Talk:Treaty of Lisbon

Date of the ratings? Is the article getting better, little by little? Hope so:-) wiki-vr

Can this article be simplified?

I don't mean to be rude, but this article is too hard for me to understand. Since it is hard to find information on the Lisbon Treaty elsewhere, it is imperative that this article is easy to read and to understand, especially for people in Ireland, who will be the voting on the treaty shortly. An 'overview' section at the start of the article may be considered. Thankyou, Shane (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

There already is a summary. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Votes

The percentage given in the box on ratification in Ireland is incorecct. The actual percentage was no-53.4% yes-46.6. It's a disgrace that the wrong percentages are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.58.244 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical rounding? Probably a question of availabe place -- giving the actual number of votes in Ireland would break the table.--217.230.163.74 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute on this section although I cannot see what the problem is. Perhaps whoever pasted the icon could be more explicit - or remove it if the problem has been solved.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In Ireland a referendum is based on the number who have voted. Those who do not vote are not considered to have abstained and are not counted as part of the official result which is Yes 46.6% / No 53.4%. The info box should be changedCoolavokig (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Death penalty legalized by the treaty?

Here it says that the actual possibility of enforcing death penalties upon citizens of EU "in the case of war, riots, upheaval". I'm not an expert on legal matters nor material but shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Another reference: [1] --piksi (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The death penalty is not legalised by the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, and the Charter forbids the use of the death penalty absolutely. There are no exceptions. The Charter can be found here: [2]

I've checked the whole of the Lisbon Treaty and can find no mention of any alterations to the Charter, or exceptions to the death penalty. I don't know where this story came from, but it's absolutely untrue. I suspect it's just a crazy europhobe's scare-mongering. User:Chid12 18:09, 25 April 2008

Ok, big thanks for going through the trouble of checking the document itself. I had my doubts about the news, but as I found two separate sources reporting the same thing, I thought it was worth checking out. --piksi (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No exceptions eh. Crazy europhobe scare mongering eh. Absolutely untrue eh. What makes ye of this then :

" b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR: ‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’. "

Taken DIRECTLY from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Website : http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

I am no law expert so if Im reading this wrong please update this piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.103.180 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are reading this wrong. It basically mean that states (all of them pretty much) need not scrap the state of emergency provisions contained in their various constitutions. It has always been thus, and has nothing to do with legalising the death penalty. You will note that in a state of war, people kill each other legally, so banning death penalty then is slightly absurd. Also, there exists in international law precedents for death penalty in the case of crimes against Humanity, again, those being committed frequently in times of war -- and international treaties usually supercede local legislation.

So Yes, crazy (ignorant) europhobe fear mongering.CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a widespread conception that death penalty would be legalized in cases of "war, riots, upheaval." I currently don't have the time to do it myself but I think this should definitely be mentioned in the article itself. Hirvinen (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Hirvinen, just read the posts above. The death penalty will of course NOT be legalized. The passage that police can use deadly violence in times of war and riots etc. is included in the European Convention of Human Rights which has been ratified by all European countries (except Belarus) quite some time now (most countries did so in the 1950s). The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights doesn't change anything in that regard. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words: Death penalty has always been an option, open for member states, in cases of war. This document does not change that at all. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But as this is a widespread misconception, why on earth is it not addressed and falsified on the article itself? Just five minutes ago someone said on IRC "Did you know that the Lisbon treaty allows for death penalty under conditions of..." and I'd have very much liked to just give them the URL to this article with the comment "No it doesn't. And you can check the references." Is not debunking a popular myth about a significant aspect of a significant treaty significant enough for a Wikipedia article? So would someone a bit more familiar with the subject and more times on their hands add a section? Hirvinen (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It shouldn't be used to include myths and then to say that those myths aren't true. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think there's a bit of confusion over this whole issue of the death penalty, the European Union, the ECHR and the Lisbon Treaty. I'll try and explain it all. The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) dates from 1959 and is entirely separate and unconnected to the European Union. The ECHR does actually permit the death penalty in Article 2(1). When the ECHR was drafted, the death penalty was still commonplace in Europe. As the years went by, and the death penalty became less and less acceptable, a Protocol was added to the ECHR forbidding the death penalty except in times of war in the early 1980s. This was the Sixth Protocol and every country but Russia has ratified it. So the death penalty became illegal except in times of war in all countries but Russia. Eventually even this loophole became unacceptable and in 2002 another Protocol - the Thirteenth Protocol - was added, prohibiting the death penalty at all times. 40 of the 47 Member States have ratified this, meaning that in all 40 countries, the death penalty is illegal in all circumstances.

So, legally, the situation is as follows:

Death penalty is always illegal = 40 countries;

Death penalty is illegal except in time of war = 6 countries;

Death penalty is acceptable (in theory) = 1 country: Russia (which hasn't used the death penalty in years anyway).

In the 1990s, it was realised that the European Union couldn't accede to the ECHR, only individual Member States could. So you had a situation where national law was subject to the ECHR, but not European Union law. To solve this, the EU created a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in 2000. This wasn't legally binding, but the European Court of Justice has referred to it nevertheless. It was based upon the ECHR and so Article 2 of the Charter reflected Article 2 of the ECHR, however it prohibited the death penalty completely. So the situation was a bit complicated legally: in 2000, the Thirteenth Protocol to the ECHR hadn't been written yet, only the Sixth; so whereas under the EU Charter (not legally binding), the death penalty was prohibited, under the ECHR (legally binding), it was acceptable in times of war. It was essentially the case that the EU Member States said that they wouldn't apply the death penalty, even though they theoretically could legally under the ECHR.

The Lisbon Treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms legally binding in a way that it wasn't before (except in the United Kingdom and Poland... possibly). The confusion has arisen in that people see the Charter, see Article 2 (drafted before the Thirteenth Protocol) which was based on Article 2 ECHR/The Sixth Protocol and assume that the Charter makes the Sixth Protocol the legally binding one, thus allowing the death penalty. This is not the case for two reasons:

1. Article 2 of the Charter explicitly prohibits the death penalty. The legal explanations (which are not legally binding, but only explanatory notes) refer to Article 2 ECHR and the Sixth Protocol as that was the legal status of the EU Member States as signatories to the ECHR when the Charter was drafted. As I've said, these are not binding and the situation has changed since 2000.

2. Almost all EU Member States have signed the Thirteenth Protocol to the ECHR. The exceptions are Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain. All but Latvia have national bans on the death penalty and so didn't need to sign the Thirteenth Protocol. Latvia, in theory, could still use the death penalty in times of war. But the EU wouldn't allow this, and Latvia probably wouldn't want to anyway.

I hope that explains things. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the Charter refers to the Sixth Protocol ECHR in its explanatory notes to explain the legal situation at the time the Charter was drafted. As we now have the Thirteenth Protocol to the ECHR, and given that neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the Charter refer to any exceptions to the explicit and total prohibition of the death penalty, there is no way the Lisbon Treaty could, under any circumstances, be interpreted to permit the death penalty. User:Chid12 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

update

DATE: LATVIA presidential asset 14th of june! German website is the source of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.251.231 (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is now in place news.bbc.co.uk /2/hi/europe/7053054.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.148.20 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Upss, JLogan "missing citations and/or footnotes"... http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Reform+Treaty%22 ... gets some 9.800 [1] hits as of today. What to do? Can you help?
–wiki-vr 12:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though first, what are the sources of the current article? - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See links/references – ok with you? wiki-vr 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the tag down but perhaps we could get more of it inline. This data will change fast and we need to know what's from where. Refs at the bottom aren't reliable. - J Logan ^t/_c: 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[1]	up to 44.800 hits today :-) wiki-vr 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC) ...and 353.000 today, perhaps you may consider some of them as reliable :-) wiki-vr 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Section needs serious work

This section -

"The reform treaty has been greeted with great controversy in the United Kingdom[15]. Once concern is that Tony Blair, who will leave office within a matter of days after attending the EU summit on the Reform Treaty, will lock his successor, Gordon Brown into an agreement which will ceded sovereignty to the EU, and Brown will be unable to change it. Furthermore, in Labour's election manifesto, they had promised a referendum over the constitution, large parts of which are still contained in the treaty, as admitted by even the German Chancellor. In response, Mr Blair, and initially Mr Brown, claimed that the treaty would not require a referendum so long as certain 'red lines' were not crossed; i.e., that Britain continued to retain her vetoes over collective foreign policy, common law (so the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be without legal effect) and social security and tax laws[16]. While Mr Blair claimed to have reached this compromise, doubt was thrown over the legal efficacy of his foreign policy opt-out, especially since the EU retained an extensive array of diplomatic machinery[17]. Of even greater concern to many was the French demand that the words "undistorted competition" be deleted from the EU constitution's objectives, which might lead to the re-growth of state-protected inefficient industries that the EU had previously stood firmly against. Furthermore, little action was taken to curb what many in Britain consider the sprawling bureaucracy of the EU's civil service, whose books have not been signed by auditors for nine years."

needs some serious work. It's badly written - "an agreement which will ceded sovereignty" etc - and many points don't make a great deal of sense or need to be clarified (the point about diplomatic machinery negating the foreign policy veto for example). Moreover, without wishing to offend anyone, it's obviously been written by a Eurosceptic, which is fine in itself, but I fear that this particular author has failed to adhere to objective standards. As a rule, if you can guess the political persuasion of the author of a particular section, then it needs some work on objectivity.

I apologise for the bias in there and the sentences which may be difficult to interpret, I'll take a look at those right away. I'm afraid that when I came across this article I felt that the was a need for a counter-opinion to all the positivity towards the European Union and this new treaty which is embedded throughout the article. I did work in some sources there if anyone outside the UK was unsure of the factual accuracy of the section. Roberdin 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now a draft treaty

The draft treaty can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1317&lang=en&mode=g

The presidency conclusions of the European Council (of June 22 and 23) can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/94932.pdf

sources

How can so obviously polemic sources like "George Pascoe-Watson (June 22, 2007). EU can't mention the war. The Sun. Retrieved on 2007-06-26." [3] been used for citation in wikipedia? By the way the article incluedes flase informations. Germany has 82,5 million inhabitants- not 88. The word choice makes it obviously that the author don't like Germany and that he is a non neutral observer.84.181.86.56 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in section regarding Poland

I do see several problems with the initial sentence of this section: "The German-backed attempt to redistribute voting weights has been the main article of controversy for Poland."

First, this is not only a "German-backed attempt", but the agreement found by 26 EU member states, but Poland.

Second, just stating "to redistribute voting weights" would leave the impression of an arbitrary change. Instead the voting will now be based on the true size of population (the vote for each EU citizen should be of equivalent weight), whereas the previous weighting was disproportionately favoring some countries without proper respect of the size of their population.

Any suggestions for a better wording? - Cheers, MikeZ 08:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried something, but I am not wholly happy. The English section also needs major rephrasing. In fact, I believe the whole "controversy" section could be reoved as in its current form it in fact lowers the quality of the article...CyrilleDunant 09:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Polish section seems to be lacking somewhat on the German-Polish relationship in aftermath of the Merkel agreement.[4][5] Intangible2.0 12:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK, this treaty has been extremely controversial; indeed, more headlines have emerged about it today. I would be surprised if it is ratified by anything more than the narrowest of margins. Many people who visit this article will be interested in what effect this treaty will have on the people who reside within the EU member countries, and what those people are saying about the treaty. I admit, I speak as a Eurosceptic, but I believe that removing that section would do a disservice to the neutrality of the article. Roberdin 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Simply put, the quotations section is a quotefarm. That is bad, and most of the content should be moved to wikiquote:Reform Treaty. I do not have an account there (and never edited Wikiquote), but I will see what I can do if no regular quotation-gatherers watch this page. --User:Krator (t c) 00:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unless they can be intergrated into the text they should be moved to Wikiquote - J Logan ^t/_c: 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote section tries to point out how politicians in various countries on one hand talk about a complete new deal, while others talk about it being the same as the old constitution. This in itself needs mentioning, but I'm not sure if one needs quotes for that. Intangible2.0 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting table

Some concerns on this table:

• It is too large. It needs to be trimmed down to a few representative countries, at least including Germany, Poland (dispute between them) and the UK (this is the English wiki). Choose 5-10 other countries based on size for comparison between systems. Move the big table to a separate article, perhaps European Council.
• It is horrendously formatted. Switch to neat HTML (without <hr>, using lowercase CSS and properly closing <br>) or wiki markup.
• It is not explaining much, because it uses terms not explained in the article. What is a "Share in the blocking minority", and what is the "qualified majority" at the bottom? Why do the percentages sometimes add up to more than 100%?

--User:Krator (t c) 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it belongs on the Qualified majority voting article, not here. It is a detail of a dispute during the negotiations of the reform treaty, we can explain in short what it is about, but we have articles like Qualified majority voting to explain details. Maarten 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This simplified square root is something Blonde (the old table was from his webpage) proposed himself AFAIK. I removed it. Also it is imperative to include ALL counties in a table about voting mechanisms.

If necessary please include the blocking share in the wikified table! I think these columns aren't necessary because of the explanation above the table.

Tools for this are eg [6]--84.163.126.80 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The current wikimarkup table is an improvement over the HTML one. Still, information needs to be moved to a more detailed article. --User:Krator (t c) 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes relating to the UK

I think that the long quotes regarding amendments to the Charter and the paragraph that speaks on deletion of "where competition is free and undistorted" are redundant to what is in the article already (by the way currently it makes it sound that the deletion of "free and undistorted" is a change from the old treaties, which it is not, it is a change from the old draft language for the new treaty). Especially the quoted language of the UK opt-out does not give any new information, rather oddly gives a special focus on the UK. Themanwithoutapast 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia! A special focus on the UK is desirable.

Not it is not. The UK isn't the only English-speaking country, and this is an encyclopaedia for the benefit of all, not just the UK. Redundant (and POV) info should be removed. Rossenglish 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am less certain that this was ever a serious issue in the UK (indeed no source was quoted). There are numerous other references to competition; this was a purely ornamental matter. I would remove this part of the article to leave room for more text on the substantive debates.Dubitante 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on what the guy was claiming above, its not just the case that something has simply been removed from the planned Constitutional Treaty, but that furthermore what has happened is that nothing is replacing the Article 3(1)(g) reference in the EC Treaty that "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted" forms one of the objectives of the Union. Instead this will be in a measly protocol attached to the Treaty. Academics and Competition Lawyers alike are saying this may be quite a big change after all, but we will have to see. Article 3(1)(g) was used in a number of very important EC Competition Law cases, and Sarkozy may have opened a can of worms here. It might even be worth mentioning in more detail in the article after all. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Commission to Parliament power-transfer"

"Commission to Parliament power-transfer — The directly elected European Parliament gains power and the European Commission (chosen by national leaders) loses power and importance." What's the source for this? I can't find anything on the Commission loosing power and that title suggests powers are moving from the Commission to Parliament. Where is this said?

On a general note, if we can get more citations on the facts here, we wouldn't be far off getting this up to GA which I think ought to be a priority. - J Logan ^t: 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's nonsense too. Why would the Commission lose power? Maarten 10:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ssolbergj wrote it, so you should ask him. A click on European Parliament gave some answers (which i copied into the article). Loosing power sounds a litte exaggerated but it seems there are many areas where the commission and council cannot decide without parliament anymore. This could be called loss of power for commission and council...

PS: We really need a list of policy areas which will fall under QMV.

I also think that we should create an section about special arrangements (opt-out,opt-in, ...) for the member states to clean up the content section (see "Charter of Fundamental Rights").

--Fred Stober 13:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Some directives and regulations that were decided upon by the Council alone, or with only consultation or assent of the Parliament, will become part of the normal law making procedure, which means Parliament and Council share the same powers (both can reject or amend a proposal of the Commission). So you could say that the Council must share its powers more often with the Parliament (and thus loses some power, though I find that wording a bit exaggerated), but the Commission only initiates laws and presents it to the Parliament and Council, who vote in favor or against the Commission's proposals. A different balance between the powers of the Parliament and the Council doesn't affect in any way the powers of the Commission, does it? Maarten 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read what I put into the article you will find that I didn't wrote there that the commission "looses" power and even deleted it from the article. Like I wrote above: I think it "sounds a litte exaggerated". BUT from a pedantic :) standpoint: The commission will have to take parliament into account when it initiates a law in the future. The number of all possible laws which could be initiated by the commission and passed by the council alone is less than the number of all possible laws which could be initiated by the commission and passed by the council and parliament. Personally i don't think this is relevant (that's why i deleted it from the article) but i understand why someone might be tempted to call the loss of options for the commission loss of power... I hope you understand my position.

