Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to remove Gibralter, Aland and the European Parliament from the table

The European Parliament vote is purely consultative. The votes in Aland and in Gibraltar only affect them. Even if all three rejected the treaty it could still come into force. Putting them in the table about ratification statuses is confusing, even more so when neither Aland nor Gibraltar have even voted but both the UK and Finland have deposited their ratification instruments. I know the footnotes point all this out, but it should be more up front. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

thats nonsense.Max Mux (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you elucidate, please?--Boson (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the consultative voting. It's not a part of the process but it's indicative of the instruments that were involved in the ratification. I think they have to stay. It's been an interesting discussion in the news about Aland, so if the administration of the island has ratified or not, it's interesting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's either part of the process of not. When it's not part of the process whatever instruments are used is irrelevant. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They should stay or the same argument could be made for the retention of royal and presidential assents in some countries. For example in GB Royal assent is guarenteed to be granted, so is merley a formallity and the reason for keeping in the table is for completeness. These votes may have no wide ranging implication, but provide a completeness.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The same is true in Ireland, the yout Queen's and our President's signatures are at least legally required. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So you propose to remove them and then do so regardless of the fact that your proposal has been shot down by every following post? They do provide completeness and make the article more interesting.

Please undo your changing. Gibraltar and Aland should be in the article.84.134.110.75 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If them, why not non-member states like Norway or Switzerland. They will presumably have to pass legislation when/if Lisbon comes into force. The same goes for the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Including Gibraltar and Aland makes no sense. We'd might as well include Dublin City Council!! Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I readded Gilbratar, Aland and European Parliament. If there are any suggestions for new additions to the table I'll be glad to see them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a section called "Finland -Aland islands", the table gives a summary "at a glance". Why Gibraltar has to ratify the Lisbon Treaty its written as a footnote. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I've removed them again. They play no role in the ratification process. The treaty can come into force without them. Please give at least one rational explanation why they should be included before reverting me. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't disagree if they play a role or not. We disagree if they should be in a table or not. You keep reverting against consensus. Please reconsider. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus shouldn't just be "We want to keep it because we like it." Couldn't we at least put them in a separate table? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's of readers' interest to have in the table these 3 interesting cases. The case of the Aland islands was discussed in the media and the result in the European parliament gives an idea of the ratio between the political powers who agree and disagree with the Treaty. That these results don't affect the ratification is stated in the table as well. Please reconsider and don't make changes without consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I think most of you are missing the original point. Aland and Gibraltar do not need to ratify the treaty for it to come into effect. Therefore, they do not belong in the ratification table. A separate section/table pertaining just to those dependencies that can choose not to ratify the treaty even though their overall country has is needed. No one is suggesting that this information be removed from the article completely, only relocated to a more logical section.Khajidha (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And if I had looked at the page first, then I would have seen that such a table has been added. Hopefully it will stay.Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just added this, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it. (Sorry about the dates. I don't know how they got there.) The whole point in having a separate table is so readers will know, as a glance, they these votes don't form part of the official ratification process. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The three should remain in the table as two are integral parts of the EU and have a limitied level of autonomy from the state they belong too. For complete ratification of the treaty in all of the EU legislation must be passed in the two autonomous regions, by the two autonomous regions. That is why they should stay. Also if the EU parliament voted against the treaty the traty would not be able to continue as it would be virtually impossible politically. So for overall completness and to prevent mini-table being created leave the table as is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If Gibraltar and Aland both voted against the treaty, would that prevent it from going into effect? No. Therefore they are NOT an integral part of the ratification process and should not be in the main table.Khajidha (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer and Khajidha. The two regions as well as EP are not part of the formal ratification process, therefore it is confusing to have them in the main table. The separate table is a good solution as it prevents the problem while retaining all the info. — Emil J. 10:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with having these three consultative votes is that the table could show that Aland rejected the treaty but that Finland ratified the treaty anyway. Neither Aland nor Gibraltar play roles similar to the Belgian regions which actually have to approve the treaty before it can be ratified. You may well be right that treaty ratification would be difficult if the European Parliament rejected a treaty, but this is a political not a legal reality. Please put this kind of thing under the consultation sub-heading, rather than confusing readers. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time you change something and you write "please use talk page before reverting". Why are you not doing the same until we reach a consensus? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

->I added the mini-table as an attempt to compromise. What's wrong with pointing out what procedures are legally binding and which aren't? Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden deposited the ratified document

At the cabinet meeting on November 27, it was decided that the law will enter into force a later date (depending on the ratification process in other EU member states), and that the ratified document would immediately be deposited at the Italian government.[1] The document was sent from Stockholm on December 2, and expected to be formally deposited the following day (December 3). --Hapsala (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They haven't appeared here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is usually updates some days later. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated (12/10)[2]. --Hapsala (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

UK Royal Assent

The UK does not have a unique constitutional position as regards its head of state. Royal Assent is actually "Granted" and not "Signified" (meaningless anyway as is form of the verb to signify - it should be sign). The presidents of Ireland and Germany, along with the monarchs of Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, and possibly others as well. Assent for all of these is a given, but is nonetheless legally required. "Granted" is the language foe royal assent and is used in the Royal Assent article in both the lead and the United Kingdom section. It is in any case possible that the English Queen could withhold royal assent if the Prime Minister advised her to do so, an improbable situation I know. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hansard record linked to from the article includes the quote "My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent ..." And no, "signify" (which means "make known") is not the same verb as "sign" (which means "write one's name on something to authorize it"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.82.28 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(I thought I'd already responded to this.) My mistake. Signified just sounded rather strange to me. I previously thought they always had to go through with the La Reyne le veult business. However the not all acts or signified so it would appear to me that the fact of Royal assent being granted is signified to parliament but that these isn't one in the same thing. "Signified" relates to the message no the content, if you get me. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to # 5.7 Parliament?

