Talk:Enhanced cooperation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject European Union (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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

de-facto enhanced co-operation[edit]

Prum Convention is such example - it is a co-operation arrangement between a subset of EU members going further into integration than the rest. I think it should be mentioned in this article as closely related. It is dissimilar to an opt-out (see the matrix in the link from the above section). Maybe a more appropriate place for its inclusion would be a "central intra-EU" article (as proposed above to be the Multi-speed Europe) with only a brief note here, but so far we have no dedicated "intra-EU" and "extra-EU" (as proposed above to be the European integration) central integration articles (the both cited here are currently mix of both intra- and extra-EU relations). Alinor (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

EU patent law[edit]

Seems to be enhanced co-operation, too: 11:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparantly, it's almost everyone but Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Czechia. But who knows, maybe they'll do it the regular way... 09:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

New members[edit]

Does new memberstates have to become part of an enhanced co-operation when they join.-- (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, according to article 20.4 TEU. --Glentamara (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Enhanced co-operationEnhanced cooperation –The treaties use the term "enhanced cooperation" without a dash. Shouldn't the article title reflect this? Yair rand (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support The hyphenated form looks antiquated (though not as bad as the umlaut form). --BDD (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Co(-)operate and co(-)ordinate are now preferred without the hyphen by major dictionaries worldwide. Nevertheless, New Hart's Rules (UK) regards the hyphenated forms as equal alternatives, emphasizing that consistency is more important than the choice itself. Of particular importance here, the European Union's style guide endorses the unhyphenated cooperate and coordinate ([1]). SSR (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Articles aren't titled by their WP:OFFICIALNAME, but rather by their WP:COMMONNAME. Thus, what the treaties or the EU style guide says is irrelevant. I'm not sure which of these titles is the commonname, however the evidence presented above doesn't answer this question or justify the move. TDL (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Schengen cooperation is actually an enhanced cooperation[edit]

The current version of this Wikipedia article does not mention the Schengen acquis as the first enhanced cooperation, when it was integrated into the framework of the European Union in 1999.

However, Article 1 and Article 5(1) in Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen Acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union state that the Schengen cooperation is an enhanced cooperation. In Article 1, the English version uses the term "closer cooperation" instead of "enhanced cooperation", but this seems to be a mistranslation. "Closer cooperation" was the name used for "enhanced cooperation" before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Other language versions, like the French, the German, the Swedish, the Danish etc use the corresponding term of "enhanced cooperation" (and not "closer cooperation"). Article 5(1) refers directly to the part of the Treaties where enhanced cooperation is treated. It is very clear that the Schengen acquis constitutes an enhanced cooperation and this should be mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