PS: Was your "I disagree" also directed at my last two points? --Fred Stober 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not directed at your last two points :). I only wanted to make the point that when the Council has to share more power with the Parliament, it doesn't affect the powers of the Commission. But I see that isn't in the article anymore, so there is no point of contention :). A section about when to apply QMV is very relevant, but I think it should also list which of the special law making procedures (see European Union legislative procedure) should be applied in certain policy areas. Maarten 10:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If another entity (the parliament) now has a veto over proposals by the commission, then I think that can be regarded as a reduction of the commissions powers. Sandpiper (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Charter of Fundamental Rights

This section needs some work. There is a lot of discussion if these provisions are actually worth something, or not. The European Scrutiny Commission found that the current text of the provision is possibly inconsistent.[7] Intangible2.0 20:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

move

I've reverted the artice move. The move caused edit histories to get all tangled up, and the Reform Treaty still has to be ratified first on December 13. Intangible2.0 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the move (we can get an admit move to wipe the other lisbon page?) as not it is agreed it will certainly be signed there. Things can be known by such names before the event, there is no real eventuality where it would not be signed except for war, the destruction of Lisbon, revolution, sudden death of all leaders, shortage of ink or pens to sign with or me being chosen to cook the pre-signing dinner. - J Logan ^t: 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The big question is: Treaty of Lisbon (like Rome, Nice) or Lisbon Treaty like (Maastricht, Amsterdam) ? --Fred Stober 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It has been called both things in different articles today. There are two other historical "Lisbon Treaties", (one being a significant peace deal between Spain and Portugal) so can we redirect both the "Lisbon Treaty" and "Treaty of Lisbon" wikiadresses to this EU treaty? - S. Solberg J. 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the peace deal point, yes. This is more important, just have the diam link at the top of the page.

On Treaty of Lisbon/Lisbon Treaty - that is just phrasing, doesn't matter it means the same. You can equally say Treaty of Amsterdam and so on. In fact we ought ot format all out Treaty articles the same way for a start. - J Logan ^t: 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maastricht Treaty is much more common than Treaty of Maastricht. But Treaty of Nice is much more common than the Nice Treaty :) hmmm...

Are there any bets which name will prevail? Treaty of Lisbon or Lisbon Treaty (my favourite) --Fred Stober 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The European Commission still talks about the Reform Treaty [8][9]. I'm in favour of calling it the Treaty of Lisbon, and rename the article only a few days before the official signing in December. Intangible2.0 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they haven't got round to changing it, hasn't been much news yet. Again on the Treaty of/Treaty thing that really doesn't matter I think. What does matter I think is if the name Reform some how wins over in common terms over Lisbon. However I think considering how little real names are used in tabloids etc, along with other facts, we won't have much to worry about.- J Logan ^t: 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

EUROPEAN UNION SECESSION?

Can somebody extend the article of "European Union secession" and explain better what does this part of the article mean?: "Just like the European Constitution the Reform Treaty will include a provision that makes it possible for EU member states for the first time to legally and officially terminate their membership. While there has been an instance where a territory has ceased to be part of the EC (Greenland in 1985), there is currently no regulated opportunity to exit the European Union". I have heard nowhere (newspapers, televison, internet, etc.) that in the Reform Treaty that probably will be ratified during next year (2008), there will be for the first time in history the "opportunity" for a EU Member State "to legally and officially terminate its membership"!!! That's simply incredible, because from now on (as soon as the Reform Treaty will be ratified by every single EU Member State country), a "eurosceptic" country with a "eurosceptic" government can unilaterally decide to leave the rest of the EU Member countries!!! Please can you explain exactly what does this part of the article mean? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.22.228 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the case with most treaties, no one really thought it was needed before as it really isn't that hard to leave. This just takes the system Greenland used makes it formal. In terms of unilateral, it doesn't actually allow that as such as it has to go through negotiations still but in practical terms if a country were to do it unilaterally, well what's to stop them? As with all treaties, you cal always unilaterally leave, it just annoys everyone else you didn't say please. - J Logan ^t: 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would leave unilaterally, you are in breach of contract. With an EU membership, which is very, very important and has a lot of effects on a country, a unilateral withdrawal would cause both procedural and political disaster (for instance, independent courts in the withdrawing memberstates might not accept the unilateral withdrawal and continue to apply EU law). As the case was with Greenland, any withdrawal up until the Reform Treaty will be ratified would probably be by consensus decision between all EU countries and the country that wants to leave. After the Reform Treaty is in effect, the following passage will provide rules and procedures:

"The following new Article 35 shall be inserted:

"Article 35

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 188n(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 205(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 34.".

Themanwithoutapast 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of the Constitution

Why is there a picture of the constitutional treaty on the page? Its dead, get over it. A picture is needed of the reform treaty or that picture just needs removed. --79.184.161.219 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratification map

In the United Kingdom, it is not certain that enough Labour MPs will follow the party line to avoid a referendum, and in Portugal, the PM has not yet stated whether he will call for a referendum or not, so the issue is still under discussion there -- so, could you please stop reverting to the forked map, Lucy-marie? Thanks. —Nightstallion 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence on the United kKingodm is original research and until it is confimed that a referandum is going to happen the curent stance is no referendum. Could you please read the section on the Portugese. reading that makes it clear that a referndum is not goin to happen due to the percieved follow on consequences. So at the moment it is OR to have it as considering a referndum. The ony country actually considering a referndum is Denmark which has set up a neutral committe the other two are at the moment saying no to a referndum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree, it is at present government policy not to hold one. Yes there is a chance, some MPs are wanting one and the opposition wants one and the LibDems want one on membership, but you will find rebelling MPs and parties all over the EU, we have a problem on where to draw the line. I think we should keep it as, if the government says no then it is no, if they say yes then it is yes and if the government hasn't decided and are discussing it, then it is under discussion. Otherwise, it could get complicated. - J Logan ^t: 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can remove the UK from the map -- but in Portugal, the PM has stated personally that he is still considering the matter, so it IS under discussion. —Nightstallion 21:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungary has ratified the treaty. Can someone please change the map? Thank you --GMMarques 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bornholm belongs to Denmark. Could someone turn it green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.96.125 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Poland has not ratified it. There is parliamentary consent to the act of ratification only, but the President has not ratified it so far. There should be no green colour then. Vinthund (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Austria instead of Poland? The Polish president signed it on April 10, it's the Austrian one who still hasn't

Polish President needs to be authorised by a statute to ratify such a treaty. And a statute, to become binding, needs to be signed by the President (after it had been approved by the pariament). So, the signature you are writing about was a signature of the statute authorizing our President to ratify the treaty, but there was still no ratification. Apparently, he is only authorized, not obliged, to ratify, but there is some controversy about it. Besides, I am not sure, but I believe that in most countries parliaments do not ratify treaties. Heads of states do. So, most of the "ratification" section of the article is inaccurate. Vinthund (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland should be shown as 'Rejected' as per BBC map from the EU Constitution. Saying that 'Rejected' comes under 'Not ratified' is just being lazy to update the map. I'll do it myself if nobody else will. 81.202.181.16 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The map should indeed show which countries have rejected the Treaty. I've updated the SVG to show Ireland's rejection. Wiki01916 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ssolbergj has reverted the changes, saying that "rejected" goes under "not ratified". Many Wikis in other languages have a 'rejected treaty' on their maps, and please see the BBC map from the EU Constitution. Must we adhere to Ssolbergj's opinion? 81.202.181.16 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that "not (yet) ratified" should go under rejected. To have the treaty not yet ratified is something completely different from having rejected it as it is likely that the rest of the states are going to ratify the treaty. It would be quite confusing for a visitor to see that so many states have rejected the treaty. Art (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a deposited category to be added. some countries' parliaments have ratified but it has not been deposited.203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland keeps its opt-out

Tusk has decided after all that Poland will opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal effect. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7109528.stm --212.84.125.251 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. —Nightstallion 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need therefore for that bit in the article. Sounds like its been written by some bitter Civic Platform voter who is unhappy that Tusk didn't go through with his promise. There is no need for any background on why Poland opted out, particularly since there is no background on why the UK opted out of the Charter. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Doh, just realised it was yourself Nightstallion. Still, you get my point hopefully. I don't think people need to know about the fact that Tusk promised yet didn't go through with what he said. That could go in the "reactions" bit. If you were going to insist on mentioning the Tusk thing, it could be said in one brief sentence like "Despite suggestions to the contrary, Poland has declared recently that it will opt-out here". --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that he initially stated he would not use the opt-out possibility. —Nightstallion 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess as long as its concise it'd be fine. Apologies for deleting it so hastily anyway, just hated how it read! :) --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with rephrasing it, if you think it's worded awkwardly. —Nightstallion 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Consultative Referendum in Scotland

I just read something about its legal basis being questionable in the article... but surely "consultative referendum" suggests that it wouldn't actually be meant to have any legal basis, nor be legally binding in any way? --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The legally questionable bit is that Scotland only has the right to hold referendums on issues that regard only Scotland, and that's not the case in this case, quite obviously -- at least that's how I read the article in The Scotsman. —Nightstallion 19:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agh, the Scotsman! An awful paper. I think what the SNP would probably do is simply do what was done for another issue (the Clause 28 saga) and do it via post or something, without requiring any legal basis. I mean the Scottish parliament has often held host to debates which have nothing to do with the parliament's competence (ie. the Iraq war, other things mainly started by the SSP), so I doubt it would stop them. Consultative referendum sounds like its been cleverly worded by the SNP to get around the fact that it has no legal grounds. I'm not saying it makes the referendum any less pointless (and I'm sure the SNP never seriously meant to go ahead with it) just that the article reads in a very dismissive manner of the idea, and perhaps not NPOV! --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, possibly, yeah. Feel free to reword it. —Nightstallion 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Title

As there's been discussion as to whether it should be "Treaty of Lisbon" or "Lisbon Treaty" once it's signed, just have a look at the official text of the treaty -- it's "Treaty of Lisbon", so that should be this article's title from 14 December 2007 onwards. —Nightstallion 23:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why we can't call it that now, everyone else is and its not like they're going to change their minds.- J Logan ^t: 10:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Rossenglish (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mh. Let's just wait these last few days until it's officially known by that name, shouldn't we? —Nightstallion 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is officially known isn't it, you just showed us the treaty text saying "Treaty of Lisbon", Reform Treaty wasn't official so why does that have precedence? I don't know why I'm arguing for this so much as I really don't mind and as you say it isn't long till they sign, but I think if someone changes it to Treaty of Lisbon we shouldn't bother changing it back.- J Logan ^t: 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you've got a point. :) —Nightstallion 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article called Treaty of Lisbon back to it original name Treaty of Lisbon (1668). In 4 days, after the renaming, i can fix all the redirects using AWB if you like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! —Nightstallion 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As of today most links in the mainspace link to Treaty of Lisbon instead of Reform Treaty. Moreover, I replaced where appropriate in the texts using AWB. In some cases Reform Treaty should stay. I didn't touch this article yet. Can someone interchange Treaty of Lisbon with Reform Treaty in way we don't lose the article's history? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, great job. Could you perhaps to likewise for Lisbon Treaty - Treaty of Lisbon, for consistency? And yes, we don't want to loose the history, as per the discussion we might as well wait for signing.- J Logan ^t: 11:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have corrected many links. Right now Lisbon Treaty redirects to the DAB page, which is not correct because in all the cases its referring to the Reform Treaty. I'll fix that after the renaming of the articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say just as a side note, all the articles etc I'm reading are referring to it as the Reform Treaty... to me it seems the more common name for it, but I suppose it makes little difference at the end of the day. --Simonski (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Half and half for me, a lot are not saying Lisbon, at least on places like EUObserver and BBC. - J Logan ^t: 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the title "Treaty of Lisbon" will be wider used after the December 14th. In the changes I tried to follow the following rules: If the article is reffereing to the October events I used expressions like "EU leaders signed Reform Treaty (later known as Treaty of Lisbon)", if the article is referring to changes that will happen after 2009 I just replaces Reform Treaty with Treaty of Lisbon. Of course, maybe these rules are not for all articles. If agree with Simonski that it makes little difference at the end of the day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Signed by?

Do we know exactly who will be signing it? Some are saying Brown won't be attending. Assuming he does though, is this like the Constitution, head of government and foreign minister? Just thinking about the infobox in the top right, we could have a collapsible list of the names?- J Logan ^t: 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do know Brown will miss the official signing, but will sign it later.[10] The treaty text does have a list of EU heads of government and foreign ministers with xxxxxxx after each name (I assume for signing). Not sure that a definite source can be found though. On another note, Danish PM Rasmussen says that there won't be a referendum in his country.[11] Rossenglish (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

declaration 52

Declaration 52 of the Final Act reads: "Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem based on the "Ode to Joy" from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto "United in diversity", the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe Day on 9 May will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it." Why am I getting reverted for POV pushing? Do you think this declaration is hollow? Then find some source that says so. Intangible2.0 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "shared competence"?

Could someone elaborate on what the powers of the new EU are in areas with "shared competence"? Can we expect the EU to ban marijuana "coffeeshops" in Holland, bull-fighting in Spain, and any similar excesses of local color? On the other side, does the EU have the power to say legalize fox-hunting or roll back restrictions on animal research in Britain? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Under the principle of subsidiarity the EU would not be allowed to create new regulations or directives in any of the cases you mention. Bull-fighting, local use of marijuana or fox-hunting are issues best solved on the local level and not on a European level. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratification Table

I dont like how the ratification table is displayed, it seems so messy, I would would propose to make a European Map with the ratification progress, wich countries are pending and wich ones have already ratified it, and do a chart or a table like it is now, but following some order, also I would like if the countries are ordered depending when they ratified the treaty, that would mean that hungary would be the first one and so on. I dont know if somebody would like it that way, but it would look much nicer than it is now.--Philip200291 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand why there should be separate Chambers and reference columns. It does not make the table any better, makes it simply overcrowded. Plus the reference for the Hungarian parliament is simply wrong. I believe that what is on the official website of the Parliament is more likely to be true than the things on the TV website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzog Tryn (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The chamber is not a part of the voting result. Isn't it more logic and lucid to have two columns for the two different things? And of course we need a seperate reference column. We can't integrate a reference for every little vote fact into the normal text. An "overcrowded" table?- $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Old layout

Member state	Date	Result	Deposition
Hungary	17 December 2007	Yes. Országgyűlés: 325 to 6 in favour, 12 abstentions.

OR:

New proposal

Member state	Date	Chamber	Result	Deposition	Ref.
Hungary	17 December 2007	Országgyűlés:	Yes (325 to 5, 14 abst.)		[12]

Seriously, what is the most logic and lucid solution? Remember that the table will become "overcrowded" throughout next year. That will make it even more important to have it well-presented. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I already said what I thought. The tables should be as compact as possible and as easy to use as possible. I prefer the first format. Plus its the format already used in the tables for European Constitution and Treaty of accession. Reference column is useless I think. All over the article references are shown this was. This way one can go directly to the site of the parliament in question and get the results and relatively easy find the protocols from the discussions. In the case of Hungary its not that worth, but in UK it will be quite a reading. I may agree about the chanber column, but still its a result obtained in the chamber, rather than presentation of the cahmber itself. Herzog Tryn (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your solution is "compactness" at the expense of readability. When all cells are filled, it will be very hard to read. The table for the constitution was created in 2004 and doesn't deserve to set any standard at all. Are you seriously saying that all national vote results will be referenced in the normal sections of text? Do you intend to write something about every single vote? That will never happen.. All data on Wikipedia are supposed to easily be verified, and in tables like this one, it's crucial. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 17:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to you really. My oppinion is already said. Herzog Tryn (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to debate it, (e. g. your anti-Wiki-policy and illogical judgement over the seperate reference column) I could just insert my table. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops I didn't see the ^{sup ref}, but still, if this is supposed to be an easy-to-grasp table, seperate, external refs that don't push the cells above are more tidy. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say most certainly have a separate column for the chamber, it would get way to messy otherwise. You need to be see at a glance, you have a separate column and all the results are neat and in a straight line for easy comparison, without it they're all over the place. And as SSJ says, the chamber isn't part of the voting result. Would be good though if you could use abbreviations or English names to keep the chamber's length down. The ref column I'm not sure about, I'd say yes if it would tidy up a large number of inline, otherwise it might be better to have the footnotes so you can see the source information in full without having to load it.- J Logan ^t: 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JLogan and am also in favour of having a separate column for the chamber; I don't feel too strongly about having a separate column for references or not. —Nightstallion 21:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree on using the second table, but i would really propose not to write the voting results on the table, this will be so messy once almos every member state has ratified it, so I propose on writing just yes or no on the result and give a reference so people can check the voting results.--Philip200291 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

jibn	jnni	jikn	jikn
UJsbn	iusdbibd	sdsncon
UJsbn	iusdbibd	sdsncon
UJsbn	iusdbibd	sdsncon
or:
UJsbn	iusdbibd	sdsncon	[13]
UJsbn	iusdbibd	sdsncon	[14]
UJsbn	iusdbibd	Yes In favour: 5 Against:1 Abstentions:1	[15]

I think detailed voting results (like it is now) are necessary, hence references are needed for everything; ergo; the most logic solution is to line them up in the table. And then the question is: what looks the least messy in a huge table: or [16]? Obviously, is raised and shoves the cell. Sample to the right. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the show/hide function? - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The show/hide menu is great. I agree with this suggestion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the show/hide function, but I would prefer to have ^references instead of simply external links. It just looks neater, and it does not at all shove the cell for me... —Nightstallion 09:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Show/hide is great indeed! Maarten (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't add anything to my oppinion. If you want to see what such a table looks like ultimately go to the articles of European Constitution or Treaty of Accession 2005. I dont think that anyone have complained about the way they are. And just one last suggetion. As reference use the original sources, the records of the parliaments of each country. They tend to be more accurate than aything else. Herzog Tryn (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm using Opera, and all <sup>s on wikipedia create a blank space between the line they're in, and the one above. What is your (Nightstallion) browser? I'm not a big fan of direct external links, but I don't know of any standard alternative that doesn't "shove". (at least in my browser) - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox2, and it looks just fine with references... —Nightstallion 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The table is OK with Explorer 7 and Firefox 2. Some tables have problems with some browsers, but in this cases formatting change can help. If it can not be sorted out, then a separate column might be the fix.