Last summer I made a list of new areas and broadened areas within the co-decision procedure which shows how much more power the Parliament would be gaining if Lisbon was ratified. You can check out the list here. It's in German, but maybe it's useful anyway. Anybody in agreement that this list could be added to "5.7 Parliament" to specify the amendments in Lisbon? —EuropeanElitist™ 11:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

A similar list was included in the European Parliament's report on the treaty. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Czechia/ Czech Republic is to ratify the treaty

BBC NEWS "A top Czech court has said the EU's Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the nation's constitution. The parliament's ratification of the key reform treaty was halted earlier this year pending the ruling by the Constitutional Court. The treaty, signed in 2007, is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the 27-nation EU. All 27 member states have to ratify it for it to take effect. The treaty was dealt a heavy blow in June, when Irish voters rejected it." We should update accordingly. Ijanderson (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, there's nothing to update here. The Constitutional Court had the ability to declare the treaty unconstitutional, which it did not even though IMHO it should have, but the court is not one of the parties that officially decide about the ratification. It is the two chambers of the Parliament and the president, as the article correctly states. The president won't ratify the treaty unless or until completely everyone else (relevant people) in Europe say Yes. And the Parliament's opinion is very questionable. The prime minister (unenthusiastically) wants the treaty to be ratified, and because there are indications that it would simply not earn enough votes in the Parliament at this moment, he decided to postpone it for more than a month and try to evangelize some new people during that time. We will see whether this will work for him.

• At any rate, the title of this section is misleading. The Czech Republic is not to ratify the treaty any time soon and it is very questionable whether it ever will. --Lumidek (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Commission

Given the decision of the European Council to revert to one Commissioner per member state, bits of this article needs rewriting; I'll make a start! AndrewRT(Talk) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

UK House of Lords

Currently the table links to a discussion of procedures in the House of Lords instead of the vote count. Does anyone have the vote count handy? Khajidha (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you actually followed the explanatory link, you'd realize the reason it's there instead of a vote count is that there is no vote count. — Emil J. 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that now, but I still don't think that it is especially clear. Maybe it's just that this is so different from the American procedure, or maybe it's just because I saw "content" and thought of "what is contained" instead of "feeling at ease". Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We could put "Approved" in the table along with a footnote which explains no vote count is taken and a link to the procedure article. This would be more self-explanatory and a little less cryptic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Lords, being as they are, don't say "Aye" or "Nay" as the Commons do, they say "Content" or "Not Content" - hence the use of language! No final vote was taken as the support was so overwhelming. The key vote was on an amendment, and once that failed there was no need to vote on the bill as a whole. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but for those unfamiliar with the procedural rules in the House of Lords, "Approved" is much more immediate and clear. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But what harm does putting the correct term and allowing people to learn what it means via the wikilink do? David (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should stay as it is now with content. However i would like to see a second source added or an explanation note. The reference currently linked to the commons website is very detailed and complex for those who are trying to get the basic idea of what actually happened. The box is in green rather than red so people know it passed anyway.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Manual of Style is against such "click and see" links. I'll see if I can find a better link. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Poland

Please do not enter information to the article that Polish President ratified the treaty, because he did not do that. The president signed a law authorizing the ratification of him, but not ratified the treaty! MarcinS (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is rather disturbing... We've already discussed the issue. Please see Talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon/Archive_2#Poland_II. --Nick84 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Same with Germany. If you actually read the source article ([3]) it says "However, he had not formally signed off on it, Kothe said of the act that would finalize German ratification.". That is the reason why Poland and Germany have not deposited it yet: presidents haven't given official signature. --Pudeo⺮ 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You are referring to the "deposition" part. The internal process is over for both countries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

What about Sweden?Max Mux (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistent with their plan, they took up debate this morning. Apparently they have the votes to pass it so its only a matter of time. Also, Irish are protesting at the Swedish embassy in Dublin.--Patrick «» 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Riksdag now ratified the Treaty of Lisbon. I updated the table only seconds after the vote, but the map still needs to be updated.--Hapsala (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already updated the map. --Glentamara (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that the King of Sweden has to take no action? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the king has no power in Sweden, but the government will do the formal ratification of the Treaty.--Glentamara (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the Government submitted a bill asking the Parliament to do the ratification. The ratification happened when the Speaker of the Riksdag - right after the vote - concluded that there was sufficient support for the ratification bill to be made law.[4] It's not going to be more "formal" than that. --Hapsala (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The bill says that the government will implement/ratify the law ("Lagändringen föreslås träda i kraft den dag regeringen bestämmer"). The same procedure has been used earlier, regarding the Treaty of Nice and all other EU treaties. For example, the link says that "Den 13 december 2001 beslutade regeringen att ratificera fördraget (...)" (In english: "The 13th of December the government decided to ratify [The Treaty of Nice] (...)"). So the goverment will actually do the formal ratification of the Treaty. --Glentamara (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, practial implementation and governmental assent are not the same, though. --Hapsala (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In Sweden the Prime Minister has to sign the law that implements the Treaty to finalize the national step (chapter 7 § 7 of the Constitution of Sweden). The King has no power though. —EuropeanElitist™ 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Indeed, but unlike a governmental assent, that's still not part of the formal ratification. --Hapsala (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is. There is no treaty without the signature of the Prime Minister under the law. —EuropeanElitist™ 18:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The signature is only required on the bill, not for the parliament's decision to become law. In this case, the parliament delegates to the government the right to decide when the law enters into force, a practical measure as the Treaty has not yet been reatified by all EU member states. --Hapsala (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Art. 48 (3) TEU and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the signature on the bill is a requirement for the international ratification process. It's not just a formality. —EuropeanElitist™ 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First referendum

I think the first referendum shouldn't be on the table. It is not part of the official ratification now. We should refer it, but not in that table.85.66.224.202 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the date of the next referendum is finalized (I don't think it has been), the information on the last referendum is important.Khajidha (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

criticism missing!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.89.224 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why we should delete the information on the first referendum. It is part of the process, even though it failed to add anything substantial to the ratification of the treaty. So far it looks like the second referendum will take place in October or November 2009. I assume it'll be in October because of the new Commission seating. —EuropeanElitist™ 14:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Common Foreign and Security Policy

in "Defined policy areas", CFSP, isn't a shared competence?--217.112.177.141 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Czech Senate

Czech ratification date slips yet again, as the Senate postpones the debate on the Lisbon treaty to February.[5] The article should be updated once it is unprotected. — Emil J. 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To be exact: mid-February. Just wanted to update, but I guess I've missed another fight which is why this article is protected. Pretty. —EuropeanElitist™ 13:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chamber of Deputies will also be delayed: [6]. — Emil J. 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Poland III

