Talk:European Economic and Social Committee

Abolition

I'd suggest removing or significantly shortening the paragraph on its proposed abolition, since it seems unfeasible post-Lisbon, and apparently suggested only by a fringe option, further marginalized after new elections for the European Parliament. Unless there are some other references about this proposal, and nobody disagrees, I think I'll turn that section into a single sentence placed somewhere else.Aryah (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph on the future of EESC has been updated with Lisbon's outcome and consistently modified as the new Treaty confirmed and improved the role of the EESC; the mentioned marginal event of the presentation of a written declaration signed by a few MEPs and not adopted by the European Parliament has been overtaken by the latest amendements to the Treaties and has become clearly obsolete: therefore I support the previous comment, if there are no new references on it and nobody disagrees I will erase it. Liutprando (talk) 10:14 12 January 2012

I added the Controversy section, as I believe the Wiki page as it stands is EESC propaganda and does not reflect opinion of policy-makers in Brussels about the role and usefulness of the EESC and the CoR. I would like a more open debate and discussion about this. (SwithunWells) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwithunWells (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The controversy chapter has been deleted because is a personal opinion not supported either endorsed by any official documents. All statemants of this article are supported by official documents avalable on line. Sources are quoted in the footnotes.The Lisbon traty has confirmed and enforced the role of the European Economic and Social Committee. The asked modication could be accepted only in the case the author could quote an official document of the European Union and not a personal opinion or a minority report not adopted by the European Parliament. Liutprando (talk) 09:14 9 July 2012

The controversy chapter has been reinstated. I would be happy to email Liutprando a copy of the report, which contains facts supported by offical documents. However, there is no reason why this page should not include minority views. The legitimacy of the Lisbon Treaty is politically questionable. (talk 9 July 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia project rules:author should quote official document for statements around public institutions . Quoted document should be public, official and available. Questions about legitimacy of the Lisbon Treaty adopted by 27 Member States and their parliaments are not an issue to be discussed on the EESC page. Therefore comments and chapter cannot be accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liutprando (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. It looks as though I'll have to publish a new page somewhere to circulate the information. SwithunWells 10 July — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwithunWells (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the page (as it stands) is more like propaganda than objective data. It is not a minority view but a generally accepted point (even within Brussels) that the EESC has outlived its usefulness. In the early days of the EEC, EcoSoc (as one used to call it) brought expert opinion to the attention of the lawmakers. But for many years the main EU Institutions (Commission, Council & Parliament) have had all and more of the advisers and researchers they need. The inability of the EU to prune such bodies when appropriate is a major failing. We need to reintroduce a controversy element and fight any apparatchik tendency. This is Europe, not North Korea!. Arrivisto (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In September 2011 I wrote a paragraph: ""While (the EESC) has undoubtedly performed good works in its time, it has been generally felt for some decades that it has outlived its usefulness, and should be dismantled, having served its purpose.... Since then, that section has become a platform for EESC propaganda. So today, in the interests of balance and the elimination of bias, I have pruned and edited the section, putting the EESC guff in quotes and reintroducing a critique of the EESC. Arrivisto (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am rather critical about the redirecting to europeanfoundation.org (reference (6)) Apparently there are citations in this link criticizing the EESC. The link itself is not a safe one. I would like to suggest to remove the link altogether. Hence the reference cannot be checked. Europeanfoundation is a Eurosceptic thinktank and can hardly be called an an unbiased source of information. Main problem, the link is not safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.62.192.147 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)