Herzog Tryn (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Current version

The current version looks quite wonderful, with the thumb and show/hide and all. One small concern -- is it really a good idea *not* to use the official names of the chambers which ratify it? Especially in the case of Finland and Åland, it's rather confusing for those people who don't know the intricate details of European politics like we do... ;) —Nightstallion 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added "Finnish Parliament" and "Åland Parliament". Yes I think it's necessary to to have simplified and standardised names for the different chambers. The naming tradition on Wikipedia for the articles of these institutions is varied and often seems very random. The article for the National Council of the Slovak Republic clearly says that it's the Parliament of Slovakia. To have the full, official names in their native language would obviously be the only official and the most correct option, but it's very impracticle for normal readers just wanting to understand how the different chambers relate to eachother in this basic table. It's easier and takes much less space the way it's now. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 17:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in using the established English language terms in the table instead. —Nightstallion 11:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good! :) —Nightstallion 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Date Format

Could we decide on one date format please? Someone here is changing the, what I would call normal date format Day, Month, Year to the US-American format. I am for keeping the previous format which is: 16 June 2008 Artur Buchhorn (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that "ISO format" might be practical for computer programming, but nobody talks like that (even Americans wouldn't put the year first), here it's just dreadful. See "Date and time notation by country". Sigur (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. What's this obsession some editors have with removing date formatting? Date formatting exists so any logged in user can see dates in the format they want to see them, not in the format that someone else forces on them. If the reader is not logged in then they will see the dates in [Date Month Year] which while not standard is readable by everybody. If an editor is going to impose ISO formatting then why stop at the table, do the whole article and then all of wikipedia! Snappy56 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you restart the discussion up here? For example; this guideline says that "However, they [short dates] may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." "nobody talks like that"? I am trying to reduce the size of a humongous table (considering this is a prose article and not a list). But do you feel "01.05.08" or "01.05.2008" are better than "2008-05-01"? - SSJ ☎ 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) - SSJ ☎ 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely do. I even think that it would be better if we had the months spelled out (abbreviated). For example 16 June 2008 or 12 Sep 2008. It more readable and that way the reader can compare the dates easily. At least I can. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We have the 'proper' date format now. Date formatting is turned on and Americans won't be confused. Snappy56 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

References

The reference shown for Hungary is wrong. I think only primary sources should be used, especially if the derived ones have no advantage. In this case its a Hungarian TV station (in Hungarian) that got it wrong. the msitake stems from th Hungarian News Agancy via the Austrian. But its inaccurate never the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.111.250 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference for "Gibraltar", currently number 65 is very badly phrased - It reads as "Gibilterra is a overseas British territory, ago part of.. but it needs the approval of dispositions that render the Treaty.." It reads like an automated translation or perhaps Spanish-English. Either delete or totally rewrite, I can't get my head around it. Lexxus2010 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

I've made some changes to the Belgian section that need explanation that is too long for the edit summary line: First of all, I've put back my earlier edit concerning the two different Acts of Assent of the Walloon Parliament. It is of course true to say that there is only one Walloon Parliament (the parliament of the Walloon Region), but next to its "regional" powers it does exercise some powers transferred from the French Community. As the voting modalities differ (the German-speaking members don't have the right to vote), the Walloon Parliament must vote two different Acts of Assent, once with and once without the German-speakers. Because the votes on both texts were different, there is no way around mentioning this. Anyone who wants to verify this, please follow the link in the footnote. Secondly, the same powers that have been transferred from the French Community to the Walloon Region as far as the French-speaking Walloon territory is concerned, have also been transferred to the French Community Commission to the extent that they have to be exercised in Brussels. Therefore, the French Community Commission assembly, called "French-speaking Brussels Parliament", must also give its assent - as has been pointed out by the Belgian Council of State (now scheduled at committee stage for 20 June[17]). Finally, the "United Assembly" has to assent as well (I have checked with the competent service and the draft ordinance is apparently scheduled for 5 June at committee stage - see also [18]). The "United Assembly" is made up of the same members as the Brussels Regional Parliament, but it is legally distinct. The voting modalities differ, because in the United Assembly a majority of Dutch-speakers and a majority of French-speakers is needed, not just an overall majority. As there will have to be two different votes, members could vote differently (or be absent one day and present the other); if the two votes take place the same day and turn out to be identical, it could be considered to merge the lines for the Regional Parliament and for the United Assembly again, but I'm not going to presume that for the time being. On the other side the question rises whether it should be indicated what will have been the votes in each linguistic group of the United Assembly (as that determines the outcome), but at first sight I would say that the Belgian section is already crowded enough. Sigur (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put back my version as it has been changed without any explanation. Concerning the Flemish Parliament, the situation is not as in the Walloon Parliament, there only is one Act of Assent. There is however a comparable situation to some extent, because the "Flemish Parliament" is in fact the parliament of the Flemish Community that also has the powers of the Flemish Region. On regional matters, the - few - members from Brussels cannot vote. Therefore, the chair should after the vote verify that there is a majority in any case, whether you count the Brussels members or not, but I don't think they are planning to have two votes, in any case there is only one Bill. Sigur (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Even if they have another referendum, and if it said yes, it would give the oirachtas the right to ratify the treaty, so it should be shown in the ratification table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Drafts of amended treaties?

Will the text of the amended treaties including the amendements be made avaliable before the 1st january 2009 if ever? Mad onion (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that an official version will be published before 1 Jan 2009, and hopefully soon, but in the meantime, see this unofficial version which doesn't include protocols or the charter. ElectricLemon (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it a rather weird decision of the EU not to publish a consolidated version of the Treaties with the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty of Amsterdam included consolidated versions of the treaty in its annex. Maarten (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"A consolidated version of the Treaty will be published once it enters into force." - $\mathrm {S}$. $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$. 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that's way too late. Maarten (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This website may also be of use - it does the same as the pdf linked to above only this one highlights what is changing as well. I found it incredibly useful I have to say: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug/eu-reform-treaty-texts-analyses.htm --Simonski (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In France, the Assemblée Nationale published a consolidated version here, in french, of course. Kromsson (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

The Council of the Ministers of the Cypriot Republic already approved the Treaty [19]. Should we mention it in the article? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just the government's approval, though... We don't mention that in the other ratification tables so far, and I see no real reason to change that. —Nightstallion 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Romania

The correct link is http://webapp.senat.ro/pdf/08L001LG.pdf for the joint session of Romanian Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1111 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in France

The ratification in France will be done in three parts : parliament, senate, and then both of them, with a 3/5 majority needed. I think this should be corrected in the table. The euro-sceptics and pro-referendums are awaiting the 4th of February as the date of ratification. Kromsson (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's done. Thanks. Kromsson (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The way this was presented on the news seemed to me that the French were effectively changing their constitution to avoid having another national referendum on the issue, which they seemed likely to loose. Is this correct? Sandpiper (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that they had to change their constitution to update a section which refers to the European Constitution. I don't think that referendums on EU treaties are mentioned in the French constitution (like in Ireland's). This may be incorrect, but that is what I had gathered. I'll look out to see if any light is shined on the subject. =) Rossenglish (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See this article. Could do with more detail though =) Rossenglish (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They had to change the constitution for the treaty, and not for the obligation of referendum Paris 6.04.2008

Guide

Hi all, in case of dispute I'd recommend using Unlock Democracy's guide to the Reform Treaty. It is designed to be an impartial guide for the UK public and is free online here: [20]. I was at its launch of Friday and it is very clear and simple - I've added it to the external links. - J Logan ^t: 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, was wondering about adding a simplified 'Idiots Guide' to the Media Overviews section. (fist time user, so added it without first realising there's a discussion here- sorry!). It might be a good idea to have an option for the layman. It can be checked out at the link below, and is written from an Irish perspective. It's unbiased & thoroughly researched. Alternatively, is there a section more suited to layman's guides to the treaty? Thanks! R. Maguire http://egoeccentric.blogspot.com/2008/04/egoeccentrics-idiots-guide-to-lisbon.html

It is not unbiased it is a blog espousing a yes vote. BigDunc^Talk 11:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree- it addresses the content of the treaty, and encourages independent research. The writer's opinion is acknowledged for the purposes of transparency. Fair enough though... RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertmaguire (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratification by President not Parliament

According to Polish (art. 133-1 and 90-2) and French Constitution (art. 52) the parliament enacts an act of permission to ratification, but the ratification is possible only by President. President can't cancel ratification. --Seba148 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be true even if we were speaking about Italy and, i think, a lot of other countries. It's quite customary that the President, or the highest executive power, is vested of the power to ratify treaties. But i do think that there's a consenus, a strong one indeed, that, while adding notes reffering what you correctly exposed above, we should give more importance to parliaments' approvals (or rejections if it were the case) as such votes are always required to approve politically the treaty (while the president usually cannot take such a political decision by himself). --84.222.19.215 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Parliaments do not "ratify", even if one gives more importance to their approval. The wording of the article is therefore wrong. Vinthund (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Enlargement and secession image

Right, I don't want to get into a big debate about this but I wasn't surprised SSJ to see it was your image being used for the enlargement/secession thing. Its a great image as always but I have a little problem with the "Membership debate" countries included. It seems very much open to interpretation. For example it could easily be argued that there is 'secession debate' in the UK and a couple of other member states in some form (by that I mean there's always at least one party ranting about leaving the EU - though particularly the UK) and that there are a number of other states having a 'membership debate' in some form. A cynic might think you only put the 'membership debate' key in so as to include Norway in the EU picture in some way. Anybody else get what I'm saying? Isn't there even 'membership debate' in almost every European country to some extent? I'd propose (though no doubt my proposal will be opposed) that the 'membership debate' bit is removed from the key there. Why isn't Switzerland yellow for example? From what I understand they're debating the EU issue about as much as Norway is. The key does not seem very objective here. --Simonski (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo could be shown, as it has declared independence. 86.144.60.87 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratification image

Why Corsica isn't in green? Jacko1988 12:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Slovakia is in green? Jacko1988 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.209.3 (talk)

He is right, Slovakia hasn´t ratified the treaty. it should be not coloured green...Please somebody correct that ASAP as I dont know how to do it....thank you--Philip200291 (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The UK should be coloured green at this point. It is not necessary to wait for Gibralter in the same sense that we did not include Aland Island of Finland as a seperate colouring. Can someone make the UK green? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.232.79.193 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't.[21] Yorkshire Phoenix 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgium had completed the internal iter for ratification so it should be coloured in yellow and not in blue. Jacko1988 12:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.241.170 (talk)

Ratification Table

The table conatins European Parliament. I think this is a mistake. The European Parliament does not ratify the treaty, it just consents on the treaty. Its not a signatory of the treaty, such can be only members states, the European Union as it now stands has no legal personality. Voting by the European Parliament is required by the Treaty of Rome (as modified). But thats all. This discussion was held for the Accession Treaty and the European Constitution and the final out come was that the European Parliamnet should not be in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.111.250 (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - putting the European Parliament in the table is a bad idea as it will mislead the reader into thinking it has any real say here. The treaty is an intergovernmental agreement - hence the 'Intergovernmental conference' tagline - the EU does not belong in the Ratification Table. A nice idea but one that I believe strongly should be left out. There is plenty of room to mention the EP's consent outwith the table, perhaps in the article text. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See above - the article cited may say that the parliament 'ratified' the treaty but this is a point that would belong outside the table. I do not believe the correct terminology was used in that article. And secondly, even if you were to say well who cares they 'ratified' it either way - it was the European Parliament, not the European Union (which until this new treaty goes through has no legal personality). --212.84.125.251 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, this is confirmed by a quick google search of 'European Parliament ratifies reform treaty'. Unsurprisingly, your link Solberg was the first one but almost every other article speaks of the Parliament 'approving' of, or 'adopting' the Treaty. This is not the same as ratifying. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please log in, for what I know you might well be behind both IP-adresses speaking to yourself. The important thing is that the European Parliament's vote over the treaty is significant, and a very noteworthy piece of information. Therefore I think we should include it in table, but write European Union in italics and include an explaining note. It's useful information, and the table is somewhat handy for displaying votes. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean with regard to two comments from the same IP, I think its quite clear that it was just me adding to my earlier comment. And I can assure you the original person to bring it up was somebody else, which will hopefully serve to highlight that people will come along to this page and keep raising the issue. I'm afraid I can only accept it if instead of European Union it says 'European Parliament' and secondly, that it is at the bottom of the table. Why it is currently at the top is beyond me. Until then I'm afraid I have to oppose it. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you ensure. Why don't you get yourself a username? It doesn't matter what you can 'accept' or 'can't accept'. This is about consensus. I've written the note in the table as a compromise precaution, explaining that the EU's European Parliament isn't a normal signatory. I'm reinserting it. Please be constructive; don't just remove it. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 10:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If its about consensus, then why on earth would you ignore the fact that there clearly isn't one. I see no discussion here by any other editor apart from the other IP dude, yourself and Magioladitis. You're being just as 'constructive' as I am in putting in back in without trying to reach a 'consensus'. I already told you what I would be willing to accept. You can either move it to the bottom or reword it to say European Parliament or I'll just keep exercising my Wikipedia rights in editing it. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you can't demand anything. (nor can I) When you say "I'm afraid I can't accept...", you're not sounding very constructive. And yes, I'll claim that when editors are trying to find a consensus, the opinions of anonymous people count less. Get yourself an account, or you will be treated with suspicion by other people. Especially when you are starting your replies to other anonymous editors with "Exactly - ". It sounds much like you're behind both IPs. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am the original IP, so to say. Its clear that I am not the other guy and you can check this quite easily. The point is that the European Parliament do NOT ratify the treaty. The Lisbon Treaty is an treaty between states and EU is clearly not one of them. Treaty should be ratified by the signatories according to their own procedures. The european parliament has to agree on the treaty, true (cant recall which article it was) but its not ratifying it by any means. This arguemnet has appreared before, but I am not sure you will be convienced by this. Herzog Tryn (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. There you go. Now come on, with that in mind, surely the current compromise (it being at the bottom of the table, emphasis on the European Parliament being involved) is acceptable rather than start a revert war or anything. And I didn't demand anything, I just said I would continue to oppose something. That should have been read as "I'm not going to accept this, you will have to compromise in some form". Which I am fully entitled to do! I don't use wikipedia often, my flatmate does, and I don't feel like getting an account. End of story. --212.84.125.251 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, as its role is clearly important; the current implementation is a satisfactory compromise. —Nightstallion 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So far 2 out of 3 people think it should be out of the table. I guess I will wait a biot more to see what the other people think. But as it stands its better to be removed because its clearly misleading. It looks now as the EU and european parliament are ratifying the treaty, but in reallity the councel is much more important. 193.174.111.250 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the note next to the EU makes it clear. We may change the section title if you still believe its misleading. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is misleading not because of the Section title, but because treaties are ratified by the signatories. EU is not a state or anything like it. An impression is created that this is the case. I think you should have a look at the Treaty of Accession 2005 article where the section History of the treaty gives a relatively good model. It was reached after some discussion and so far haven't been changed for long time (I guess because none cares about this particular article). 193.174.111.250 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"innovations" to describe changes to EU institutions is not NPOV

"innovations" is not a neutral word. I swapped "changes" in its place, which is a more neutral word in line with NPOV policies. JanusK (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, the word innovations gives the impression that they are a bright idea similar to an Einstein moment.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia note in the ratification table

I was cleaning up the notes in the ratification table in the article. I got the ones on Finland and UK done, but this in the Slovenia cell has stumped me. Can someone put it into normal english:

The Slovenian Constitution arranges that It deals to you international Treaties come ratifies from the National Assembley with the favorable ballot at least 60 members to you, par to the two thirds party on a total of 90

Or is this just vandalism? - Thanks, Hoshie 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense. Moreover, why we need a note that the National Assembly ratifies with majority of 2/3? I suggest we just removed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UK reaction section/free undistorted competition

A while back this section had a little more content including some important points. They seem to have been removed though, including the point about concern over the moving of "free and undistorted competition". This latter point isn't even anywhere now on the list of amendments, despite clearly being potentially significant. This a huge mistake and it has to go back in.

And before anybody claims it isn't going to change anything and bla bla its just the UK press, I have done a paper on this issue and it will clearly have at least a very serious potential impact on the economic policy of the Commission in years to come, opening the door for more social policy considerations to be taken into account in state aid, merger considerations etc. It should therefore go back in. This is a view that is shared by most commentators on the issue. --Simonski (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.geocities.com/simonskilamb/European_Champions.doc (the paper) --Simonski (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had really written a paper on this specific issue, you would know thar the "free and undistorted competition" phrase was a. only proposed to be part of the preamble of the EU-Consitution which would in any event not have had any binding effect on any EU institution or memberstate and b. hasn't been anywhere in the current EU and EC treaties. In fact striking the phrase can't be interpreted in any meaningful way, as it is merely a change within two prior drafts of the Lissabon-Treaty if we consider the EU-Constitution to be the first initial draft that was used for negotiation purposes (which it was). In any event, it would not belong under "Amendments" as it isn't an amendment to the current treaties, it could go under a separate article about differences between the Lissabon-Treaty and the failed EU-Constitution, which you are of course free to create. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, perhaps I posted a link to a story about fairies or something and not my paper. If you had really read what I had written then you would see that you are completely wrong. It HAS changed something in the EC treaty, as free competition has been removed as an explicit "activity" of the EC and placed instead in a protocol (the activites of the EC were laid down in Article 3 EC). In some respects it could even be argued that it had been utilised as an "objective" (the objectives of the EC found in Article 2 EC), as Article 3(1)(g) formed in part the legal basis for the important EC Merger Regulation. If you take the time to at least read the first section of the link I just posted (which by the way got an A from one of the top law schools in the EU, postgrad level) then you will see why you are wrong.