Please give me the link to the article that says that ToL was signed by a Polish president. 83.31.114.136 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the archives, we have discussed this 100 times already. Kaczynski has signed the law which implements the Lisbon Treaty in Poland and finalizes the national stage. What's next is the step called "deposition" of the Treaty which still requires his signature below the ratification instruments. We are speaking of two different signatures of which both are equally important to the ratification process. When we spoke of "royal assents" we also always spoke of the national laws that were signed on a national level - those assents never had anything to do with the instruments of ratification. If you seriously think that presidential assents to laws need to be removed just because you think they have no meaning, then additionally remove each and every royal assent, because they have the exact same meaning that presidential assents have on a national level. They are just different people signing the law - one is a president, another one belongs to a royal family. But read the archives, and maybe you will understand the process finally. —EuropeanElitist™ 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a source? 83.31.114.136 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall I read the archives to you or will you read them by yourself? There are sources. Very reliable sources are the Constitutions of the member states; they are linked to the archives already and you can find them on the Internet. Google will do half the job for you to find them. —EuropeanElitist™ 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A Polish parliament source is given in the table in the article. Here it is again: [7]. — Emil J. 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about Polish parliament, you hecking Euro-lovers. 83.31.114.136 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tha parliament is responsible for publishing approved bills, I can't help it, you hecking Euro-hater. The document clearly says "Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej: L. Kaczyński", indicating the bill has been signed by the president. — Emil J. 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn to read, dude! —EuropeanElitist™ 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to hell. 83.31.114.136 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sources finally? Can this article be unlocked again or is your lack of information still a threat to its content? —EuropeanElitist™ 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not an administrator and you can't decide on whetere article's locked or not. 83.31.102.169 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on this persist back-and-forth ad hominem attacks, I will decline to unprotect this page at this time. Useight (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And? I don't care about it, and I'm not even asking for that. LOL. 83.31.102.169 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Selection of Commissioners

One further change which I hadn't previously appreciated: at the moment, commissioners are appointed by member states; unless they are rejected by the Parliament, that appointment stands. Under Lisbon, member states only "suggest" members, and the Council votes on a majority basis for a list of Commissioners which may include the suggested members, or may not:

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States...

— Article 17.5

(a) Am I right in my supposition that if, say, Mirek Topolanek suggests Vaclav Klaus as European Commissioner, the European Council could simply decide to adopt someone else (say, the current Commissioner, Vladimír Špidla) - rather as Tony Blair ignored the conservative party's "suggestion" when he appointed Chris Patten as Commissioner?

(b) If so, presumably this change is a significant shift in power from the individual member state to the European Council and should be mentioned in the article? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Lisbon doesn't propose any changes to the way Commissioners are appointed. They have always been appointed on the basis of common accord between Member States in the Council. In theory member states could object to another member state's suggestions, but in practice they don't. At least not in public anyway. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh - interesting. Declan Ganley seems to think it's a change - see here. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've gone away and read the Treaties, complex as they are. (18) from the Treaty states: "An Article 9 D shall be inserted:...(with the text I quoted above)" (Article 9D is later renumbered Article 17 in the consolidated text here. The Tables of Equivalence annexed to the Treaty show that 9D replaces Article 9, which is repealed. However, Article 9 just amends the ECSC Treaty which is now redundant. The footnote to the Tables of Equivalence states:

• Paragraph 1 replaces, in substance, Article 211 TEC
• paragraphs 3 and 7 replace, in substance, Article 214 TEC
• paragraph 6 replaces, in substance, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Article 217 TEC

The relevant paragraph here is paragraph 7. The original Article 214 TEC states: (from here)

2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by

a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the

Council, acting by a qualified majority.

How sneaky! Clearly the wording has been softened. "in accordance with a proposal" has become "on the basis of a suggestion". Notwithstanding the annex's (legally meaningless) assertion that the substance is unchanged, I'm sure the ECJ would find it easier to back the Council's right to substitute a commissioner from the member state's choice under the new wording than under the old wording, even if that wasn't entirely clear.

As an aside, it looks like QMV has become a majority decision - is that right? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'm afraid I have to come back again. This article here is quite clear about the current (i.e. pre-Lisbon) situation (albeit written by a journalist not a constitutional lawyer): "The prime minister of a country can nominate more or less who he wants to... the nominations have to get the approval of the commission president, although in recent years there has not been a case of a commission president vetoing a candidate... they have to undergo a hearing in the European Parliament. Although the MEPs do not have the power to reject a specific commissioner, they can make life extremely awkward...so basically the choice is up to the prime ministers"

By contrast, how long do you think it will take until the Council rejects a "suggested" candidate under Lisbon? A couple of terms? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Council is very much entitled to substitute a candidate for commissioner if they want to. Even today. The change from "proposal" to "suggestion" is much like the annex says, a small textual change. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that supports your interpretation? At the moment all we have is the original text plus the interpretation from Ganley that this is a change. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the criticism?

Where is the criticism of this incredible document? This article is being moderated by EU institutions, therefore common sense indicates, it simply can not be objective. The unpleasant truth is that this document has been renamed a "treaty" instead of "constitution" to avoid national referendums in membership countries. People of Europe are very dissatisfied with the process. What Europe needs is not centralisation but decentralisation. Centralisation only leads to totality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.37.163 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a comparison between the EU-Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon. What you are voicing is one side of your opinion. Wikipedia should be objective in its content. The article talks about what the Treaty will change. If there is something specifically that you think is portrait in a wrong POV way, please say so. That you favor decentralisation instead of centralisation is an opinion and can't go in the article. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New Irish poll

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/most_irish_now_favour_lisbon_treaty/

Is this a good source? Can we add this to the article? Khajidha (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. It will probably come out once the referendum is held - too much detail for this article. It's also in Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009 AndrewRT(Talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this poll. The sample is quite small and we had similar polls showing majority support for the treaty before the last referendum. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland - procedure

Just before we start messing around with the table I'd like to point out - fyi - that in Ireland we actually need to pass two bills, so even after the president signs a constitutional amendment bill, parliament still need to pass a regular bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 (Ireland) to incorporate the new treaty into Irish law.

As it stands since last year's referendum was rejected, the votes of the Dáil and Seanad as displayed on the article are a nullity and the whole process must begin from the top. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there a second vote in the Dáil and Seanad after the first attempt to ratify the Treaty of Nice? If not, why would there be one now?Khajidha (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did. There was two separate referendums so there were two separate referendum bills. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, just curious. Khajidha (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

German Supreme Court decison on Treaty of Lisbon

Hello,

Germany's Supreme Court will not decide on Treaty of Lisbon, 10/11 February 2009. It's just a hearing, the final decision will probably take place three month later (may 2009).

To confirm this peace of information : see

http://www.focus.de/politik/weitere-meldungen/eu-bundesverfassungsgericht-verhandelt-ueber-reformvertrag_aid_369640.html

[...]Das Urteil wird erfahrungsgemäß frühestens drei Monate später, also im Mai oder Juni, verkündet.[...]

