs others, not EU vs others.

--LPfi (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see where Norwegians and Australians are getting 'lumped together' in the Get In section. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
"Citizens of some non-EU member countries, such as Australia, Brazil ... don't need visas if they are travelling for tourist purposes and their stay lasts no longer than 90 days within a 180-day period inside the Schengen area. Citizens of ... also don't need visas, and neither do citizens of ... Norway and Switzerland. Citizens of these four countries should use the immigration queue often signed "EEA" – even though Switzerland left the EEA some years ago."
This does not tell why there is a separate EEA queue or what it is about. The EEA link redirects to Europe (while having it point here would be sensible – will do so now – EEA is what I can see explained in neither article). Are there any restrictions on EEA citizens differing from those of EU citizens?
--LPfi (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Driving licences[edit]

The driving licence section says something that I suppose means underage people with a valid non-EU driving licence (such as from USA?) may be allowed to use that to drive in parts of the EU regardless of age, although underage people with a EU licence are not. Did I understand correctly and is this true (the sentence should then be clarified), or is it trying to say something else? --LPfi (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Legislation and the parliament[edit]

There has been changes back and forth on whether the European parliament is not the main or not the sole legislative power. Last I checked the parliament has more of an advisory role, possibly with power to veto when not content, but with other bodies initiating and doing the actual writing of directives and regulations. I'd not call that "not the only", but "not the main". Has the situation changed so much that the parliament can be called "the but not the sole" legislative body? --LPfi (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter, here? Will it make an impact on traveling or tourism? --Robkelk (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does. Why would we otherwise tell about the history at all? For somebody interested in politics, or for other reasons interested in visiting EU institutions, it is quite important to understand that the parliament, despite its name, doesn't have the power parliaments in democratic countries have. If we do not feel the issue important enough to get it right, we should not mention the parliament at all, and could remove the section on European institutions to visit. --LPfi (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think all laws of consequence require at least the consent of the EU Parliament. Some laws may require the assent of other bodies, but that would make it the main legislative body in my book. Formal right to propose or introduce laws (which the Parliament has in at least some fields, I think) is not that important if the right to amend is free. After all, the President of the US has no formal right to introduce bills into Congress. For more details, look here Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems things have improved more than I was aware of. The veto is quite powerful when the proposal amendment procedures work. Still the procedures are quite different from any national legislature I know. I think I have to leave the wording for others to decide, as I cannot check thoroughly now. --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well bicameralism is a common thread in many systems, probably derived from the British/American model. Of course the way initiatives work is pretty unique to the EU, but the "EU Parliament can make a proposal and the commission has to propose it within a year or say within three months why it doesn't" thing obviously can be a paper tiger in practice or a very strong tool depending on how it is handled... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Brexit worst case[edit]

I cannot believe a scenario where "all flights and other travel between the UK and the EU would have to be suspended". Without any agreements that would of course theoretically be possible, but denying the British entry or vice versa could only be imagined as making a point, and too expensive for anybody to allow it to happen. The worst thing might be full scale customs checks for trucks and cargo ships from UK (and perhaps from Ireland if they do not organize effective customs check against Northern Ireland) and some chaos in the air traffic and at borders, uncertainty for citizens living across the Brexit border and of course a bumpy ride on the financial market.

I suppose travellers going to UK or going to transfer in UK need to check last minute notices and prepare for long waits at the immigration lines, but I suppose everyone will try to keep things going as smooth as possible.

--LPfi (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

5 years ago I wouldn't have believed a scenario where the UK would have voted to leave the EU, but there we have it...
I dislike politics on WV, but with your viewpoint I disagree strongly. It is hoped that a solution will be found, and I agree that should still be more likely than not. But a scenario where planes can no longer fly is a real possibility. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
And before you revert my edit again, please read [this
“If the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 with no agreement in place, UK and EU licensed airlines would lose the automatic right to operate air services between the UK and the EU without seeking advance permission,” said the government.
Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
While I suppose the airlines will seek and get the needed licences, I think the new wording is OK. Some bureaucracy that may hit some travellers hard (such as the rabies vaccines – UK is rabies free, but not treated as such without agreements) could also be mentioned. --LPfi (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
We should all sure hope that Brexit goes swimmingly and there are no disruptions to travel, but they might happen. I think there'll be some busy editing late March 2019... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I can only see no disruptions happening if the withdrawal date is postponed or the UK agrees to remain in the customs union (that being the very sensible and also very unlikely way forward) Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have variously heard about the potential for disruption to automobile travel (the famous parking lot for trucks leading up to Dover), disruptions to Eurostar (it may or may not lose its license to enter the EU) disruptions to air travel (discussed already) and possibly also disruptions to passenger shipping... I fear we will only be the wiser after March 29. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sort of the point. The legal and regulatory frameworks underpinning transport take years to negotiate and ratify. An awesome benefit of EU membership is that you don't have to concern these too much. A 'last minute' deal won't be sufficient to replace that, so even in a best case scenario there would be some level of disruption as everyone struggles to cover the gaps with appropriate paperwork and legal procedures. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the EU will "tolerate" (is that the right word?) UK flights entering EU airspace even after a No Deal Brexit "for a period of transition". Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

EU lie detectors?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Lonely Planet claims Passengers from outside the EU will face lie detector tests while travelling in Europe. Not all countries (yet?), apparently just a pilot project. Pashley (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary details[edit]

@Hobbitschuster : I removed a sentence I thought was about unnecessary legal details:

The European court of Justice further added to the uncertainty with a ruling that actually the United Kingdom could unilaterally revoke Article 50 and abandon Brexit altogether.

I got reverted: "How is that unnecessary? Brexit could be unilaterally withdrawn until the very last day...". I find the sentence redundant, as the previous one says:

"... or even revoking Brexit completely and staying in the EU."

--LPfi (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Brexit clearer?[edit]

Andrewssi2 removed a lot of the Brexit speculation and preliminary information, as "Brexit has become more clear towards the 31st January leaving date". I suppose so, but none of that clearer information was added, and United Kingdom#Get in still references this article for Brexit information (as it probably should).

Could those in the know tell what the implications on travel will be, or what they at last will not be? What about the North Ireland borders? What about international flights? The former discussion on these was removed.

--LPfi (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I did recognize this might be contentious, but the earlier article iterations (with my own contributions) reflected the ambiguities of the situation. This included the strong hope that Brexit maybe watered down or even cancelled. The recent UK election has made the way forward much clearer in that the UK will formally leave on 31st January with an interim trading agreement - (as well as much of the existing travel rules) in place for the remainder of 2020.
The main challenge of this article will be to help determine what happens on 1st January 2021. The agreements reached (or not) by that date will result in either a 'soft brexit' with low traveler impact, or 'hard brexit' with significant traveller impact.
For what it is worth, I'm visiting UK and EU this April, so keeping a keen eye on this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)