And eh? I just read that you said the reference was to be part of the preamble of the CT... again, this is wrong too, as it was found within an actual provision of the Constitution itself, Article I-3.

In the meantime, as it IS a change from the original treaty, this should be put in. Its amazing the level of ignorance on this issue actually. Just shows how successful Sarkozy has been in fooling everybody. --Simonski (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See also another established commentator on the issue: http://shop.ceps.eu/downfree.php?item_id=1541 --Simonski (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the phrase "free and undistorted competition" is NOT in the current EC treaty, so it can't be deleted from it (you acknowledge that in your paper). Art 3 (1)(g) uses the phrase "a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted" and this is clearly covered by the language in protocol 6 on the objectives. You acknowledge this by writting "On a comparison of the wording, it is clear that the protocol essentially reflects the current content of Article 3(1)(g) EC." Protocols are as binding as the treaty itself as you well know, however that important fact is missing in your paper, rather you conclude (unsupported and uncited): "At the same time, the moving of the reference from the first few key Treaty articles into a protocol attached to the main text clearly reflects a downgrade in principle."

To sum up, there is no amendment from the current EC treaty that removed a phrase "free and undistorted competition". The current language from Art 3(1)(g) EC is contained in an equally binding protocol. Any "change" that you might trace from that is pure biased opinion. I quote Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes on this subject: "The protocol to the Treaty is a legally binding confirmation that the system of undistorted competition is part of the internal market. Of course, competition is not an end in itself, but it is one of the best means to create conditions for growth and jobs. Putting it in a Protocol on the internal market clarifies that one cannot exist without the other. They have moved the furniture round, but the house is still there. The Protocol is of equivalent status to the Treaty." Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to say the "unsupported and uncited" conclusion idea is rather laughable. The analysis that comes before it is what bloody supports it, with citations in abundance. And dearie me, again you are talking complete nonsense, as it is stated quite clearly in my paper:

It has been argued, rather pessimistically, that “no mere protocol can achieve the same interpretative status as the preamble and the first few articles”, despite the matter being far from that simple. As the UK government has pointed out, Article 311 EC, which will become Article 36 of the amended TEU, reads: “The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.” Much of the discussion on the status of the protocol has ignored this simple fact, even if it does not alone provide a useful indication of what approach the ECJ will take here. There is no question of the protocol having less legal force than anything within the Treaty main text

The protocol does reflect the current content of Article 3(1)(g) but you missed a key point that I made (later in the paper perhaps) that it has been moved from a key treaty provision down to a protocol. The ECJ has relied heavily on Article 3(1)(g) in the past, and even balanced it against other activities in Article 3 EC, such as the need for a social policy. Whether anything changes therefore depends on whether the ECJ will interpret this as the member states allowing for more social considerations to come into play. It could have a significant impact on whether countries will be able to save failing companies like Alstom, whether certain mergers will be cleared etc.

I'm glad to see you read the first part but perhaps on second thoughts you need to read the rest in order to understand that there could easily be said to be a change. It all falls down to how the ECJ will interpret it. Personally I don't think there will be a change because the ECJ won't want to uphold protectionism but to ignore that there is a possibility of it when there are SEVERAL established commentators saying that there could be a significant impact only serves to prove that it is YOU who is being biased here. And from what I'm understanding so far, your knowledge of this issue is coming from the newspapers you've read about it in, as opposed to proper analysis of the issue. You cannot simplify this matter as you have clearly done in your head. Like I said, this issue surely must be at least mentioned on this page. To not do so, is actually non-NPOV writing as it is putting across the biased Commission view that nothing changes - something which the French administration for one would challenge.

And lastly, yes, that Commissioner Kroes quote is even in my paper - but if you seriously think that what she says is gospel on the matter then you are suggesting a real worrying lack of knowledge on this subject. The Commission is notorious, her in particular, for coming out with bold, yet empty rhetoric. --Simonski (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Therefore I see absolutely no reason why a Internal Market section is not added at the end at least making brief reference to the fact that the issue is divisive, and whether there will be any change will depend on how the ECJ interprets the moving of the competition activity to a protocol. Either there, or back in the UK reaction section. --Simonski (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, last point I want to make - I spoke to a recently retired judge of the ECJ on this issue and he was of the opinion that this was potentially quite a significant change. I dont know, but I have a slight feeling he might know what he's talking about... --Simonski (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for your response. I disagree with "The protocol does reflect the current content of Article 3(1)(g) but you missed a key point that I made (later in the paper perhaps) that it has been moved from a key treaty provision down to a protocol." I did not miss this point, I clearly stated that protocols HAVE the same legal power as the treaties and that they are integral parts of them, which implies that there was no change in the law, rather a "reshuffling of provisions within the treaties". Just as in contract law, it doesn't matter if you put something upfront in your contract or in an annex or schedule as long as annexes and schedules are referred to in the contract and made an integral part thereof. This statement "There is no question of the protocol having less legal force than anything within the Treaty main text" is not giving a citation in your paper, when clearly your whole argument hinges on it. The argument made in the article you cite [22] is making a logical mistake in stating that the ECJ will - apparently due to human psychology - view the move of the objectives in Article 3(1) from the front of the EC treaty to a protocol as a concious move by the legislator to change EC competition law - such a statement is not supported by any legal argument. Firstly, if the ECJ looks at the process of what changed and the circumstances surrounding the change, it can weight the public announcements of many politicians involved in the negotiations and EU officials that say no substantive change in the law was intended (otherwise the actual language of Article 3(1)(g) would have been changed to clearly say so rather France was objecting to a further increase in clarity by inserting the phrase "free and undistorted competition" as it was proposed in the failed EUConstitution) against various political commentators, who of course did not participate in the political process or drafting but now argue otherwise. Secondly, please not forget that there is a fundamental difference between the ECJ and a UK court, the ECJ is NOT a court of equity, it is a court in the tradition of continental European civil law and thus can't go beyond the actual treaty text. The old Article 3(1) text is still there in binding form, there better be a damn good argument for the ECJ to change its current view about the language being used as an objective, which you haven't given a valid reason for yet.

All this said, we could mention in the article that a large number of smaller changes to the treaties were made, and that many things were "shuffled around" including Article 3 (1) that was moved to a protocol which has undisputably the same legal power as the treaty, but which some commentators have argued could be viewed by the ECJ as a move by the legislator to weaken the binding legal power of the objecives (not only the competition objective) from the old Article 3(1) EC. However, this view has been challenged by the EU commissioner Neelie Kroes as well as several other national and EU politicians. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, personal attacks on a wiki talk page aren't regared as the best arguments... so if you want to have a reasonable discussion you better not do so. I may not be an expert on this particular area of the Lisbon-Treaty, but as a lawyer who has had part of his dissertation dedicated to EC law, I think I am entitled to participate in a discussion on this matter without being insulted on a personal level. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In future then you may want to avoid trying to belittling other editors as well. Your "if you had actually written a paper on this issue" was unquestionably going to provoke such a reaction.

Once again, you miss the point. Not once either 1) in my posts and 2) in the paper/references given have UK courts been mentioned. Even if they were, equity is not a principle of Scottish law, my jurisdiction, so no idea idea what you are on about there. You are just ignoring the fact that people familiar with how the ECJ works and even an ex-ECJ judge have stated that there has been a change of potential significance here.

My comment that "There is no question of the protocol having less legal force than anything within the Treaty main text", once again, refers to the points made in the sentences preceding it. Namely Article 311 EC = leads to the conclusion in that sentence. What is hard to understand about that.

How the commentator I cited is making an "error" is also unclear going by what you are saying - considering the weight the ECJ has long placed on Treaty preambles and the opening articles of the Treaty, his conclusions are logical. With all due respect, if you had a good grasp of how EU law has developed you would know that the ECJ does not generally concern itself with what political actors think on a particular issue.

You have yet to really make a point addressing the fact that the ECJ has relied on 3(1)(g) in some of the most important cases in the history of Competition Law and the fact that at times it was balanced against other activities found within Article 3. Article 3(1)(g) has been moved to a protocol, meaning that there is at least scope to argue that it has been downgraded compared to other activities. For example, as I have said a number of times now, social policy may play a larger part in clearing mergers/state aid. As I have said, the ECJ can kill this issue dead with one swift blow, yet at the same time it remains open for the ECJ to interpret the change as meaning that EU competition policy must now have a more social take to it.

But yes of course you may have been entitled to get involved on this issue, that is Wikipedia. However if you try and dispel points with simplistic arguments without acknowledging that the issue has caused serious justifiable concern elsewhere (and I don't mean myself here, I'm talking about the legal commentators etc) , then you make it harder to try and reason with you. I'm sorry if I'm being rude but I felt from the outset that you were being slightly rude yourself. --Simonski (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, ok I just noticed this one: it is a court in the tradition of continental European civil law and thus can't go beyond the actual treaty text. The old Article 3(1) text is still there in binding form, there better be a damn good argument for the ECJ to change its current view about the language being used as an objective, which you haven't given a valid reason for yet.

I'm sorry but of everything you've said in this discussion, this is the most fundamentally incorrect point you've made. Direct Effect, Supremacy, Citizenship, Fundamental Rights. Just to name a few, those are areas where the ECJ has done the very opposite and carried out its well known teleological interpretation of the Treaties. It is a court notorious for judicial activism!!! If the ECJ were to interpret Article 3(1)(g)s moving as having any significance, it would hardly be the most controversial thing it has ever done!! --Simonski (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Last thing, just a simple, recent example. Take EU Citizenship. Loads of Member States tried to claim that by introducing it they hadn't created anything new. Instead the ECJ interpreted it as having meaning, and has used it to seriously limit Member State discretion in a number of areas. --Simonski (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "Namely Article 311 EC = leads to the conclusion in that sentence. What is hard to understand about that." Please explain how Art 311 EC provides a "hierarchy" of legal quality between the treaties and protocols as it clearly states the opposite, that is that protocols are an integral part of the treaties. By the way for your reference, Art 51 of the new TEU includes the passage "The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof." not Art 36.

2. "With all due respect, if you had a good grasp of how EU law has developed you would know that the ECJ does not generally concern itself with what political actors think on a particular issue. " It's called evidence for the legislator's intent and damn yes the ECJ looks at the circumstances around how law has been passed, negotiated and what the intent was at that time.

3. "Article 3(1)(g) has been moved to a protocol, meaning that there is at least scope to argue that it has been downgraded compared to other activities." Why? Why should a reshuffling from one part of a treaty to another part that are equally legally binding mean a "downgrade"? You need to come up with a valid legal argument for that, which outweighs the clear intent of the legislator that it was not a downgrade in any way.

4. "I'm sorry but of everything you've said in this discussion, this is the most fundamentally incorrect point you've made. Direct Effect, Supremacy, Citizenship, Fundamental Rights. Just to name a few, those are areas where the ECJ has done the very opposite and carried out its well known teleological interpretation of the Treaties." None of the examples you provide are situations where the ECJ has ruled AGAINST the clear wording of the treaties. For instance direct effect was deduced as a necessary way to implement EC law back in the 60s, yes there wasn't anything in the treaties back then about it, but there was nothing to the contrary actually stating that EC law shall not have any direct effect. The treaties include the same language about free competition and about undistorted competition (now in protocol 6) that they always have (prior to that in Article 3(1)), how should the ECJ "overrule" that? It is not in its power, the ECJ is bound by the law set out, activism has its end right where the treaties state something explicitly in another direction.

5. Again, please stop reasoning with personal insults, my arguments are neither "simplistic", nor have I ignored legal commentators that you cited nor should you imply that I "haven't got a good grasp of how EU law has developed" when nothing in my statements indicates that. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

When you are claiming that the ECJ has not partaken in judicial activism, what on earth do you expect me to think. You must be the only person left on the planet who does not agree that in hindsight the ECJ's rulings on supremacy, direct effect, citizenship, fundamental rights were completely activist judgments! But if you're going to take this ridiculously outdated view on the ECJ then this discussion is going to get nowhere. I'll give it one last try though and see if I can get through to you.

1) quoting again what my paper said. "As the UK government has pointed out, Article 311 EC, which will become Article 36 of the amended TEU, reads: “The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof." ... "There is no question of the protocol having less legal force than anything within the Treaty main text". Why you are somehow claiming that I am saying the opposite, and that I am saying there is a hierarchy between Treaty provisions and protocols, is beyond comprehension. Actually read what I say please.

2) Legislative intent, or judicial deference, has had little, if any, impact on the development of EU law. The ECJ has time and time again had Member States intervening before it claiming that the legislative intention meant one thing, only to have the ECJ decide it the complete opposite way. I point you again to my Citizenship example, which you seem to have ignored. I'm sorry but if you're going to claim that legislative intent has an influence on what the ECJ does then I am going to have no option but to assume that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. (And even then, what is to say that Sarkozy's view does not equal the legislative intent?)

3) I've produced an entire paper on the issue and cited several sources agreeing with me. You on the other hand are just repeating the same simplistic argument, quoting political actors whose opinion on the matter at least has to be questioned when they are not all singing from the same sheet.

4) Aside from whether you are correct on the "against the wording of the Treaties" point, this is not about that. This is about the ECJ looking at the layout of the main activities of the EU, seeing that whilst social policy is given great emphasis, there is also a mention of the internal market. It therefore all boils down to whether the ECJ will interpret free competition as being a fundamental part of the internal market. Anything else and the balance tilts slightly in favour of social policy. Please, just for a second, think about this. Maybe then you'll finally get the point that there is potential for change here. And you really seem to put too much emphasis on the ECJ being "bound" to the Treaty text. --Simonski (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Community Courts have arguably gone against the wording and indeed very spirit of the Treaty on occasion. This is clear from a concrete and abstract level. I turn your attention to the Kadi/Yusef judgments of the CFI. By refusing (as a matter of Community law) to engage in proper judicial review of a Community Regulation implementing UN sanctions, the CFI have disregarded Art 6 TEU ensuring the proper protection of fundamental rights. In addition their acquiescence in use of Arts 60, 301 and 308 to enforce economic sanctions against individuals (rather than States) is clearly contrary to the principles of conferred competence and the wording of Article 301/60. At the abstract level I don't feel it is accurate to equate the Community Court system to a civil law system completely. A large proportion of academics would argue there is a jus commune element to Community law. Legislative intent (or lack of intent) is one of those tricky areas. It seems the Community Courts pick and choose which elements of intent to follow through. It sometimes ignores, or embraces depending on whether the intent is in-line with its own view on the matter. For example, if legislative intent were so key, State Liability should have fallen after Maastricht where the Member States purposefully did not include it in the Treaty framework. Sorry comments are a bit rushed. On the competition principle part I remain to be convinced either way. Although the binding nature remains unchanged, it could be argued the move is symbolic (in the same way the transition from Directive 88/361 to Art 56 of the Treaty was largely symbolic for the free movement of capital). I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. That is, whether it is "symbolic", substantive or no change will result largely from the future interpretation of the Courts. Lwxrm (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, damn I just had to write about Kadi etc. Infact I had to bloody write about whether the ECJ is still building a constitution, which is why I found it particularly ridiculous that somebody was claiming that they hadnt at all.

Either way, thankfully its been mentioned in the article ("compared to the constitutional treaty" section) now, with quotes from Sarkozy and Kroes providing a nice wee balance. That should do really. My view Lwxrm is that the ECJ should really interpret social considerations as having more importance post-Lisbon but that they probably wont. Like I say in that paper I was on about, if the ECJ wants something to be decided a certain way, they'll do it. I mean the whole question can literally be answered in one line - "depends on what the ECJ think"

Dead interesting issue though isn't it! --Simonski (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

Hi; a great looking article, and I apologise in advance as I realise that I need to tidy up my inserts with regard to proper formatting of references and so on. Thanks. By the way, I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, but do believe the alterations (or some version thereof) are necessary to achieve balance.

Oisinoc (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A number of areas you added to could arguably do with expanding yeh, such as the section on the ECJ and the Charter. However, how adding such content as "the EU will become under the Lisbon Treaty a federation" hardly sounds balanced. Given 1) the importance and 2) the contentious nature of the issue, you'll have to limit your additions to where there is evidence pointing to a potential change I'd say (ie. see my above discussion with themanwithoutapast).

We want a place where people can come to read about what this new Treaty does without being mislead! --Simonski (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem about what your saying about correcting for NPOV, balanced language, and so on; in fairness, though, eliminating _everything_ I put in hardly seems kosher considering that it is sourceable,and I was in the process of such - again I understand that it needs to be sourced better in form, and I will try to only put in only material with the sources in proper form from the get-go from now on (may I point out, though, that there are a couple of uncited statements outstanding on the article as it is?);

Second: absolutely no problem with what you're saying regarding about people not being misled; with no disrespect towards anyone here, the article in it's present form could be considered misleading in the sense that it is essentially putting forward the official consensus by parties whose interest lies in ratifying the Treaty; this indeed is a matter of contention, even controversy - and is also a matter of forthcoming referendum.