Thanks for taking into account in the main article on "specific national issus" --> "Germany"

Felix

09 Febuary 2009, 20:53 GMT+1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Sulla (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Centralisation

"Opponents, such Open Europe and Jens-Peter Bonde, argue that it will greatly centralise the EU by giving the EU powers once reserved for member states"

I don't understand why this sentence is stated as an opinion. It's black and white in the Treaty that more issues are decided under QMV rather than unanimously for Lisbon compared to Nice. Does anyone argue otherwise? Clearly some argue this is a bad thing and some argue it's a good thing, but the facts are surely uncontested? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is not centralisation: the decisions are taken by the same organs, simply the way they are taken is modified. Centralisation would be areas where the union gains a competence it did not have.CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In effect - and I think this was the intention of the authors - QMV leads to centralisation. When unanimity is required, there are issues on which no decision can be made by the Council of Ministers because one or other country votes against each of the possible outcomes. Those issues are therefore delegated in practice (though perhaps not in theory) to the member states. QMV thus leads to more centralisation in practice even though the range of issues over which the EU nominally has control may not have changed.

In any case, it is a fact that well-informed opponents of the Treaty make a cogent argument that the effect of the Treaty is to centralise the EU. That fact should remain in the article. OldSpot61 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what is the domain of the Union is the domain of the Union. What is the exclusive domain of the Union is the exclusive domain of the Union. And that is that. Any argument claiming that though the organ responsible for taking the decisions does not change, the decisions are taken more centrally, because there is less delay in taking the decision is... Well... Not cogent.

An re-equilibration of devolution is another matter.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems with this argument. One is, as I said, that the area of responsibility of the EU in practice has been smaller than its area of responsibility in theory, so extending QMV will extend its area of responsibility in practice, by making it harder for member states to block legislation which is against their national interest. The other is that there's very much less democratic control of EU decision making than there is at the national level. The net effect in practice of increasing QMV is to take away control from ordinary people, expressed through national parliaments, and give it to the Euro-elite in a centralised form. OldSpot61 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind established editors, but this is a talk page for discussing the "Treaty of Lisbon" article, not a forum for discussing the topic in question. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood BHL - but I want to establish whether facts reporting well-informed opinions about the practical effect of the Treaty (i.e. not just the intended effect) should be included. I think they should. OldSpot61 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And I think not, because that opens the door to all sorts of speculation and trolls. Opinions on the effects of the treaty (as opposed to the facts: new mechanisms and such), especially those used one way or the other to advance an agenda (whichever agenda) should be quarantined in a separate section, if mentioned at all. Notable, sourced, relevant opinions on the goals of the treaty should go in.CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But what I (and many others) believe is important is what happens in practice, not what is intended in principle. Perhaps that's an example of British empiricism, but I don't apologise for it! OldSpot61 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What happens in practice is in the future in this case -- if it happens at all. It is speculation, not empiricism. And I don't think speculation is encouraged in WP articles.CyrilleDunant (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But there should be a place for well-informed predictions. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By definition, predictions fall outside the scope of an encyclopedia.CyrilleDunant (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Prediction isn't quite the right word. The point is, as others have said here, that the effect of the Treaty is very likely to be different from what its authors claim. Just putting down the author's version of the position isn't enough - that would be biased. OldSpot61 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

May i remind you, that the rational for unanimity-->QMV is because of the enlargement of 12 additional members. Unanimity among 15 is not the same thing as among 27.--217.112.186.191 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

propose rename to "Lisbon Treaty"

I realise that "the Treaty of Lisbon" is used by the European Commission, but "Lisbon Treaty" enjoys considerably more usage in English. It's used by the BBC and gets more that three times the number of hits in Google "Treaty of Lisbon" v. "Lisbon Treaty". The Google news results are even more stark where it's currently 41 for "Treaty of Lisbon" (and at that they are newspapers from outside the anglosphere) against 509 results for "Lisbon Treaty", more than 12 to 1. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, let's keep the official name. - SSJ ☎ 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the official name is the "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community" any takers? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Europa calls it Treaty of Lisbon. - SSJ ☎ 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lisbon Treaty on the basis that article names should reflect how they are usually used, not how they are technically correct. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is what redirects are for. The article name should be the technically correct name.CyrilleDunant (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

'Lisbon Treaty' sounds a bit Mickey Mouse to me, so I'd prefer to keep the official name. 85.158.43.194 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual official name. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Use English come down on the side of "Lisbon Treaty". No offence lads but to the native ear "Treaty of Lisbon" sounds awkward, and the Google hits reflect that. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon sounds fine to this native speaker. And it is in a grand tradition of uses of that formulation: Utrecht, Hanover, Vienna, Paris, Ghent, London, Washington, Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, Brest-Litovsk, Saint-Germain, Versailles, Moscow, Rome.... The number of uses of "Treaty of..." is quite high, it's really only in the last 50 years or so that the formulation "... Treaty" has seen much use. Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Such as the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Both are found in the set of articles on the treaties of the EU, and both names are attested. Thus, per the naming policy you cited above, we should keep the name as is.CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentences should not start with a numeral.

As this article is locked could someone please rephrase the following:

23 of the total 27 member states have ratified the Treaty.

Sentences should not start with a numeral. Also, the sentence seems rather fragmentary with it's lack of dating and the omission of any identification of what organization these member states compose. It reads more conversational/colloquial than encyclopedic/formal.Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any better now? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "omission of any identification of what organization these member states compose"? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is not locked, it is only semiprotected from editing by anonymous IPs. — Emil J. 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon would declare the euro to be the official currency of the Union??

"The Treaty of Lisbon would declare the euro to be the official currency of the Union, although in practice not affecting the current Eurozone enlargement process or national opt-outs of the monetary union."

-Does it actually explicitly state in the Treaty that the Euro will be the official currency? I can't find this anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.daly2 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You're quite it doesn't. The euro's status stays broadly the same. Monetary Union remains a core aim of the EU, but some member states retain opt-outs. The Treaty like the Constitution before it use the refrain: "Member States whose currency is the euro" to describe the eurozone and the special provisions relating to it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What BHL says is correct. However, there is more. The European Constitution stated "The currency of the Union shall be the euro." (Art I-8 [8]) This was one of the bits that was dropped from the Lisbon Treaty which only says:

Article 3: "4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro." [9]

This replaces Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty which stated:

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States

Interestingly, if you look into the declaratory texts at the bottom of [10] rather bizarrely 16 EU countries have stated that they consider the euro to be "the currency of the European Union" - the bit of the constitution that was dropped.