It is no coincidence that the integration of the Schengen acquis and the establishment of enhanced cooperations took place at the same time, namely when the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force. Is there anyone that opposes the proposal above? --Glentamara (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does mention Schengen as an "inspiration" for enhanced cooperation. The first catch is that from 1999, Schengen was incorporated into EU law as an non-optional part of EU membership for new members. The second is that the prescribed procedure wasn't used although he words "closer cooperation" were. I've no problem with including more information on Schengen in the article but I think describing it as an inspiration for enhanced cooperation is more accurate than describing it as an example of enhanced cooperation simpliciter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! However, I don't fully agree with you. It is, as I said before, very clearly stated in the Protocol that the Schengen acquis legally constitutes an enhanced cooperation. The French version, for instance, uses the term "coopération renforcée" (=enhanced cooperation) in the Protocol. Of all language versions I have checked (French, German, Swedish, Danish etc), the English version is the only one that does not use "enhanced cooperation" (correct term since 2009), but "closer cooperation" (correct term before 2009) in the formulation of Article 1 of the Protocol. It is even clearer from Article 5(1), which directly refers to the part of the Treaties which concerns enhanced cooperations, that the Schengen acquis is nothing else than an enhanced cooperation.
It is true indeed that their is a difference between the Schengen acquis and all other enhanced cooperations. The former one is a non-optional part of EU membership for new member states. However, this is not an argument against the classification of the Schengen acquis as enhanced cooperation. It only explains why Article 7 of the Protocol explicitly states that any new member state has to accept the acquis. So, in this respect, the Schengen acquis is different from all other enhanced cooperations, but it is nonetheless still an enhanced cooperation itself. --Glentamara (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with BHL. I don't think it is clear at all from the treaties that the Schengen Acquis is legally Enhanced Cooperation. Even if the treaties used that term to describe it (and I find it hard to buy the argument that the treaties, which have been reviewed and revised numerous times, contain a translation error), that wouldn't make it Enhanced Cooperation in the legal sense. And Article 5 (1) refers only to "initiatives to build upon the Schengen acquis", not the Schengen acquis itself, so that doesn't say anything about its status.
By definition, the TEU explicitly prohibits Enhanced Cooperation regulations from being a mandatory part of the acquis: "They shall not be regarded as part of the acquis which has to be accepted by candidate States for accession to the Union", hence it doesn't meet the treaty definition of Enhanced Cooperation.
Anyways, all of this parsing of WP:PRIMARY sources is WP:OR. At the end of the day we must follow WP:RS, which don't support the claim: [2]. Do you have any RS which argue that the Schengen Acquis is legally Enhanced Cooperation. TDL (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is no original research. I have plenty of sources that support my position, including these reports and books:
In the first report you can read that the "The Treaty of Amsterdam did not specify the status of measures taken to implement enhanced cooperation, except for the development of the Schengen acquis." You can also read that it was the Treaty of Nice that made enhanced cooperation non-obligatory for new member states. This explains the difference in this respect between the Schengen acquis and other enhanced cooperations. At the time when the Schengen acquis was introduced as an enhanced cooperation, all such cooperations had to be adopted by new member states. When Treaty of Nice changed this provision, while the old provision was kept for the Schengen acquis.
In the second report you can read: A Protocol, based on the new Art 43 on closer cooperation (see above), incorporates within the EU framework the Schengen acquis for Schengen signatories (...). This report confirms once again that the Schengen acquis is an enhanced cooperation. Both books (link 3 and 4) confirm this as well. The last report says that "(...) Schengen Protocol, which is legally construed as a specialized form of enhanced cooperation."
These five sources all support my position. I have also found a document issued by the Intergovernmental Conference that drew up the Treaty of Amsterdam. In the report, enhanced cooperation is mentioned as the solution for how to integrate a cooperation that not all member states want to participate in.
As TDL mentioned, all initiatives to build upon the Schengen acquis are parts of an enhanced cooperation as well (Article 5(1) of the Schengen protocol). This means that very important acts, such as the Schengen Borders Code adopted in 2006 as a regulation (which explicitly states in its preamble that it is an act built upon the Schengen acquis), without any doubt is part of an enhanced cooperation.
Finally, I agree that reliable sources are important. I have therefore now provided three research reports, two books, one report from the intergovernmental conference and the Treaty articles themselves. TDL gave me a press release from the Commission, which I do not find reliable in this context. A press release is addressed to journalists and it may contain formulations like "A first in EU history" to make the press release more interesting for them. Another possibility is that the Commission means that it was the first time an enhanced cooperation was initiated according to the ordinary provisions and not according to the simplified provisions in the Schengen protocol. Regardless, I do not consider this source as reliable, and especially not since its content is contradicting the authoritative sources I have provided. I really appeal to you to rethink your positions so that we can make this Wikipedia article more correct. I apologize for this quite lengthy post. Best regards, --Glentamara (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
These sources are still not very convincing. "Based on" does not mean "is". A "specialized form of enhanced cooperation" means that it isn't enhanced cooperation in the sense of Article 20 TEU, but rather a similar approach designed specifically for the Schengen acquis. Many sources suggest that it isn't formally enhanced cooperation: "There has not yet been a single instance of an application of the regime for enhanced cooperation" and "... enhanced cooperation, which formally does not apply to the Schengen regime ...", "This instrument, never applied so far...", etc.
Unity and Flexibility in the Future of the European Union suggests that it was a distinct "enhanced cooperation" mechanism, which they refer to as the "Schengen meechanism of enhanced cooperation", that was used. All of this might be worth mentioning, but I don't think it is correct to say it is Enhanced Cooperation in the sense of Article 20 TEU (which is what the article is primarily about). TDL (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is even clearer in the original Schengen protocol that was attached to the Treaties through the Treaty of Amsterdam. Some citations:
"RECOGNISING that, as a consequence, it is necessary to make use of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning closer cooperation between some Member States and that those provisions should only be used as a last resort,"
"(...), signatories to the Schengen agreements, are authorised to establish closer cooperation among themselves (...)"
"In this context, where either Ireland or the United Kingdom or both have not notified the President of the Council in writing within a reasonable period that they wish to take part, the authorisation referred to in Article 5a of the Treaty establishing the European Community or Article K.12 of the Treaty on European Union shall be deemed to have been granted to the Members States referred to in Article 1 and to Ireland or the United Kingdom where either of them wishes to take part in the areas of cooperation in question."
Note: "Closer cooperation" was the term for "enhanced cooperation" before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force.
For me, this protocol, as all other sources I have provided, makes it clear that the integration of the Schengen acquis into the framework of the Union law uses the enhanced cooperation mechanism, but with a simplified procedure in order to provide a smoothly functioning Schengen cooperation even after this integration has taken place. The Schengen acquis is not only "based" or inspired of enhanced cooperations, but is legally an enhanced cooperation itself (e.g. see the formulation "to make use of the provisions" on enhanced cooperation in the protocol). --Glentamara (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is all WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources. If you can show me a WP:SECONDARY source which makes this argument, then it would have some merit. Otherwise, it's all just speculation. TDL (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So the only argument against my position now is that my source is a primary source. I have already provided secondary sources as well, but you don't seem to take them seriously. The primary source is very clear; it is not like I am interpreting it in anyway more than reading it literally. This is my last post, because I don't think we will come any further in this discussion. I still think it is pity that this article remains inaccurate w.r.t. the Schengen acquis. It impairs the quality of the article. It is bytheway also interesting to note that at least 50 % of this article is about things that have nothing to do with enhanced cooperations. Sometimes the authors of this article seem to be extremely strict (which I basically think is good as long as it does not go to extremes) and sometimes they seem to include whatever they like to. Sincerely --Glentamara (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not at all. I've raised plenty of other arguments above, which you've chosen to dismiss. Just because you disagree with my concerns, and I haven't repeated them every single post, doesn't mean I haven't made them. You can scroll up to re-read them if you'd like.
I take your secondary sources very seriously, but as explained above, they don't say what you seem to think they do and don't actually support your argument. The primary source is not clear at all, which is precisely why you've had to post kb after kb of interpretation of it on this talk page. Also, you are citing the preamble of the Protocol, but "Under general rules of treaty interpretation the preamble is not considered to be part of the legally binding or “operative” text of the agreement."
Like you, I don't want to see the quality of the article impaired, which I belive your attempt to introduce factual errors into the article would do.
As both BHL and I have said above, there are no objections to including more details on Schengen in this article. But whatever is written needs to reflect what actually sources say, not what you'd like the sources to say.
And for the record, I don't recall a single past incident on this article of "authors" being "extremely strict". Rather than veiled accusations, perhaps you could post some diffs to support this? TDL (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)