Finally, not to nit pick, but it does seem rather drastic or even unintentioally biased to remove all of the material... just a couple of examples: The Treaty doesn't pass if not ratified by all States - a simple statement of fact which by omitting lends to the interpretation that it is not necessary e.g. for Ireland to ratify. The use of the word "explicit" a couple of times by others (one of the few pieces of other's work that I edited), with respect, is not explicit if it doesn't define or explain the all major points - some of which do not lend themselves to reasons being given to the Treaty's necessity.

Thank you for the feedback.

Oisinoc (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally didn't revert any of your edits but its understandable if somebody else did - as you can imagine there will have been a lot of people coming in and putting in lots of unsourced stuff which can't be backed up so any new material placed in like that is viewed with scepticism. On the other hand, I completely agree that this article is misleading as it stands on a lot of issues, by having simply taken the Commission line on some of the changes, or indeed by having left out a number of key changes. I can't believe for example the ECJ section as it stands is one line long.

When I have more time I intend to try inserting a bit on the competition reference I was talking about above but for now you might be better off trying to put your changes in one at a time, which would give people a chance to tell you whether they agree with you that they should be put in. Like I said, on a number of your points I'd say fair enough but others I think you'll have to drop. Starting with quotes from federalist lunatics such as D'Estaing, which clearly put across just one POV. --Simonski (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I will start editing one at a time, which sounds wise; Oisinoc (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1) "The Treaty of Lisbon is scheduled to be ratified by all Member States by the end of 2008, in time for the 2009 European elections."
Is this NPOV? If it must be ratified by all mamber states, and if this is legally subject to a referendum in Ireland, then scheduled by whom? Does this not appear to take it as a given? Hence It must be ratified unanimously by all Member States in order to enter force Oisinoc (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone learning about all this for the first time today, I was surprised to see that this article appears to suggest there is almost no controversy. This contrasts the average internet viewer who is now seeing videos of fairly intense and historic confrontations in parliament, such as here, here and here. I don't take any position but it seems strange for someone coming to this for the first time to see no controversy section explaining what this is all about. 67.164.76.73 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone from the UK your impression about the amount of controversy in inherently biased. (I'm NOT talking about whether this is justified or not!). Just take a look at the parties in the EU parliament. All big parties from all member states support this treaty - except one: the tories from the UK... (and under the smaller parties UKIP is a relatively influential party). Also the media: Big parts of the popular media are very critical of the EU (especially those connected to Rupert Murdoch) and the appearance of so called Euromyths in the media are much more frequent than elsewhere... (please refer to the speech by Baroness Quin during the 2nd reading in the Lords). I DO NOT say that there is no controversy in other member states ... it is just on a smaller scale most of the time (and like Lord Tomlinson said: ...[the government is] largely in agreement with the [...] outcome ... - like all other governments - THEY made the treaty... so there is litte controversy on this side...) Most controversy is currently reported in the "Reactions" section - which could be expanded imho ... but please keep the above in mind... --84.163.81.56 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UK House of Commons vote

I've changed the voting figures for the House of Commons to reflect the fact that two tellers are needed for either side, who are supporting their side but are not counted. Also there is no procedure to record an abstention in the UK Parliament, and it seems that for true comparability the abstention figure should be the number of members who actually indicated they were abstaining rather than those who were unable to be present for whatever reason. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're splitting hairs here though - if somebody does not vote then surely that is an abstention by default, however you view it. I'd personally like it to be put back in as I think its quite an important figure. --Simonski (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is always the issue of pairing, whereby two members on opposite sides mutually agree not to vote and so don't need to turn up. Can't say if this might apply. Sandpiper (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if pairing is currently in operation. I have a feeling it was suspended by the Labour Party during the close Parliament of 1992-97 and never resumed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked - pairing was ended in December 1996 as from the new year of 1997 after one Conservative whip (Derek Conway, he of the dodgy allowances and exotic sons) paired three absent Conservatives with three Labour MPs as well as three Liberal Democrat MPs, allowing the government to win a vote on fishing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had another go at this. Please note the number of non-voting MPs is not 94. The total number of MPs at the time was 646 (there were no vacancies), and 552 went through either the Aye or No lobby. The Speaker and three Deputy Speakers do not vote except to break a tie; five Members of Parliament who belong to Sinn Féin have not taken the oath and are unable to participate in votes; and four Members (two from each side) were tellers in the vote who did not count in the lobby total. Hence the number who could have voted, but did not, was 81. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Sam - you are quite right with the numbers. I hope you can do the same when it comes to the Lords' vote! David (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With the house of Lords vote the lord spirituals should be included in the vote tally, even though the chances of them voting is virtually no existant, as they do have the right to vote.-Lucy-marie (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Structural changes to article

User ssolberg reverted both structural changes and substantive additions without discussion. Please discuss the changes before doing so again. The changes related to:

• The "amendements"-section, which was regrouped into institutional changes (that is changes to the current EU institutions, such as the Parliament, the ECJ, the Commission, the Council etc.) and other changes within the drafts that do not concern the institutions.
• The section on differences to the EU Constitution was moved down, as it is logical to only look at this comparison after discussing the actual changes. This section was also expanded.

Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Charter of Fundamental rights isn't an amendment; it's just referred to. The charter is a different story. You have reverted the isolated edit i made when I changed all 'will's to 'would's, as well as my removal of the unofficial consolidated treaties (official version is available now). Your "substantive additions"? - You didn't write anything new. Once we justly remove the Charter from the 'amendments' section, I see no need to have "=====President of the European Council=====" instead of "====President of the European Council====". - in fact the latter is favourable since it doesn't make the section titles ridiculously small. We should try not to insert another overarching sub-section that makes the titles even smaller. And the section i tagged with {{update}} really needs an update: "As the IGC is held in Lisbon and the European Council meeting in October took place in Lisbon as well, it is likely the treaty will be called the "Treaty of Lisbon"" is a strange sentence today. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please first read the talk page entries before just reverting everything. I pointed out above that I have rewritten the "comparison with the EU constitution" section and you reverted it once again. With regard to the Charter of Fundamental rights, actually it is an amendment as there is a reference in the treaties now that incorporates it into the treaties - still I haven't put it under amendments. As to reverting your other edits, I did not have a choice, you just blindly reverted all my edits before without consideration to substantive changes, I only could change it back to the prior version. As to the reordering of the "Amendments" section, this is a necessary change, apparently you haven't seen the clean up tag that was there since March? As to an update, what update are you talking about? You have to provide specifics, so people can see what you mean. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who placed the clan up tag there, and it was because the ECJ section among others were extremely short. Not because I felt the amendments section needed an overarching sub-section that would make the section titles even smaller. Four =s is more than enough. Five =s is too much. As I have pointed out, the edit I made when I changed 'will's to 'would's, was isolated and I had written an edit summary. As was the removal of the external links to unofficial texts. To categorise 'institutional changes' in a different section than other changes is not more important that keeping the section titles to a normal size IMO. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear ssolbergj. As you may know or not know, the Lisbon Treaty was at beginning also inofficially referred to as the "reform treaty" or "institutional treaty". Its main goal was to make the EU institutions work in a EU with 27+ memberstates. Other changes made beside this key part are of course important too, still the distinction between changes to the institutions and other changes remains essential. Reading the "Amendments" section before, the subsections were in no order at all and for an encyclopedia that is not good. Order makes things more readable, that you have smaller section headings is not important if there is a good reason for making the change to smaller section headings, as I just pointed out.

As to your point, that I also reverted your "will"s to "would"s change. If you could tell me how you revert an edit without reverting subsequent edits in the same section that come later on, I would be delighted. I have not seen a method that allows this. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about reverting the edit above, and then revert the edit below, istead of one single revert? You don't need to patronise.

There is no (clear) distinction between 'institutional changes' and other amendments. This treaty is all about the institutions (and bodies). Read the treaty and you'll see.

• The pillars have got everything to do with the institutions, agencies and bodies.
• The Central Bank becomes an official institution with this treaty, so to place it under a section called "Changes to EU Institutions" is wrong. And strictly and legally speaking, there are no 'EU institutions' today, only Community-, CFSP- and PJCC-institutions.
• The new post of high representative in foreign affairs is based on institutional mandate and will be head of the EDA, secretary general of the Council as well as a vice-president of the Commission, at the same time. His or her External Action Service is a new istitution. The deal with national parliaments is that they are given some new tools in their handling of new legislation from the European Commission.
• You didn't place 'Defence' under "Changes to EU Institutions", yet the only thing about defence in this treaty is a new pasarell clause mandate for the European Council that makes it able to unanimously vote on making a defence for the EU. If it hadn't seemed like the Amendments section was topically categorised, this defence aspect should have been placed under the European Council's section. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Of course there is a clear distinction between institutional changes and other amendments. Institutional changes are all those effecting the composition and functioning of the EU institutions.

2. The pillars do not change the way the parliament or the council or the commission is composed of or votes etc. - it only relates to how the EU itself is structured.

3. It has been argued that the ECB is already a EU institution. That it receives a special status in the treaties doesn't change that. If you however like it, we don't place the ECB under the institution heading.

4. The post of high representative in foreign affairs is not a change to how a EU institution is put together, votes or otherwise functions. etc. etc.

5. Your defence argument goes nowhere. It is a change to how a substantive issue is voted upon, there is no procedural change to the voting of the Council with regard to that - the vote on defence will be conducted in the same way any other vote in an area requiring unanimity will be cast.

Again, the amendments section right now is utterly unstructured and needs clean-up and ordering. As I again pointed out, take any textbook on EU law and you will find chapters about the institutions and chapters on other things such as powers (defence, climate change, foreign affairs etc.) and general structure (e.g. pillars) etc. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already said that the high representative will be a vice president of the Commission. The pasarell clause in defence is undoubtedly a new power of the European Council. The Central Bank will become an institution, so at the same time, it would be misleading to not have it in a "changes to EU institutions"-section. To place some things under 'institutional changes' is very far-fetched in my opinion. What if I would like to press the legitimate and stricly speaking correct argument that there are no EU institutions today?

National parliaments can jointly force the Commission to review or withdraw new legislation. This of course has an impact on the functioning of the commission. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some content on the ECJ which I feel is quite necessary. Its all backed up by http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug/eu-reform-treaty-part-six-tec1-3-6.pdf but feel free to tweak it. Think its quite significant info anyhow. --Simonski (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reactions section again

Solberg I don't agree with the shortening of these sections - surely they will remain of historical significance? I think the content you've removed should be put back in, or at least some of it should be. --Simonski (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those reactions were the ones that followed the June 2007 meeting. "the only thing left to do is get the language right and work on the legal details" is a totally insignificant historical quotation to people who read this article. I'll remove parts of the section. The only interesting part is perhaps the reactions of the Polish twins. And of course more can be written. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Simonski and disagree with ssolbergj. The reactions to the June 2007 meeting show that after the negotiations the results were well received. To just delete them is unnecessary and POV. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah right, I deleted them (and was reverted so I reinserted parts of it in the history section) because I felt like being anti-EU POV.</sarcasm> ...not. Anyway the text was mainly quotations that essentially said "the process is on schedule". Not very significant. At least such historical details should be in the history section, if anywhere. Therefore I felt it was nescessary to edit. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Main areas of change

I'm a bit worried about the Main areas of change table, but I'm not sure how to change it without ripping the whole thing apart, so I will just share my thoughts here:

• "Pillars merged to one legal person enabling the EU to sign treaties.": The fact is that the EU already signs treaties (it therefore already has an - implicit - legal personality). The difference is this: As the EC and Euratom have their own legal personality, first pillar treaties are signed in their name (or in the name of one of them). But the second and third pillar don't have that and in those areas treaties are signed by the "European Union". With the Lisbon Treaty, the EC disappears and only the EU and Euratom remain. It's a simplification (the legal persons EC and EU are merged), but the EU's treaty-signing power is already there. A side-effect is the alignment of PJCC with the supranational first pillar (CFSP remains intergovernmental because there are special rules saying so).
• "European Council separated officially from the EU Council": That is already the case; there is already a European Council legally distinct from the Council of the EU. What happens is that the European Council is not yet an Institution at present and it cannot take any legal decisions (with an exception in the 2nd pillar); moreover, the instances where today the Council of the EU (not the European Council) has to decide in a special format with heads of state and government are transferred to the European Council (basically a simpler way of doing the same thing). "More meetings to be held in public.": That would rather seem to apply to the Council of the EU. Sigur (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the European Council is today just a 'configuration' of the EU Council. I know that the EC pillar's 'personality' has signed up to the WTO etc., but still the fact that the Union as a whole now gets a single legal personality, is significant. E.g. the Lisbon Treaty signs the Union up to the European Convention on Human Rights. You are just pointing out some de factos that exist today. I'll change the "meeting in public" thing. - $\mathrm {S}$ $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have to insist:

• The European Council is quite clearly distinct from the Council, it is defined in Article 4 EU Treaty, whereas the Council's composition is defined in Article 230 EC Treaty. To point out just one indisputable difference, the President of the Commission is part of the European Council but not of the Council. Have a look at Article 13(3) EU Treaty: "The Council shall take the decisions necessary for defining and implementing the common foreign and security policy on the basis of the general guidelines defined by the European Council. The Council shall recommend common strategies to the European Council and shall implement them, in particular by adopting joint actions and common positions..." There are clearly two distinct bodies here.
• It's not only the "EC pillar's 'personality'" that signs treaties, here is one from the second pillar: [23], and one from the third pillar: [24]. These treaties are based on Article 24 EU Treaty. As you can see in the linked documents, they are signed by the "European Union", whereas first pillar treaties are currently signed by the "European Community" (or Euratom, or both, as the case may be). I'm not saying that the merging of the legal personalities isn't significant, but it is wrong to say that this is what will enable the EU to sign treaties, because Article 24 EU Treaty already gives the EU that power. Sigur (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On the second point, thats actually a fair point. If thats what the article currently says then it is a bit misleading. I guess it just needs a little rewording, perhaps to say that it now has increased competence to sign Treaties. --Simonski (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On European Council point. I think you mean composition is laid out in Art 203 not 230. Anyhow, the European Council is legally distinct i agree. It is policy-based and does not have a legislative function. These arguments have been played out on the EU pages as well. Lwxrm (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another linked point. The article on changes lists changes to QMV under the European Council section as opposed to "the Council of Ministers" section. Lwxrm (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Regarding this line An opinion poll released January 27, 2008 showed that 45% of voters would vote 'yes', 25% would vote 'no', and that 31% were undecided. The ref link does not work and who are the extra 1%? This should be removed or if anyone has correct details please insert them. BigDunc (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The URL did not work as it was archived on The Post's website. I retrieved the permanent link to the story. The data are correct, the extra 1% is due to rounding. Ross^English 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work thanks for clarification. BigDunc (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we using an out of date opinion poll though? There's been another (see the Irish referendum page) in the last month where the yes vote is down to 25% or something and the undecided vote up to a whopping 60%. Surely we should update this. --Simonski (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Irish referendum results in a NO, but their government votes YES, will the treaty be be unratified by Ireland? If that should happen, what will be the result - will the treaty go ahead and come into effect across the EU, or will it not affect Ireland, or will it be outright rejected everywhere? This should be stated in the article — Jack (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, the Irish constitution requires a referendum when amendments to it are made. So, if the result of the referendum is NO, they will probably do the same thing they did last time this happened, vote again 1-2 years later. Still, as it is rather clear that the referendum will come out positive for the treaty, this is just theoretical speculation. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that the EU will have another period of 'reflection' like they had after the failed referendum in France and in the Netherlands. Also just to point out it is theoretical speculation to say that it will be passed in Ireland with a massive 60% undecided. BigDunc (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not very encyclopedic, but, in case of a NO from Ireland, the Treaty might very well come into effect everywhere except for Ireland, with would get some opt-out - and maybe later have another referendum. It wasn't the case with the NO to the TCE, because France is an important country (demographically, historically, and in the participation to the elabration of the TCE)for the European Union (which might not work well without France.)Kromsson (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kromsson, this will not work. The most important changes relate to EU institutions, which Ireland in any event has to be part of. You can't give them an opt-out from the EU Council, the Parliament etc. If the referendum will go NO (which is of course just theoretical speculation looking at just more than one poll), there has to be a new referendum before the treaty enters into effect. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I dunno, I have heard from a very prominent Irish academic that if Ireland says no to the treaty that it may even kill it off completely. Its not a far fetched opinion after all. Given that opinion polls show that most member states would like a referendum, to try and force it through again in Ireland like they did with Nice wouldnt seem a realistic option. Any government that would try that wouldn't last long in Ireland I dont think. Either way, it should be very interesting to see what happens. But it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that Lisbon is going to come into force and I think its dangerous to assume it will (though my own personal view is that it'll scrape through the refendum with like 51%). --Simonski (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, the people have rejected this treaty being shoved down the rest of Europe's unwilling throat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.204.47 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does a yes vote automatically ratify the treaty

Or does the Oireachtas have to subsequently vote to ratify it? Bogger (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, a yes vote does not automatically ratify the treaty, the Oireachtas must vote on it to ratify. For example the 2nd Nice treaty referendum was held on 19 October 2002, the Oireachtas passed the Amendment act on 7 November 2002, see Irish Statue website. Snappy56 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual error in table regarding Irish votes