In conclusion I would agree this statement is incorrect although if Lisbon is ratified it would be the first time that the word "euro" is mentioned in the official treaties. I would suggest either removing it or replace with:

"Unlike the European Constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon does not declare the euro to be the official currency of the Union; however, it does recognise the euro for the first time as being the currency of the EU's Economic and Monetary Union."

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular definations

As while back I was trying to resolve a dispute at the Constitution of Ireland article and I had changed the lead to read: "The Constitution of Ireland is the basic law of the Irish state...". A short while later I noticed our article on the German Basic law read: "The Basic Law ... is the constitution of Germany." In short defining a treaty as an international agreement makes as much sense as defining an international agreement as a treaty. The word "treaty" is the commonest English term for what the Lisbon Treaty is, and as such its self defining. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed-Please do not remove tag

This article appears to be being censored by pro-European-leadership sources. I have attempted to add mention of the widespread criticism of this treaty to the introduction. It is extremely relevant and should be mentioned in the introduction. I added this paragraph, which has been removed twice.

• "Opinion polls show widespread opposition among EU citizens to the Treaty. As a result, most countries have decided not to hold referendums, in which the Treaty would almost certainly be rejected. Ireland is the only country to have held a referendum, and rejected the Treaty. Despite this, the Irish government has announced that the electorate will be asked to vote on the issue again until they accept it."
  

One person said references were needed. That is true but in this case, the paragraph should not be removed, but (citation needed) tags should be placed where appropriate. Every word in that paragraph is true, so there is no reason to remove it. It is just a series of facts.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Opinion polls" have shown both. notably, latest opinion polls in Ireland show support. There goes fact one. This is, by the way, the only part of your contribution which could be saved, with references. "The treaty would almost certainely be rejected" is opinion, not fact. "Ireland is the only country which held a referendum" is a fact, but is already mentioned -- quite extensively. "Despite this" is POV, and "again until they accept it" is counterfactual. From all this, I will remove the banner: this is clearly an abuse of it.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we have references that referanda in different countries will result in rejection, I would like to see them. Then we can add this information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you can prove that other countries avoided having referenda for fear of rejection. In some (many? most?) EU countries, such referenda on treaties such as this are rare whatever the public's feeling about the treaty in question. Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or even, as is the case for Germany, forbidden by the constitution.CyrilleDunant (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs."

I agree that the article is biased but we need to go down the road of "Proponents of the treaty, such as ..., say this..., while opponents of the treaty, such as ..., say this". That referendums [sic] might be rejected is an opinion of the "no" side. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we should not go down this road. This article should present fact objectively and should not mention opinions unless facts are in dispute. Noone can say how reality will pan out once the treaty is in force. So the only thing we can say is what the changes are to the current situation, but any opinion on what will result from these changes should not be included in the article as this would be POV. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Much of what the article states is opinion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I, personally, prefer just the facts in this case, I see nothing wrong with reporting points of view, provided that they are not presented as fact, are given appropriate weight, and are well-sourced, with no original research and no gazing into crystal balls.--Boson (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The catch here is that we already present a point of view. By citing the preamble in the lead we present the point of view, that of the writers of the treaty. I think we should also present point of view of people who oppose the treaty. Who aren't all just crackpots. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the lead section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, I 'm not sure that the lead section is the best place for the direct quote on the stated aims of the treaty, which could be seen as introducing an (unintentional) bias. I think we need to say what the stated aims are, and a direct quote solves some POV problem. Perhaps we could move the direct quote to the history section, perhaps a sub-section on the aims of the treaty, which could also briefly mention other points of view. I see two problems, though: such a section might be a troll magnet, and the lead section still needs to summarize (in half a sentence) what the treaty was for, which might be difficult wihout introducing more POV problems. --Boson (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think (hope) that we should be ok once everything is clearly sourced. The main difficulty will be finding some anti-Lisbon arguments where the writer doesn't just make up stuff. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is that the Treaty is a disgraceful con-trick perpetrated by the Euro-elite at the expense of ordinary European people. However, I don't see that this article is biased. Most of it is factual and people who don't support the Euro-elitist viewpoint have done a good job of deleting biased language inserted by those who do.

Perhaps what the article needs is another section summarising the opinions of supporters and opponents of the treaty in a balanced and factual manner. (I'm not the right person to do this. I just hear the elitists on the TV and radio and give up in despair, wondering why people who say they support democracy and freedom, such as the UK's Liberal Democratic Party, whom I'd normally support, are so enthusiastic about imposing this undemocratic farce on unwilling voters.) OldSpot61 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ONe more idiotic nonsense and I delete this whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To set the problem in its real basis, I replace the POV tag with the unbalanced one. Whatever is written is accurate. As far as I understand the problem is some opinions are not covered ebough in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think subjective opinions should be in the introduction. Claims by the eurosceptic lobby group called "Open Europe" about the treaty being "greatly centralising" is not very encyclopedic. One could also argue that Lisbon is decentralising, because it gives national parliaments new tools. It just creates a slippery slope to trolling, annoyance, POV and edit wars. And to say "Advocates of the Treaty, such as the European Commission, argue(...)" is totally unnecessary when we before directly quoted the stated aims in the Treaty Preamble! The new introduction is crap, POVs shouldn't be in the introduction. - SSJ ☎ 13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means giving both sides of the debate. This is what the new lead does. The old lead only gave the opinion of the treaty writers on what the treaty was doing, without admitting that there was an alternative point of view. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, what the treaty says is fact, what people think it says is opinion. Presumably, if the writers say it means such and such thing, this is also a fact, to the extent that they are not lying. which is opinion.