According to Wiki, the votes are as follows: 25% In Favour, 28% Against, 47% Abstention. This does not reflect the source it is citing, [46] Irish Times: 46.6% In Favour, 53.3% Against —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uppsju (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal Ratifies Treaty

http://www.pr-inside.com/portuguese-lawmakers-overwhelmingly-ratify-r553572.htm

According to this article, Portugal has ratified the treaty. Should it be added to the wiki article? MDKarażim (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

k, sorry

"Arguably" in the intro

Doesn't wikipedia advise against/come down strongly against such wording as that in the second paragraph? To me it reads rather poorly... surely it needs sorted out? I mean for starters some people would debate the whole scrapping of the pillars thing as being over-exaggerated with them remaining in some form, and seems to read as if it is suggesting the changes will improve policy making, which again could surely be debated? I dunno, just to me it just doesnt sit right. I dont remember it being in the article a couple of months ago? --Simonski (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland did not ratify the treaty yet

The provincial parliament of Åland needs to ratify the treaty. It is the same as for Belgium and its provincial parliaments. The map should not show Finland in green. 83.215.3.71 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ålands approval of the Treaty is not necessary for the treaty to come into force in Finland. Åland Parliament decides solely on the treaty will apply Åland or not. --Glentamara (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Åland Islands' population is 27,000, 0.5 % of total population of Finland and the regional parliament can't affect the national parliament's decicisions at all. Same with Gibraltar. Perhaps they should be removed completely from the template as they don't have anything to do with the actual ratification of the treaty, just that do the provisions apply on their territory. --Pudeo⺮ 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon#Ratification

I have applied color codes to Austria. Comments? -- Cat ^chi? 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added another flavor. Not sure which one looks better. -- Cat ^chi? 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be shown Ireland has rejected it on the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from the 'ratification' section

The content there such as the court case in Germany is interesting, and relevant, and just because the incident is over or finished it doesnt mean that it should then instantly be removed. Rather such info should be left in as extra info surrounding the ratification. Please stop removing the content therefore! --Simonski (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotation link does not provide as advertised

I clicked through the Wikiquotes link and was taken to a search page, after removing the _'s from the search terms I tried again, nothing was returned. I don't know how to go about fixing the link, but perhaps someone with more skill can make sure the button is providing the intended service? --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.64.232 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in Greece

Greek parliament has 300 seats, so 8 were absent for whatever reason. At least some of them didn't vote because they disagreed with their party's position ([25] in Greek). I didn't change it myself because I saw that it has been previously reverted.--Ipnotistis (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The reverter had some sort of misunderstanding: " Nobody voted abstention. 8 remaining MPs were absent during the procedure". I don't think the abstention is on the template to indicate "voted abstenstions", but all abstentions. --Pudeo⺮ 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to add a section. In the next 3 days the Greek parliament discusses the opposition's request for referendum. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work

This article is impressive. Congratulations to the authors, who I'm sure know as well as I do, how few people understand what all the niggly bits of EU law say, and pay attention to the fine distinctions between different institutions. I'd say "keep up the good work", but it unfortunately seems that the treaty has been consigned to history (then again, people said the same when the Irish rejected Nice). Wikidea 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

I threw up a POV tag because the article lacks a criticism section or stub directed to other article. Irish voters voted down the treaty so there logically must be criticisms. I am sure other users are more knowledgeable on the subject than I.--David Barba (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, personnally I think it was just designed to trash national sovereignty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged per WP style. Plus the no vote does not mean a critic of the treaty, just that the majority of voters in Ireland participating in this referendum found that the answer no was closer to their personal favourite response, the critics on specific points are in fact interspersed in the article. I will thus remove the POV tagCyrilleDunant (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CyrilleDunant. This article is discussing the treaty in itself not "public responses to the treaty". Arnoutf (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but one read of the Irish ratification section as it stands highlights that the section there is completely non-NPOV and seems to be written in a manner which suggests the author is dissappointed with the Irish vote. There is far too much emphasis on the fact that the parliament supported it, as there was also a significantly broad coalition in the No camp, which despite getting covered in the press doesn't get any mention at all in this article. If someone was to read it they'd just assume it was only Sinn Fein, campaigning on a nationalist level, when infact there were also other aspects to the campaign, such as the admirable "Don't be bullied" slogan, allowing voters to vote against the manner that the EU was trying to force the treaty through despite the majority of EU citizens wanting a referendum. --Simonski (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree but that is another issue. The text should be rephrased in a more reflective/neutral way. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not that knowledgeable about the Lisbon Treaty debate but it is ridiculous to claim that an article lacking any critical discussion of an inherently political topic can be NPOV. To claim NPOV is just to legitimate one point of view as inherently correct and in need of no discussion, a patronizing attitude. If not a Criticism section, then a Public Response section, as any political topic should. As is, the article strikes me as written in a highly technical, pro-EU manner, as if written by a EU bureaucrat.--David Barba (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A clear link to another article discussing debate, criticism, and public response to the treaty would also be acceptable.--David Barba (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical discussion is something else entirely from adding a critisism section or a public response section. Look around for other inherently political topics (e.g. US congress) and you will not find such sections there; actually not even Nazism has such sections (while it is "obviously" critically discussing the topic). Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

US Congress is a government institution, and the Nazi are a historical topic, neither are contemporary political proposals subject to current event POV sensitivity like the Lisbon Treaty. The article is striking in its lack of discussion on the merits or non-merits of the treaty.--David Barba (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

>>"seems to be written in a manner which suggests the author is dissappointed with the Irish vote."

>>"As is, the article strikes me as written in a highly technical, pro-EU manner, as if written by a EU bureaucrat"

This is what wikipedia is about -- acting in service of those with the most admins to edit as they need for a political propaganda spin. Imagine if it had been written in that tone and was on the side of the Irish voters? It would be reverted within minutes. I have altered the last sentence, first paragraph to underscore that Ireland was the only vote taken to the poeple. The absurdity of claiming that "criticism" sections are discouraged is clearly meant only to turn you away. It's used whenever the truth needs to be hidden that cannot be completely suppressed. An essay has been written on just what lengths they will go to in order to keep the damaging info to them off the page -- Concealing Crimes of the CIA, Wikipedia Style. 67.170.205.8 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The rephrasing is much worse POV: "Ireland, the only Member State which allowed voters to participate in the election in addition to the parliamentary vote". The use of the word "Allow" clearly critisises all other countries, which in the legal context need not be an issue. I agree this was undone. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

May i just add that in some countries such a referendum would be forbidden by Constitution? This is the case for example here in Italy. Act that allow treaties to be ratified, as it's understood that an international treaty is a matter of foreign policy and of national interest, are uneligible for a referendum. By the way the Italian Constitutions doesn't provide for confirmative referenda for ordinary acts. It provides only for abrogative ones. A confirmative referendum is only allowed for constitutional amendments unless the parliament had approved them with less than 2/3 of the MP concurring in each house. There are two only recorded case in which a different kind of referendum ever occured: the first time it was in 1946 when Italians were asked to choose between Republic and the King, the second time in 1989 when they were asked to approve a proposal to give to the European Parliament the power to redact and enact an European Constitution. --82.56.39.39 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have become fairly discouraged with Wikipedia. Most articles with information that should cover material embarrassing to powerful institutions, and 'speak truth to power' as they say, are effectively butchered and made meaningless. Sourcewatch is generally more useful in this regard.--David Barba (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air opinions. Statements require sources and be written in a neutral tone of voice. I have to admit that the supporters usually have much easier access to sources and references, but that does not mean all kind of conspiracy theories (they say this is not true, therefor it must be hidden and still true) can have any merit on Wikipedia; critisisms must have reliable sources and be voiced in a fair and neutral way. In my opinion a separate "critisism" is not the best way for this article (and talking about undue attention, as 18 countries already approved; where is the "support" section). Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So...

So now that Ireland has rejected the treaty in the referendum does that mean that the treaty will not enter into force ? --Ŧ®øüьℓغ _{πες το} 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

well obviously the answer to that question is......Yes and No. It may be possible to give a better answer after the forthcoming EU summit. In general, the most essential elements will almost certainly be re-presented to the voters (or not, if an actual referendum can be avoided) in some form or other. Sandpiper (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

While recalling that Wikipedia is not a forum I think that we should only record what will happen in next months. As far as I know most of the countries that still hadn't ratified the treaty will continue the process anyway (with the possible exception of the Czech Republic). Whatever will happen it's simple a matter of time, and diplomacy, of course. --82.56.39.39 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious reference

I added a dubious tag to the assertion that Libertas & Sinn Féin were the reason behind the success of the no vote. The so called reference mearly quoted the groups respective leaders. I think we should remove the statement entirely. Jamesnp (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

KKK reference?

At line 5:"It was formed and proposed by the famous Klu Klux Klan." Better remove this vandalism! 80.165.183.40 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in Poland

In article is serious misunderstanding with ratification of the Treaty in Poland.

Procedure of ratification in Poland: 1. Sejm (lower house of Parliament) votes on statute, which grants the President consent to sign the Treaty 2. Senat (higher house of Parliament) votes on the same statute 3. President can sign or veto the statute in 21 days (in Poland President Lech Kaczynski signed it April 10th, 2008) 4. Next, president can sign the Treaty, (ratification is done), or can refuse his sign (ratification fails). Time for President to do so is not precised. President Kaczynski officialy stated, that his sign on statute is only technical matter, and subordinated futer consign The Treaty from law whereby he can block unfair EU directives. So, ratification of The Treaty in Poland is not done yet.

Sources (in Polish): 1.official web site of the President Kaczynski explain the matter:

http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011848&eventId=16527987

2. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland (in English)

http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm see articles 90 & 133

Source cited in article, [53]Euobserver is not correct when states: 'Poland accepted' the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Mr. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of minority in Parliament, brother of the President Lech Kaczynski, stated, that is no need to block the Treaty in Sejm, because President can do it anytime. Also, the map showing process of ratification in EU countries, is not correct. Poland should be blue (not ratified). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.34.12 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

About the map, see the official europa.eu-site --Pudeo⺮ 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland's situation is identical to that of the UK. The British Act of Parliament has received Royal Assent, but that does not oblige the Government to deposit the instrument of ratification. Same in Poland: The President has signed the Act of Parliament, but that does not oblige him to deposit the instrument of ratification. In the table, that shows in the lacking date in the column "Deposited" and the specific political problem is explained in the section "Poland" below the table. Sigur (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigur, I don't think Poland's President has yet signed the bill ratifying the treaty. The situation thus is different than the one in the UK. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes he has. As our anonymous IP friend explains him/herself above, the President had 21 days after the vote to either sign or veto. He hasn't vetoed, so he had to sign. (Put the corresponding Polish Wikipedia page through the Google translator and you will see they say that happened on 9 April, our IP friend says it was on 10 April, I don't have any other source for the date.) In any case, we agree that points 1 to 3 set out above have been accomplished and that it is point 4 that still is due (Signing of the paper that will be sent to Rome - and under the Polish constitution that will have to be done by the President as well). I think that there can be no doubt that "Royal Assent" is point 3 and we all agree that that's done. Sigur (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some new sources (in English) describing situation with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Poland:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/europe/02europe.php

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0701/breaking6.htm

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/50611

According to above, I propose to change status of ratification in Poland to: "pending". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.34.129 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro is so one-sided it's an incitement to vandalism

"The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty designed to streamline how the European Union (EU) works" ... Pull the other one. This is a quite disgusting misrepresentation of what the Treaty of Lisbon is all about. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Streamline has a bit positive connotation (ie streamlining is generally an improvement). How about "redefine the working of the EU" (ie redefining can be for the better or the worse). To me that sounds more neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think neither streamline nor redefine "how the EU works" is actually capturing what the Lisbon Treaty does. In essence, the most neutral way to say it would just be "the Treaty of Lisbon is desgined to change the EU Treaty and EC Treaty...". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that this is somewhat uninformative. Who has some sources detailling what the treaty is supposed to do? I don't doubt there are plenty of press releases from the EU, endorsed by the governments of all the member states, stating it is intended to streamline etc etc. Are you saying these governments are lying? If so, some source would be needed to support such a claim. In general governments are considered a good source of information. Sandpiper (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the word "streamline" sounds somewhat loaded. But I think it can be used deliberately in this case, because the pure definition of the word fits what this treaty actually does. It means that reaching decitions will get easier (less vetoes and a long-term consensus-driving council president) and the amount of red tape is cut (fewer commissioners and MEPs, intricate pillar system removed), all of which is true when it comes to this treaty. With the exeption of The Sun, which categorically refers to Lisbon as "the hated treaty", virtually every news article I've read about the Lisbon Treaty online, says something à la "the treaty is designed to streamline the desition-making in an EU of 27 countries." Even the wannabe "EU-neutral" BBC uses the word: "The Lisbon treaty is meant to streamline the workings of the enlarged EU and give it a stronger voice in the world" - SSJ ☎ 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more comments here. I'm trying to justify the word. - SSJ ☎ 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say one thing in favour of "streamline" - it's less biased than "improve", which is what the current version says the Treaty seeks to do to (or for) the EU. The version that began with, "The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty that amends the Treaty on European Union ..." has been the most "encyclopaedic" so far (though it should have said "... would amend ...") and IMO it should be restored.

But then there'd still be the second paragraph: "Prominent changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include reduced chances of stalemate in the EU Council through more qualified majority voting ..." That's one way of putting it. Another, perhaps equally biased, way would be: "Prominent changes ... include further substantial transfers of sovereignty from the member states to the EU through the removal of national vetoes in sixty [from memory] new areas ..." Acceptable? Probably not. But it's as acceptable as what's currently there.

Then there's the third paragraph. If you're really paying attention, you'll pick up that there's some sort of connection between the Lisbon and Constitutional Treaties. What you won't come near to realising (cos it just ain't there) is that the single most defining, originating, sine-qua-non-tastic fact about the Lisbon Treaty is that it is a re-arranged version of the Constitutional Treaty produced with the sole aim of getting as much as possible of the original Giscardian treaty into EU law. EU-reformists claim that the new treaty is 98% the same; EU-ever-closer-unionists say that it is ... about 80% the same? But that difference is unimportant. Neither group denies that the Lisbon Treaty is, always was and ever will be a rehashed version of the Constitutional Treaty, so there is nothing unencyclopaedic about stating this most salient of facts in the intro to the article.

Then there's the fourth paragraph - but that's in the next section. One thing at a time. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not agree that it is a fact that the governments of the European Union member states created the Lisbon Treaty (which virtually every news paper say would "streamline EU decision-making") in order to improve how EU institutions work? That must be an unquestionable, real-world fact. - SSJ ☎ 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The word "improve" is judgemental and therefore conveys more than whatever the real-world facts are. (One man's streamlining is another's steamrollering.) Surely this is uncontroversial? I'm not saying that today's architects of ever-closer-union are dishonourable. They may well believe that what they are attempting can neutrally be described as "streamlining" or "improving". But this is an encyclopaedia and we have a duty to stand back and stare.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[I've just looked at the article again.] I see you've reverted the opening para. Fine. Let's discuss the changes first. But you have also reverted a minor change in the second: "reducing" has gone back to "reduced". Your English is beyond excellent but still ... I reckon "reducing" is more idiomatic there.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "Lisbon improves how the EU works". It says "The Treaty of Lisbon is a treaty designed to improve how the EU works." There's a major difference between the two. One is judgemental, the other informatively explains the overarching intention of EU leaders. - SSJ ☎ 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "designed to improve" is a partisan interpretation of the overarching intention of EU leaders. Their notion of improvement is not universal - indeed, if the Irish referendum is a credible guide, it's a minority view. Personally, if I designed a treaty to improve the EU it would do the opposite of what the Lisbon Treaty does: reduce the EU's competencies, increase national vetoes, scrap the Parliament, burn the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and so on. For those who are unhappy about the fifty years of blind creeping unstoppable ever-closer-union, such a treaty would be a great improvement. But how would a neutral describe it? Not as a treaty designed to improve how the EU works, that's for sure.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it this way; "reduced chances of stalemate is a change in the treaty" - isn't that a valid sentence? Before, "innovations" was used instead of "changes"; would that word be more correct in relation to the rest of the sentence? E.g. "Improved aerodynamics is an innovation introduced with the MiG 21." I just want to keep this summary-sentence as short and informative as possible, with a coherent tense. - SSJ ☎ 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some modifications to the intro to try and fix some of the issues I saw with neutrality. Of course, if you think it needs improvement feel free.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland referendum results

Clearly there's going to be back-and-forth editing on the issue of whether the people who didnt vote in Ireland should be counted as "abstaining". I personally feel that putting an abstention figure in here has been done to try and undermine the result somehow. I mean if you talk about the percentage vote in an election, who actually ever gives the "real" percentage result. US Presidents would be getting elected with what, around 25% of the popular vote etc? I dont understand why all of a sudden we should change this for this page. Surely an "N/A" would suffice in the abstention column therefore. Plus, I do think its the sort of thing that people will come to this page, see, and keep changing, so why not just have it as it should be. --Simonski (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that is quite silly. If someone wants to show the percentage of voters that went to the polls, he or she should do that with a footnote, not by distorting the numbers in a way that don't make sense. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. The attempt to equate deliberate(d) abstentions by democratic representatives in the various legislative assemblies with the crude tally of ordinary punters who, for whatever reason, didn't turn up to vote is not only moronic, it is, given the comparatively high turnout in the Irish referendum, a quite disgraceful (but, alas, typical) attempt to misrepresent the truth. But yes, Simonski, the table will keep being changed by partisans of both sides. So why not simply take Ireland out of it? It doesn't belong there anyway. Being the only member state to decide this issue wholly by a popular vote, Ireland doesn't belong in a (let's face it, somewhat tendentious) table of parliamentary doodads. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and Agreed, though now the Irish result is not as prominant as the results in other countries. Doed MOS allow for highlighting by colour/bold font? Bogger (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In-text highlighting doesn't look good. The fact that the information is there, is sufficient. - SSJ ☎ 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a diehard europhile, but taking Ireland out of the table under the pretext that we have renamed it "parliamentary ratifications" just doesn't feel honest. I can understand the vandalism argument, but I'm not sure the vandalism is going to stop anyhow. As a compromise, can't we put the Irish parliament back into the "parliamentary ratifications" table (as ratification doesn't appear to be completely ruled out), because there would have to be a vote in the two Houses after a positive referendum anyhow. Then there could be a note "Referendum see below" in a red field, because all that green and no red seems a bit shocking given the facts.

Sigur (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) It Seems to be ignored the referendum isn't the ratification, but gives the oirachtas the right to ratify it.

I disagree with the removal of Ireland. I suggest we change the section title to "Ratification progress" give the result as it should be 53%-47% (something like that) and make a footnote for more details. None releases results counting the people who didn't vote and these people don't affect the result even if they are the majority. We want to give an idea of the progress of the ratification and not just count the abstentions, the agreements and the disagreements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Magioladitis. Even if I admit that the abstention rate would be more precise, but less clear to the viewer.Finedelledanze (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no abstention rate the normal Joe Soap not going to the polling station because Eastenders is on is not an abstention and in no way should be regarded as such. BigDunc^Talk 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, someone has removed the irish results??? How is this justified? the irish parliaments passed the referendum legislation, it used tosay so, surely? Has this become untrue now? If the other countries have multiple entries saying by what it was passed and by how much, this should too. And then a big red note saying it failed the last step. Why was this deleted??? Sandpiper (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding UK House of Lords vote

I post here the source as the official web page won't be updated until tomorrow. [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.121.137 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What does "Agreed w/o div." mean? --Playmaid (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the British parliament, a voice vote is taken and only if it is inconclusive is the question taken to a division. Apparently in this case no division was required (I'm a bit surprised, but there we are). Pfainuk talk 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I was very surprised myself. --Playmaid (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although strictly speaking this is correct, politically speaking you could take the last minute amendment vote, which was to delay ratification, as the de facto vote on approval. Politically speaking, if the amendment wasn't going to pass there's no point in counting the vote for the final agreement. This would be more informative than just leaving blank - would this be ok? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. This and this both treat the failure of the delaying amendment as more crucial than the final vote, and it seems fair to recognise that the parties were not agreed on whether to ratify. A detailed explanation could be put in a footnote (say, "Figures are for an amendment delaying ratification. The final vote to ratify the treaty proceeded without a division"). Pfainuk talk 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather suggest to put in a footnote the figures fot the amendment and to leave the actual result for the final vote in the table --84.223.121.137 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate as there's no way of knowing if people who voted against the delay or for the delay ultimately voted for the ratification or against it. There were likely rebels on the vote, but there's no way of knowing how that broke down. More may have rebelled on the actual vote than the amendment or vice versa. Having unknown or hand count would be better as without division is very misleading.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WHY IS ROYAL ASSENT BEING REMOVED.

it is required for ratification. as is signing by the president of some other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They ratified it without division? Wow, I didn't expect that one. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean when they went "all the ayes say aye" that almost everybody went AYE?? --Simonski (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In the Lords they say "content", but it amounts to the same thing. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Assent is the third and final stage of Parliamentary approval. The Queen in Parliament is not merely a formality but a vital part of ratification, which has not yet been given. So why is it not in the ratification table and why had the UK already been coloured green on the map? 77.99.230.33 (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Now THAT is great! If you leave "Royal Assent" for the UK, I'll add "Royal Assent", "Assent by the Walloon Government" (twice: regional and transferred community matters), "Assent by the Government of the French Community", "Assent by the Flemish Government", "Assent by the Brussels Regional Government", "Assent by the United College", "Assent by the COCOF College" and "Assent by the Government of the German-speaking Community" under Belgium. Under Belgian constitutional law, they all act as parts of the legislative branch legally equal to the relevant parliamentary chamber(s). Politically it's as much a formality as the Royal Assent in the UK, because this is a parliamentary system where the government needs to have a majority in parliament, but legally it's as essential as the vote in the parliamentary chamber. And when I'm done with Belgium, I'll start checking the other countries... Sigur (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having Royal Assent added. A 'formality' it may be but they give extra information on the stage of ratification. In short, there is absolutely no need to remove it, even if you don't agree that it is added. It is information which is verifiable after all. Nulli secundus (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "need to remove it" is that once I'm through checking all the remaining member states, this table will have become completely unreadable, but if you want it I'll do it... Sigur (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the addition of Royal/President assent as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The rearrangement of the ratification section

It looks far worse than before with the table on the right side, especially when you have a higher resolution. The table should stand for its own, without text on either side of it. Also, the new date format is very unusual and normally not used in wikipedia. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the new date format as well.-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't e.g. "11.07.2008" ok? It takes much less space, and looks tidier (all dates have the same width) IMO. And the map isn't shoved on small screens. - SSJ ☎ 12:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The old wordy format is nicer. The other format is tidier but looks like a telephone book. Finedelledanze (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it more compact. What's wrong with telephone books? This guideline says that "However, they [short dates] may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." - SSJ ☎ 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is wrong, the UK should still be blue as although the Commons and Lords have passed it, the Queen hasn't signed it into law yet. As per the table, the UK technically HAS NOT completed ratification yet, though probably will do in the next day or two. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm if you want a source. - JVG (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if consider formal approval, approval, then you have to put some other countries into blue as well. For instance, in Germany, the president has not given his assent yet (he is awaiting a decision by the Constitutional Court). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Then put them into blue as well. Even with Royal Assent the damn thing still isn't ratified in the UK[27] so it should certainly be blue. 195.171.25.206 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do it both ways. The map can show whether the countries in question have completed all formal steps of approval and ratification or we can say that if all necessary parliamentary approval steps (that is the label of the table by the way) have been taken (except for deposition of the documents in Rome). If we do it the first way, we would have 15 countries that have approved the treaty, otherwise 19 countries (+ Germany, Poland, UK, Finland). Considering that all major news outlets consider parlimentary approval the key point in the ratification process (they all say 19 countries have ratified), I am in favour of the second way. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This major news outlet [28] considers the UK not to have ratified the constitution. Yorkshire Phoenix 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the same major news outlet [[29]] disregards formal approval stages in Germany, Poland and Finland and says 18 EU-countries (excluding the UK) have ratified the treaty. So, they are inconsistent, which means they have no idea of what they actually mean when they say "x countries have ratified" the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the colour of Cyprus. It has already ratified Treaty yesterday. --Dima1 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The map was changed because of partisan reasons. Germany has already ratified the treaty and is only waiting to deposit it. It should be yellow. In addition, it should be updated because it has been ratified by Spain ever since (it hasn't been deposited yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

this article is extremely biased towards the teaty, it needs the treaty's critsisms added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We had the discussion - see section "POV tag" above. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification table: where has Ireland gone?

Someone must have removed Ireland from the list. Not sure what that's about? Ireland is still a member, hehe. ;-) --Playmaid (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but someone thought it would be a good idea to split the section "Ratification" into parlimentary ratification and ratification by referendum. In essence, this has created much more confusion than it helped the reader. I would also plead for a reinsertion of Ireland into the table, which we could then label "Ratification by country" without artifically splitting it. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland would still have to get parliamentery ratification even if the referendum was carried. put it back on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since a parliamentary vote may still take place, I would also be in favour of re-inserting Ireland and adding a note (preferably in place of the figures) reading "see text"--Boson (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It needed a amendment to the constitution to allow it to be ratified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom that question was addressed but, as I understand it, the necessary constitutional change requires a parliamentary vote followed by referendum with a yes answer, and then a parliamentary vote could approve ratification. If, as with the Nice treaty, there is a second constitutional amendment by a referendum with a yes answer, I presume there would then be a vote in parliament to aprove the ratification.--Boson (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It should go back into the table. Leaving it lout gives a totally false impression of unanimity and just make people wonder what happened to the Ireland entry. I am also puzzled about how the Irish constitution amendment processs takes place. I would have thought that a parliamentary vote would have been a necessary first step to a constitutional amendment, so this must already have been voted upon with a numerical result in the irish parliament.

Not a supporter of UKIP, but I was impressed by the summary of the situation by their leader: That 100% of governments asked had said yes, whereas 100% of peoples asked had said no. This struck me as significantly accurate, contrary to the gloss which many politicians prefer to place upon it of the irish referendum being anomalous. So contrary to my earlier comment, I might favour a pair of tables, one listing all the unanimous ayes from the government, and the unanimous nays from the people. But there needs to be an irish entry. Sandpiper (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) has de facto approved it by agreeing that the question be put to referendum. See Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland. "The procedure for amending the constitution is specified in Article 46. A proposed amendment must take the form of a bill to amend the constitution originating in Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament). It must first be formally approved by both the Dáil and the Senate, but in practice the Senate only has the power to delay an amendment adopted by the Dáil. Then it must be endorsed by the electorate in a referendum." It is the people, as owners of the Constitution, who give (or deny) their assent to such bills. --Red King (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above on number of countries that have ratified the treaty

I originally stated, I am for keeping the number of 19 as the number of countries that have ratified the treaty. Now, with many "presidential assents" or "royal assents" inserted into the ratification table, I don't think that makes much sense any more. We should stick to the legal definition of ratification. As long as there is a legal step still missing in the ratification process, I don't think we should count a country as having ratified the treaty. This refers to

• Germany, where a constitutional court decision is still outstanding as well as the President's assent.
• Poland, where the President's assent is outstanding and as recently as today there have been articles calling into question whether Poland's president will ratify the treaty (realistically he will, but theoretically he can refuse to sign it).
• As to Finland, as pointed out above, the Aland Parliament cannot overturn the Finish Parliament decision, only vote for their own territory.
• As to the UK, I am uncertain whether to count them. The case pending at court is no formal approval step in the process. It is just merely a "courtesy" of the UK government not to deposit the treaty ratification documents in Rome. Ratification however at the moment is complete in the UK. That a court decision could overturn the ratification does not change that, especially considering that Constitutional courts in basically all other countries of the EU have the (theoretical) right to overrul ratification of the treaty under some circumstances.

To sum up, I count 17 countries that have ratified the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest two different versions of Green. One for "parliamentary ratification completed" and one for "ratification completed". -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My views:

• In Germany the constitutional court decision is not necessarily a step towards ratification. The President could sign the law until the court tells him not to sign it. So far the court has not told him not to sign it, so the missing step in Germany is the signature of the President. And the law has to be published in Germany's Federal Law Gazette afterwards.
• I think Poland's President only still has to sign the ratification bill for Rome, but he has signed something on April 10th. The media reported he had signed the national law on April 10th. I'm a little confused in this case.
• What you said about Aaland is correct.
• In the UK I'd call the national ratification process done. In case they have to hold a referendum in the UK, that is not a necessary national constitutional step towards ratification. The EU-treaties say what's necessary to ratify is what the constitution of the Member State says, and in the UK the referendum is not a requirement. So even if they had to hold a referendum it's not even clear whether the result would be binding. Apart from that the parliament voted on a referendum, and they said no, so I doubt the court could overturn this decision just because of a promise that was made by a party (member).
• I guess Gibraltar is the same story as it is with Aaland.
• Austria is not done yet, because their law only comes into force as soon as the treaty is ratified. After that they will publish the law in their Federal Law Gazette. Publishing it in the Gazette is a requirement to finish the national ratification process.

EuropeanElitist™ 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Meep, wrong on Austria -- the law can't come into effect in any of the countries which ratified the treaty until it comes into effect; the law will only be published in the national gazettes once the treaty comes into effect for all the member states. So Austria's defienitely finished.

Regarding Poland, the president has signed the bill, but he's refusing to forward the ratification to Italy, AFAIK. —Nightstallion 21:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then that means every country is not done with the ratification until the law is published in their Gazette, because the national necessary steps will not be done until everyone has put down their signature in Rome. EuropeanElitist™ 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

AFSJ

The section on the European Court of Justice says that the Lisbon Treaty gives the Court "jurisdiction over certain AFSJ matters not concerning policing and criminal cooperation". "AFSJ" stands for "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", which sounds like a big European Gitmo, and is in fact ... but let's not get bogged down in the whats, whys and how-dare-yous of the AFSJ. What I'd like to know is which "AFSJ matters" the Treaty gives to the ECJ. Reading the relevant parts of the consolidated treaty was, of course, no help at all. Nor was consulting the five or six official AFSJ websites. One of them lets slip that the Constitutional Treaty (much of the current official EU presence is still a freeze-dried memento of that glorious moment of certainty-in-progress just before the "failures" of the earlier constitutional referendums) "extends the competences of the European Court of Justice with regard to certain domains", but that's as detailed as it gets. So - does anyone know what the Court's new non-policing, non-criminal cooperation (say what?) powers are? Or might be? Or are said to be? Or are officially descibed as but will mostly likely end up as? Or any info at all?Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was me who put that in a while back, and I have to admit I had no clue whatsoever on the detail. The thing is we can't really be specific about the ECJ's new jurisdiction because of the ECJ's own stretched interpretation of its jurisdiction. I just put that bit in because it was about all that was clear from the proposed articles of the Lisbon Treaty. Being more of an EC law man myself I have to confess to knowing little about the second and third pillar so I really have no clue as to the specifics! And to be honest I think any attempt at being specific might be hampered by the fact that theres no guarantee that the ECJ won't just dance around these "limits" or parameters. --Simonski (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take a crack at answering part of this. Under the current structure AFSJ covers a wide range of policy areas with strange and complicated interrelations. It started as a "whole" under JHA in Maastricht. It was later split and parts remained (police/judicial coop in CRIMINAL matters) in the 3rd Pillar whilst others (immigration/co-op in civil matters) were transferred to the EC pillar where they were later joined by the Schengen agreement. Part of the current problem is that the role of the Court under the 3rd Pillar is limited. The national courts that wish to ask for preliminary references is limited both in the material that can be referred and who can refer (Articles 68 and 35 TEU).

Lisbon brings them back together under one title (V i think). As there is no overarching exception it is safe to assume (or the ECJ will at any rate) that any matter NOT provided for in a protocol or exception is now subject to judicial review by the Court. This means that it is no longer ONLY the highest court that refer. In a way it is a huge step and opens previously intergovernmental items to judicial review. There are still some important exceptions (hence why the ECJ provisions say "some") to the Court's extended jurisdiction (some aspects of Schengen), and the reference to police matters is clearly explained. Article 276 TFEU still holds that the Court cannot give judicial review on matters undertaken by law enforcement agencies of the Member States. So the answer would appear to be the Court has FULL jurisdiction over AFSJ except for those areas that have specific exceptions (like actions of law enforcement services). Bear in mind my interest is in EC and EU law, so this could not be 100% accurate. It seems to make sense to me however. Also uncertainty is added as any EXISTING measures under CFSP will not be actionable by the Commission (via 226) or the Court for 5 years after adoption. Lwxrm (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

It's true that the belgian federal state is a mess.But this article is over stating it.In the ratification section,only something like 5 assemblies must ratifie it.--88.82.47.48 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven/six according to the "Economist". The article just describes the whole process. This is more accurate than just "the Frenc speaking region ratified the Treaty". I like the table -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the regional Government ratification need to be addedBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In a way it's true that it's overstated. There is only one Walloon Parliament but they had to vote twice (with some members not having the right to take part in the second vote): We have to put the numbers somewhere! The Brussels Regional Parliament and the United Assembly are the same people (different voting modalities), but they managed to vote differently the same day! Once again, the numbers have to be there. The COCOF Assembly are the French-speakers of the Brussels Parliament (the people in current footnote 30 who voted 56-5), but the vote is on a later day and they'll probably manage to vote yet in a different way... As to the governments, I always was against the whole "Royal Assent" thing, but this is the only way to stay coherent. Sigur (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New ratification map proposal

The following map has a new category added (yellow: ratification complete but documents not deposited in Rome yet).

File:Treaty of Lisbon ratification.png

I think (see discussion above) it gives a better and more precise overview of the ratification process in each country. Borderline cases are Germany (no presidential assent yet -> thus blue), Finland (Aland islands -> but the ratification process for "mainland" Finland is done), Poland (presidential assent given, but president refuses to give the required signatures for deposition), UK (only deposition as to formal ratification outstanding, even though the Wheeler case is still not decided and Gibraltar has yet to decide).

This is a png-file not a svg-file, as out of some odd reason the Inkscape program doesn't run smoothly on my computer.