NPOV is not about stating all opinions, NPOV is about giving facts, and representing opinions fairly, where fair means "in proportion to their relevance". You don't see much about flat-Earth theory in the Earth article. So the opinion of the writers and experts in European law is very relevant, that of politicians and activists much less so.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Making a factual statement about opinions is OK, in my view. Such statements are made in several places in the rest of the article (and indeed in other articles about politics, economics, etc). E.g. in the sub-section on ratification in Poland, there's the sentence, "The president, Lech Kaczyński, has yet to give his final signature and has cited that it would be pointless to do so before a solution to the Irish no vote is found.". That's reporting Pres. Kaczynski's opinion in a factual manner. The 3rd para of the Intro section is OK and should be left as it is because it states contrasting opinions in a factual and balanced manner. What would be unacceptable would be (as a previous version of this article did) to state only the intention of the authors of the Treaty; many well-informed commentators (including experts in European law, may I say) believe the practical effect of the Treaty will be contrary to the benign intentions of the authors. OldSpot61 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is of course notable. However, opinions are just that, opinions. They should come second to the factual description of the treaty. That there is a political controversy is notable, and that it takes its source in differing opinions of the treaty is again notable. But it is important to distinguish: the (expert) opinions on the consequences of the implementation of the treaty, the (expert) opinions on the meaning of the treaty, the actual text of the treaty, and the political pandering. They may all be significant and notable, but must be put into context. And this is completely independent from what the actual opinions are.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But the arguments against the Treaty aren't "flat-earth theory", i.e. a flight of fantasy by people who are in denial of the plain facts. Open Europe has investigated the text of the Treaty very thoroughly and has shown that it essentially reconstructs the failed Constitution (a view which the German chancellor, the Spanish PM and other notable people agree with). Their point of view, that the Treaty will not do what its authors claim it will do, is based on the actual words in the document and is thus highly relevant (Cyrille's criterion) to both the text and (if implemented) the operation of the Treaty. The factual description of the differing opinions about the Treaty should therefore stay. OldSpot61 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording of non-operative clauses of a treaty represent only the opinions of the drafters of the treaty. To take a more obvious example, the USA PATRIOT Act's full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". Does the Patriot Act "unite and strengthen America"? Clearly it does in the view of the drafters, but many would contest it. If you started the article with "The USA Patriot Act was an act that united and stregthened America you would be shot down in flames for beign NPOV. The same goes for the Lisbon Treaty - just because something is written in the text of the Treaty doesn't make it a fact, just an asserted or purported objective. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I expect the full name of the act to be in the introduction. In fact I expect it to be the title of the article. If the authors of the act did not think the results of the act would correspond to its title, then that should be stated and sourced, but we should not assume incompetence or malice without sources... The actual consequences are a distinct matter.CyrilleDunant (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"greatly" is not an encyclopedic word, and shouldn't be used outside a quote. I think the claims made by Bonde and "Open Europe" must be in quotes. Otherwise it looks like a biased news article. Why was the quote from the preamble removed? Citing the actual text of the treaty seems more logic than making the European Commission look like the main supporter of the treaty. - SSJ ☎ 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling for the Open Europe quote turned up this online reference at the UK parliament website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/7112702.htm . Could someone add that as an additional reference for the quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.122.69 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What's sad is that the EU autocracy takes the same stand on dissent and debate as CyrilleDunant continues to advance. Using the same twisted logic and bullying tactics to stifle and silence debate on every attempted EU power grab. To suggest everything in an unratified bill or treaty is fact is utter nonsense as it is by nature an attempt to define and advance a specific point of view. One which has failed referendum in all its forms. The preamble and summary of the treaty is POV plain and simple. As is most of its content. The mere suggestion that a political document being pushed by a political organization by politicians is "fact" is devoid of sanity. Further, CyrilleDunant, your consistent labeling of those who would disagree with you as "trolls" is extremely offensive and that kind of rhetoric has absolutely no place here and I hope, with maturity, you're able to find greater tolerance. My suggestion to you would be to pick up a real encyclopedia to gain a better understanding of their style. One of the fabulous things about encyclopedias is that they aren't dry reading. They tell a story and they tell that story in context (read: all sides of the story). A context in which you wish to abolish by portraying a single point of view. Take a deep breath and take a step back and allow the process of wikipedia (which is consensus) to work.Jgeddis (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon not ratified in Poland

The treaty was still not ratified by the Polish president, the table and map should be altered accordingly. The citation by the 'Granted' status in the table refers to a law which allows the president to ratify the treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.54.163 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consult the archive. This topic has been discussed at length. Poland's parliamentary process has been completed including the signature of the Polish president. What is missing is the SECOND signature by the Polish president which is required as part of the deposition process (documents to be sent to Rome require another signature by the Polish president). That's why Poland is colored in yellow. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read it and I still have no idea why it is "granted". The only document that went through is the document which ALLOWS the President to ratify the treaty (and that is the document mentioned in the citation). But he hasn't done it, and though he himself did say he WOULD (emphasis on 'would', as it implies the future) sign the consent - it didn't happen yet and he can change his mind. Putting Poland under "Ratified but not deposited" is highly misleading, and there exists no citation to support the claim that it has been ratified by the President. Even on the Polish wikipedia it is stated that the Polish President didn't ratify this treaty yet - and I'd think they wouldn't be wrong, would they? 85.222.54.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

As far as I understand, the President recognised the vote of the parliament, by signing the document of the procedure. This finished the internal procedure of the ratification. This is marked as "granted" in Wikipedia. Now, he is responsible for the external ratification. He was to send the documents and make the deposition. He has signed the documents that allow him to do that, but he hasn't done it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The only thing the President recognised is that he has the right to sign a ratification - that's the only thing written in that document. I have to stress it out again - the document the President signed isn't the document for the final ratification of the treaty. The President has to create a separate act to ratify the treaty internally - and he still hasn't done it. 85.222.54.163 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument is not happening again! Look at the archives, READ THEM ALL. Every news source says the only two countries that haven't ratified are Ireland and the Czech Republic. STOP THIS DEBATE. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are really incredibly difficult people to discuss with. I have read them all. Not even ONE source provided states that the treaty has been ratified by the Polish President. Why do you redirect me to read other discussions when you clearly haven't done it yourself? On the other hand THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF stated he still didn't SIGN the document for the ratification (http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=25543194) - what better source do you expect? Please cite the news sources that claim that Poland has finalised the ratification, I would like to see them. This is getting really tiresome. 85.222.54.163 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Not even ONE source provided states that the treaty has been ratified by the Polish President" - interesting, the source in the table in the article says just that. You may want to check it out. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please post the link as I did or write exactly which one is it, because however hard I look I cannot see any source like that. None of them are to any news or documents stating that the President has in any way ratified the treaty.

[11] - that's the link in the table. It's the official pdf from the Polish parliament which clearly includes the President's name meaning he signed the bill that was passed in the parliament. Thus the national ratification process is over. What's left is the deposition of the documents in Rome which is not part of the national ratification process but part of the international ratification process. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had read my previous posts thoroughly you would see that I already commented on this document. Yes, the bill was passed, but this bill DOES NOT ratify the treaty in any way, this is NOT a ratification act. The only thing this bill does is it forwards the decision to the President and the only thing that is written there is permission for the President to ratify the treaty - to do that he has to create ANOTHER act. Here - [12] - is the official website of the President, where he explicitly explains what this signature means. A translation of the most important parts: "At this stage only the approval //for the President// to perform the ratification has been expressed in a form compliant with the law." and "The Treaty will be binding for the Republic of Poland only after the President puts his signature under the according ratification act." Kaczynski still hasn't ratified the treaty in any way.85.222.54.163 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is referring to the final ratification i.e. the deposition with the Italian government. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the President hasn't ratified it in ANY way. Yet I see there 'Granted' on a green background and Poland on the map as "Ratified but not deposited" even though it should be "Approved by Parliament". 85.222.54.163 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the last comment I'll write - it's up to you whether you want to keep this article encyclopaedic or support incorrect statements by invalid references. I did my best to explain the case.85.222.54.163 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, I have to agree with the IP. The Constitution of Poland states that the President ratifies international agreements on the condition that the Parliament gives him the right to do so. The Parliament can give the President this right by passing a bill on that matter. Every bill (on whatever matter) needs to be either signed by the President or sent by him to the Constitutional Tribunal (in cases not involving international agreements the President also has a veto right, but not here). In our case the President signed the bill that gives him the right to ratify the Treaty. Now, he does have this right (granted by the Parliament) but has not yet rafified the Treaty. That's why I am changing the content of the article. And I give the information provided on the President site: [13] as a source. --Botev (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is he approved the procedure of the parliament. Do you say he didn't? The article doesn't say he did his part: To send the documents to thew Government of Italy. The deposition with the Italian government will be the final act. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says about countries which have completed the ratification process. In Poland it is the President, not the Parliament, who ratifies international treaties. The President is not a mere notary, here. It is his prerogative to decide on whether he ratifies the Treaty or not. Of course, there is a strong pressure on him to do so since 2/3 of the Parliament voted in favour but that's a different story completely.

However, if you can quote reliable sources pointing to contrary opinions we can and should write a separate paragraph outlining the different points of view on the current legal situation in Poland. As of now, I have just one source - and that is the Presidential website - that clearly states the President has not executed his right to ratify the treaty and that signing the bill and actual ratification of the treaty are two different things. --Botev (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Botev, the link that shows that the President signed the BILL that concludes the national parliamentary ratification is in the table in the article. The name under the bill in the PDF means that the signature was provided. As mentioned many times in previous discussions (see archives) already and in detail explained the president is responsible for the submittal of the documents to Rome which require a second signature. The President's website talks about this second signature. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that statute doesn't conclude the ratification because it is not the Parliament who ratifies the Treaty. The statute only gives a consent for ratification. The second signature is actually that one that ratifies the Treaty (after which it can be sent to Rome). And this is what both the Constitution of Poland and the Presidential website clearly say. In fact, the Presidential website also clearly opposes suggestions that the President ratified the Treaty! As I said - the President is not a mere notary or secretary of the Parliament to just send documents, his decision is necessary for ratification. So, the ratification consists of three steps - voting in the Parliament in order to express the Parliament's consent for ratification, signature of President (otherwise the CONSENT is not valid) and only then the actual ratification by the President. Only then the agreement is fully ratified according to Polish law. And sending it to Rome is just an additional matter that Mamber States have agreed upon.

This is at least the President's opinion, for which I provided SOURCES. If you provide sources for other opinions, we shall write a paragraph on that. As of now, where are the sources supporting your reasoning? You have none and that makes your claims original research. Also, not including the President's opinion on whether the ratification process is completed or not contradicts the NPOV policy. --Botev (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we define the "agreed" that you see on the table? This is the problem here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. So, first of all, note that there were two things that I corrected. The first one was the number of Member States that have completed the ratification. It previously said 25 out of 27 and I changed that to 24 out of 27.

As far as the table is concerned, I interpret what I see there as steps of ratification (not just steps of expressing and acknowledging parliamentary consent for ratification). If you meant it otherwise, it should be explained because it is misleading. Because - as I understand - the table is meant to show the ratification progress in different Member States, it should be either the way it is now or else there should be an additional step representing the actual ratification by the President. --Botev (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Botev, I yield back to the above comments that I have made and to the archives on this talk page which detail the whole issue. I am a lawyer, I have looked into this issue a year ago. Other people on here have looked into this issue. It is clear, the link provided in the table references the bill approved by the parliament. This bill is the national ratification which concludes with the signature of the President, which was given as evidenced by the linked PDF. The signature refered to by the website of the Polish president relates to the deposition of the documents in Rome. Please do not edit the page again without consulting the archives to this discussion where the issue has been addressed and resolved. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again - that is not what is written in the bill and not what is written on the presidential site, not to mention the relevant sections of the Polish constitution that states that it is the President who ratifies international agreements. Well, I am not a lawyer and perhaps I misinterpret the Constitution. But then, there is the message of the President which I am sure is based on expertise of his lawyers (not to mention that the President is a lawyer himself). And that means that the issue is not as clear as you want it to be. Also, being a lawyer does not free you from the obligation of presenting sources of your claims. If you can point to a source that says that the bill giving consent for ratification is actually the ratification itself and that it - as you say - completes the national ratification process, please do so. We will then write it in the article and we will also write the Polish President disagrees with it. This is the policy of Wikipedia - if we are confronted with different opinions we present them all and back them all with sources. I am still waiting for your sources. As as specialist in the constitutional law of Poland - I understand this is what you claim to be - you should be able to provide sources for your opinion, not just state it as you did in the archives. --Botev (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Botev, I am a lawyer, I am not a Polish lawyer. Still, I understand the concept of national and international ratification. Look at Germany for instance, the same issue has come up there. The national ratification process is complete because the parliamentary approval is complete and President has provided his signature for the bill to be published in the national registry. Well, still the German President has repeatedly said that "he will only provide his signature for the treaty once the German Supreme Court has decided on a constitutional challenge of the ratification". Now, how is that possible? Well, it's possible because a SECOND signature is required for the INTERNATIONAL ratification process (= the deposition) to be completed. There are no sources explaining this in detail (except German constitutional textbooks and commentaries) for Germany, why do you think this should be different for Poland? I once again suggest to you to read the first two discussions on this topic in the archives, where a very detailed explanation was given by several people. I assure you, it's an interesting read.

Now, a question to you back, maybe I can convince you this way - what do you believe the name of the Polish president under the parliamentary bill that approves of the treaty in the link in the table means? Why do you think was it put there? Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have already answered your last question. Let me say that once again: as I see it - and what is more important, that's what the President and his lawyers say - the bill of the Parliament does not ratify the treaty, but it empowers the President to do so. By putting his first signature, the President agrees that he be empowered (he had two options at that stage - either to let himself be empowered or to send that empowerment bill - not ratification bill! - to the Constitutional Tribunal). Without this first signature he would not have the right to put the second signature which is the actual ratification act. Without the second signature the ratification is not completed at the NATIONAL level because it is the national law (the Constitution of Poland) that calls for that second signature. Only then, the Treaty is sent to Rome, which completes the INTERNATIONAL process of adopting this new law.