I have not yet replaced the current image with this one, as I would like to have some comments first. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. This will end confusions caused by newspaper articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, yeah. —Nightstallion 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Map is acceptable, however, it will be excellent, if you add any mark (dot, question mark, etc) to countries you listed, where status of ratification is uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.34.129 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland in the table

I know this has been discussed before. The result was a separate table for the referendum, because those who didn't come to vote and/or those who spoilt votes can't be considered "abstention". Plus, when the six digit numbers get shoved into the table, the green bar of results is widened and looks worse IMO. The nature of a referendum needs to be taken care of; it's not yes/no/abstention. I think it's crucial that the article reflects the actual legal nuances. - SSJ ☎ 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While the first argument has some merit (referendum can be considered different). The second argument (large numbers confuse the table layout) is worth nothing to me. The content and following content based text organisation should be leading to all layout effort, never the other way around. Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following:

• Ireland goes to the main table and not in a separate one.
• The result is written as 47% pro and 53% against. No abstentions.
• In a footnote we write the result in detail.

For me having six digit numbers in "at a glance" table is confusing (and I am a mathematician!). The term "abstentions" in a referendum is not correct. I agree with SSJ in that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or at least what I support is:

• Remove the "ratification by parliament" title.
• Put Ireland in the main table. I think it is very important that it takes its place among the others. We should not let the desire to have a tidy table get in the way of clarity.
• Show the actual votes in the Dáil and the Seanad as everywhere else.
• Show the Referendum votes as percentages. The abstention column has "n/a".
• Have an appendix to main table (not somewhere deep in the article references) giving a little more detail of the Irish vote - pretty much the info as is currently shown. Delete the "ratification by referendum" title.

Well that's my two cents worth. --Red King (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"I think it is very important that it takes its place among the others"? Are you afraid it might look like the Irish result is of less importance because it has its own table? Isn't it a cleaner and less 'forced' practice to treate the Irish process for what it is, and to grant it proper, separate columns for "spoilt" and "turnout"? Appendixes are messy, and certainly when they are anywhere but alongside all other notes in the bottom of the article. - SSJ ☎ 03:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Are you afraid it might look like the Irish result is of less importance because it has its own table?" -> Honestly, I would answer this question with yes. Putting the Irish results in a separte table after the parliamentary ratification table does exactly that. I would also favour giving the percentages (like it was done at the very beginning) in the table, show N/A for abstention and put an '*' to Irland with a one-line footnote marked with '*' at the very end of the table stating the total votes in the referendum, the spoilt ballots and the turn-out. We could then also get rid of the "not authorized" line for presidential assent in Ireland (we don't have that for any other country, and there isn't a legal procedure that would officially have the president "not authorizing" the treaty). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I agree with every line. One table, percentages, N/A for abstention, results in detail as a footnote, remove "not authorised" line". -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The "not authorised" thing with ireland isn't the same as it is for other presidents, e.g. in Poland. While the polish twin can write his stupid signature any time he likes, the Irish prime minister is simply not allowed to assent or push ahead with the treaty. - SSJ ☎ 13:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal act that states the president's signature is "not authorized". For any country where the legislator hasn't approved the treaty, the presidential/royal assent (if necessary) is not authorized. Because a second referendum could be held the "not authorized" is also not final, so in any event, a blank is more correct. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I really personally don't see what the problem is with just putting Ireland in the normal, old table, with 53% no, 47% yes, Abstentions blank. All this putting the actual number of voters in, or putting the abstentions in, it just to me seems to be a case of trying to put the result across as weak in some form. This really shouldn't even be an issue of debate and I really can't believe it is! A little reference point could be added next to the figures and *click* oh there somebody can see the turnout! Or if they're not blind they can just read it in the accompanying text which will explain it anyway!

Can we stop trying to undermine the Irish vote on Wikipedia though, the national governments and the Commission are doing that enough already. We should be just putting the facts across like any other form of media would, with the percentage for, percentage against, the turnout percentage. None of this actual voters/abstention numbers malarky! Who's with me?? --Simonski (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't suggest (indeed I opposed) hiding the details of the Irish vote away in a footnote. I argued for it to be listed in the main table, having equal weight to all the others. Then, at the foot of the table (not of the page), add the detail. As presently laid out, the Irish decision is made to look like the weird kid in the playground that nobody wants to pick for their team. --Red King (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Poland - too many president acts

IMHO the column "deposition" fully dublicates the row "president ratification act" for Poland. I mean - Poland already has "Presidential assent", and as described in Poland-notes section below the table - the president is waiting for Irish ratification (or has other reasons to wait, this is not important here) for the DEPOSITION. This is the final act of the ratification (I think that this is stated in the treaty itself - the ratification is complete when each country finalizes with DESPOSITION in Rome). So, the additional "ratification act" row should be removed and instead the column "deposition" will remain empty. Alinor (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that seems to be correct to me. The small section on Poland, however, still refers to Article 90 of the Polish Constitution and a so called Presidential Ratification Act. I have read that article and as far as I understand it the Polish President is only waiting for deposition. I therefore suggest that the small section is edited i.e. please delete the first part of it or at least have someone with knowledge of the Polish ratification process look at it, because as a lawyer it doesn't make any sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.48 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany

The change regarding Germany that the German president Köhler has signed the Lisbon treaty is incorrect. The link of the Irish article from May 23, 2008 that is provided gives false information. Köhler is still waiting for the Constitutional Court's decision on the treaty. See here: [30]. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But did he sign the law and not the treaty (just like his Polish counterpart) or did he decline to sign even the law? I think there's a big difference... --87.8.103.232 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there under German law there is only one signature that the president has to provide, the signature for the law to come into effect. The treaty has already been signed back in Portugal last year. In Poland the issue is, that while the president has given his signature he refuses to transmit the ratification documents to Rome. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I think this is will help us all to understand better the process ongoing in Germany. I think that nobody here is surprised that each one of the 27 states has indeed a different constitutional procedure in order to agree to a treaty. Maybe we can, with the assistance of the various wiki, try to create an article regarding the exact constitutional procedure for all the states so to have a reference somewhere that might be helpful int he future? --Nick84 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany is not "green". The presidentil assent is still missing. See Wikipedia German article "Vertrag von Lissabon". I know it because I am German and here is a big discussion. We are waiting for a decission of the High Court "Verfassungsgericht". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.255.113 (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To user Andras szokolay, who keeps reverting the number of countries where ratification is pending vs. ratification complete. No, in Germany the presidential signtature is missing. Without this signature Germany has not ratified the treaty. In contrast in Poland the president actually signed the ratification law, however is refusing to deliver the documents for deposition in Rome. This has been discussed here several times, so please stopp changing the article. The map unfortunately is wrong. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To "Themanwithoutapast". Or change the map, or do not change the number of countries. Contradiction! So, do not do it my friend! --Andras szokolay (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will change the map then. The point is, Germany hasn't ratified the treaty - that's it, so there are still 5 countries pending: Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden and Italy. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have to change the map. The contradiction is bad, wrong.--Andras szokolay (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)--Andras szokolay (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it is OK. It was not a "vandalism" by me, je n'aime pas la contradiction, that's it. If the map is "wrong", you have to change the map. I don't know, that you are wright or not, but in the wikipedia, la contradiction est le pire. --Andras szokolay (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I would have changed the map earlier, however the program that can edit svg-pictures isn't working on my computer very well. So I had to change the png-picture, which very likely gets replaced again by the svg-adhering people... Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still at least 9 countries pending:
- Belgium: Royal Assent missing
- Germany: Presidential Assent missing
- Ireland: for obvious reasons
- Italy
- Netherlands: Royal Assent missing
- Sweden
- Spain
- Czech Republic
- Cyprus: Presidential Assent missing
--EuropeanElitist™ 11:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, we should change the table and the map, EuropeanElitist. The map states Royal Assent in Belgium was given on June 19, for the Netherlands we haven't even a category for Royal Assent in the table, neither do we have a presidential assent row for Cyprus. I will try to verify that neither Netherlands nor Cyrpus have formally ratified the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Going through press releases, it is pretty clear to me that Demetris Christofias, president of Cyprus needs to sign the ratification law in Cyprus to complete ratification. I have not found a link that this has been done yet. As to the Netherlands, I have not see a statement that royal assent has been obtained, so I will change the table unless people know that those two assents have already been provided. As to Belgium, we would need a link that says, royal assent is still missing, as there currently is a link provided which states "Sanction et promulgation" has been provided on June 19th. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this "Sanction et promulgation" part is really the Royal Assent in Belgium. I'd expect the law to be signed after all of the parliaments have voted on it. AFP said Albert still had to sign it. I've gone through many of the constitutions of the Member States today, and this is what I found out. This is currently my very own ratification table based on the information I collected. --EuropeanElitist™ 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

Yes, "sanction et promulgation" is the royal assent, but this assent only applies to the federal law approving the Treaty of Lisbon. The decrees approving the Treaty of Lisbon passed by the parliaments of the regions and communities have to be "sanctioned and promulgated" by the governments of the regions and communities, and the Flemish Government wants to wait with the "sanction and promulgation" until a cooperation agreement between the various parliaments in Belgium (regarding their role in the European decision-making process) is signed.--Ganchelkas (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific national issues - Finland/Aland

Right, Solberg, forgive me if its not just you who's doing it but it always seems to be you - why do you always insist on removing these interesting/relevant bits on specific national issues re: national ratification? Ideally, lets say the Treaty eventually is ratified, isn't it better/more useful to have a section informing individuals of any problems/particular issues that came up on the way to ratification? I mean jeez, it'd only be like 6-7 Member States in total?

More specifically, on the Aland islands one. Yes, the guy who put it in originally didnt provide any citations, but the fact is its true, its relevant, and I had heard from EU law staff at my university last year that it could end up being a particularly thorny issue. For you to just disregard it like that and delete it as "Insignificant" and unsourced just again suggests to me further proof of your strange personal dislike for the specific national issues section. Give it a rest already and stop deleting content from that section please!! --Simonski (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

for anybody who's not heard about it by the way, its actually rather old news and I'm surprised its only been put in now. Or maybe it was put in before and somebody deleted it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/03/could_finland_snuff_out_the_li.html

http://jonjono.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/aland-lisbon-another-island-votes/ --Simonski (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A reference was placed in the table but was later deleted. It refers to this website: http://dokument.lagtinget.ax/sok/index.php?iVal=1 which unfortunately is only available in Swedish. Perhaps why it has not appeared on many news sites yet. It does not give a date but it does say this vote will take place in 2008. And yes, i do agree that you should leave these issues as they give more insight into the process of ratification. Also, I read a few news feeds that allured to a legal problem with ratification in the Netherlands. Does anyone know more about this? Besides short references to a 'legal problem/challenge' on websites like the BBC there has been nothing specifying the nature of these problems. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.234.196 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the national issues that could/should be included as they are interesting and add information on the ratification process.

Austria: A petition of 100,000 signatures seeking a referendum.

Czech Republic: The referral to the Constitutional Court. The Presidents negative rhetoric. The majority in upper parliament may vote against the treaty.

Denmark: Originally had plans for a referendum on the Constitution. After pressure from public a Danish panel of legal experts at the justice ministry concludes there is no need for a referendum.

Finland - Aland Islands: Due to vote on the issue. Snus and loss of MEP issues likely to affect voting.

Germany: Legal Challenge. German president will not sign. Same case with Constitution.

Ireland: The vote.

The Netherlands: Originally held a referendum. A lot of pressure to hold a second. The governing parties decided it was not necessary as the treaty was no longer a constitution. 42,000 signatures were presented requesting a referendum.

Poland: Ratification postponed after fears opposition would not support it. The president currently refusing his act of ratification.

Slovakia: Delay due to opposition horse-trading over new media bill.

United Kingdom: The mini-referendum held in East Renfrewshire. The vote in parliament over whether there should be a referendum. The government election promise of a referendum on the Constitution. The legal challenge by Mr Stuart Wheeler. Public opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.241.65 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Belgium II

The picture has to updated, because in Belgium the treaty is not longer pending, but has only to be deposited!Olliyeah (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give a source? —EuropeanElitist™ 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I need one, because according to the steps on your ratification section everything except the deposition has already been done! But I think Belgium, like most of the other countries too, needs the approval of the president/king too, so you should add it to the section!Olliyeah (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood what you said. I thought you had said it was already deposited. Above we discussed the necessary approval by the king already, it's also listed in the table, and I agree now - Belgium is not pending any longer. The graphic is already updated as far as I can see. —EuropeanElitist™ 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain today

Spain's Senate will vote on the Treaty today. Afterwards there'll still be the Royal Assent by king Juan Carlos necessary to finalize the national ratification. Please someone add this information to the table when updating it later. —EuropeanElitist™ 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thx for the advice!Olliyeah (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Asset is also required in Tschechien. Not in the table right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done tooOlliyeah (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

UK has deposited 16. July!!! Please update! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you post a link?!!Olliyeah (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any source to confirm this, and surely it would be reported quite widely. From where did you get the news, Rhh64? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scratch that, it's been officially confirmed now. Wikipedia scoops the world again! Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can check the web page that we already link in footnote n. 16. Here you'll find that the UK indeed deposited yesterday. --Nick84 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic

This article, which was updated on 14th July states that the lower house of the Czech Republic has already approved the treaty! http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/ratifying-treaty-lisbon/article-170245 Could you add it to the Czech Republic Field?!Olliyeah (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by the economist here [31]. --Nick84 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the parliament web site. I used Czech wikipedia in order to understand terms and google translator. I found a document dated 24 june that says that the Foreign Affairs Committee interrupted the analysis of the treaty until the consitutional judgment is given. (If we -me and google- understood everything correctly). I wasn't able however to understand if the document was a just proposal or was approved, however I guess that, if the Committee is still debating this issue, the treaty hasn't been approved yet. Unluckly the Czech wiki doesn't show a table showing the status of ratification. But maybe we can ask them directly using the embassy? --Nick84 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I understood, the lower house has already approved it, it's the senate, which suspended the vote. So I would say we should update the "Ratification statuses at a glance" section!Olliyeah (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So how do you explain that the house (it's the house I doublechecked) committee is still debating the issue? --Nick84 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but where have you read this?! I looked at the sites you posted here and both say that it was already approved in the lower house and afterwards it was sent to the court! I can't see the problem!Olliyeah (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's the second document I've posted: as I explained above it says that the committee interrupted the analysis of the treaty untill the judgment is given. Or at least this is what the tranlated document says. --Nick84 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeesss, it interrupted the analysis in the senate, and not in the lower house! =) I read your article in Czech too and "lower house" has never been mentioned!Olliyeah (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

POSLANECKÁ SNĚMOVNA is the name of the lower house ;) --Nick84 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...probably you're right now- that was the only word the page didn't translate =)!! I give up, but it doesn't make any sense to me though! xD Olliyeah (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the upper house stop the process at the beginning of april. I think that the lower house wasn't binded to do the same but they decided to wait and see. It would have been puzzling that two parliamentary assemblies controlled by the same party had decided to take different procedural steps, wouldn't it? --Nick84 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

naaa..xD once you approve a law, it's approved- finish! I really don't understand what's goin' on! If the senate would have blocked it, everything would make sense to me! Probably it's different in Italy, but it seems just strange! xD Olliyeah (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if the translation is correct I think that we must conclude that the original article is flawed. I did another search in google and here's what I found: [32]. Eubusiness says that the law was approved in first reading. Well here it is the problem: the rules of procedure of the lower house of Czech parliament [33] say that first reading is just a procedural step. If the bill is approved in first reading it's referred to a committee, but we are very far from the final vote. Don't be surprised it's just the same in many other parliaments. In Italy there's no first reading. The bills are atuhomatically referred to a commitee by the president of the house. --Nick84 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ah ok! Now it's clear- sorry, but it needed some time xDOlliyeah (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

no problem ;) --Nick84 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

Concerning the "Royal Assent" being necessary in Sweden, could anybody please confirm this? As far as I know the constitution only says the Prime Minister needs to sign. —EuropeanElitist™ 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite convinced that the king of Sweden does not need to sign the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other type of act. Apparently, this is why the "Government of Sweden" is mentioned instead of "His Majesty the King of Sweden" in the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty. --Glentamara (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratification map revisited

I suggest that we split "Pending" (right now 7 countries) in two sections: in the first the countries that the parliamentary process is finished (Cyprus, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Spain) and in the second the rest (Sweden, Italy, Czech). (I count them as 8 not 7, Why?). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

agree to the splitting! You're right, Poland is wrong on the picture- it's still pendingOlliyeah (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Poland is not wrong on the picture, see Ratification in Poland above. --Nick84 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the map? I am not good in these things. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a fifth colour. Legally speaking parliamentary approval doesn't do anything, if a particular country requires formal approval by the head of state. As to Poland, unfortunately, someone altered the table again, showing that presidential assent is still missing. This is not correct, as the formal approval process in Poland is completed. What is missing is the deposition, which requires another signature by the president. This is not uncommon, there are other countries where the head of state is responsible for submitting the approval documents for deposition in Rome. This is normally just a formal act. It would be interesting if Poland's president is actually acting unconstitutional by withholding his signature for submission of the documents, as this would be his duty as a government official. I am not a Polish lawyer, so I can't answer that point, however that Poland is covered "yellow" in the map is correct. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute- Finlands president hasn't signed the treaty yet, has she?! If yes, when?Olliyeah (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If Finnland is still pending (because presidential asset is missing) then we have got 8 (not 7) countries pending - the map is wrong!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't disagree that "Legally speaking parliamentary approval doesn't do anything" but in all cases but Poland this is the most significant step for the final ratification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this map [34]. In 23 countries the treaty has been approved, in 3 countries ratification is still in progress and 1 country (Ireland) voted against the Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This map in ridiculously inaccurate. Wikipedia's map is more accurate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's from the Lisbon Treaty's official site. I think it weights more than something hand-made on wikipedia.