Now, as far as I understand, it is the Constitution that regulates what is needed for ratification at the national level. I am not familiar with the German constitution, maybe it regulates things differently. In case it's all the same - that brings us back to my observation that there are two interpretations we are confronted with. The one is yours - I see you are finally referring to some sources - and the other is that of the President of Poland. It is not the task of Wikipedia to determine who is right - the President and his lawyers or the authors of your text books. Our task is to write about all the different opinions. --Botev (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The legal opinion of scholars is more relevant than the statements of a politician, as far as the legal reality is concerned.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That politician is a scholar himself. He holds a PhD with habilitation in law. He used to work as a professor at the university. What's more - I am sure he has consulted his statement with his lawyers. It's true he doesn't actually specialize in constitutional law, but from what Themanwithoutapast says I understand we are talking here about some general ways of interpretation of law. Any PhD holder in law should have knowledge of them. I see no reason for which we shouldn't take the opinion of the President into account. --Botev (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the President of Poland says the same with Themanwithoutapast. The president refuses to complete the INTERNATIONAL process and not the national. What's why he signed the bill, in order to have the flexibility to finish the international process. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, why do you say that the second signature is the INTERNATIONAL process if it is the NATIONAL law (the Constitution) that regulates it? Secondly, why does the Presedent clearly separate two things: the parlamentary consent for ratification, which entered into force after the first presidential signature, and the ratification itself? That's what is written on the Presidential website: In response to recent media coverage on the fact that the President of Poland has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, the Bureau of Law and the Politacal System informs that on April 9th, 2008, the President of the Republic of Poland has signed only the bill of April 1st, 2008 that grants a consent for the President to ratify the above mentioned Treaty. This bill has been adpoted by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the manner laid down in Art. 90 of the Constitution of Poland and signed by the President in compliance with Art. 122 of The Constitution of Poland. A bill expressing consent for ratification of an international agreement requires for its validity a signature of the President of Poland, as do all other bills adopted by the Parliament. Therefore, as of now, only a consent for ratification of the above mentioned Treaty has been granted in compliance with the law. However, the Treaty ratification itself is a separate issue entirely. It is necessary in this context to point to the fact that binding the Republic of Poland with an international agreement, as mentioned in Art. 90 of the Constitution of Poland (which applies to the Treaty in question) requires a ratification thereof, which according to Art. 133 lies within the competences of the President of Poland. Why do you think that this is what Themanwithoutapast says as opposed to what I say? --Botev (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Botev, to answer to the text that you are quoting - Art 133 of the Polish constitution only generally refers to the competency of the President of Poland to ratify treaties together with the parliament. The actual procedure is not outlined in the Constitution. I will now also provide you with the official source of the European Union on the Lisbon Treaty from here: [14] If you click on Poland and Germany you will read the following:

• GErmany: "The Federal President has signed the law on ratification. He will not sign the instrument of ratification until the Federal Constitutional Court rules on the compatibility of the Treaty with the German Constitution"
• Poland: "The President has yet to sign the instrument of ratification"

The "instrument of ratification" (which neither the German or Polish president have signed) is another term for the papers that are sent to Rome for deposition (the ratified bill together with a text that this bill shall now be deemed ratified and binding internationally). This will be the last comment I make on this subject. I don't think I can add anything useful to the discussion any more, I believe I have made the situation clear as far as I believe it to be correct from a legal viewpoint. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just translated the whole text from the Presidential site, just so that there are absolutely no doubts what is written there. In the Constitution we have two different Articles referring to two activities of the President (Art. 122 and Art. 133) and only one of those Articles says something about ratification (Art. 133).

I do not doubt you have said everything to your best knowledge. However, that doesn't seem to be what the President says and I believe he does so also to the best of his knowledge. We have two contradictory opinions then and I believe we should include them both as the policy of Wikipedia dictates. --Botev (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Botev, I do not have a problem to include facts into the article, for instance a description of what the President's website claims. It would then also be necessary to include the conclusion by the official EU website on the treaty which says that only the "instrument of ratification" has yet to be signed. I would however object to deleting the reference to the Presidential Assent with the link to the official Polish publication of the bill in the table, because deleting it would eliminate an important step in the ratification process (as outlined above, in my opinion and the opinion of the EU and a lot of posters here, this step represents the end of the national ratification process). Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, Themanwithoutapast, I am willing to seek a compromise. I would suggest the following changes in the article:

1. I would change the word ratified to approved in the description of the map, as this is actually what the website of the European Union says. I thinks it's a more neutral term in the context of our discussion.

2. The paragraph on the number of Member States having approved the Treaty would be changed as follows:

Hungary was the first to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon on 17 December 2007. Since that date, according to the official information from the European Union the number of Member States that have completed the ratification approved the Treaty has risen to 25 of the total 27, and the number of Member States that have deposited their ratification with the Government of Italy, which is the final step needed in order for the Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force, to 23.. There is a controversy, as to whether countries, whose parliaments have expressed approval of the Treaty but which have not deposited their ratifications in Rome, have actually completed the ratification process. Notably, the official website of the President of Poland clearly states that the Parliament has only empowered the President to ratify the Treaty, yet the actual ratification has not yet taken place, while according to the European Union website, only the "instrument of ratification" remains to be signed. In the table below the assent of the Head of State represents the the approval of the parliamentary procedure.

The highlighting is of course used to indicate the changes, it would all be in standard font in the article.

3. The table would stay unchanged.

What do you think of my suggestions? --Botev (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you are trying to do. But you can't speak of a controvery about what has happened with regard to "ratification" in general. There is no controvery in Germany. The German president and jurists have said consistently that the national ratification process is over and only the deposition remains. So I would suggest to move the whole controversy part down to the Poland section below the table where it really makes sense - after all it's just the Polish president who asserts that the ratification process works differently in his country than in the rest of the EU. In any event, give it a shot and let's see what others have to say to it. BEst, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, however I strongly feel that the information on what the assent of the Head of State means should stay above the table so that there is no doubt about that. Therefore I suggest we skip the controversy part of my suggestion above but we add the following text just above the table:

The table below shows the ratification progress in specific countries of the European Union. Note that the assent of the Head of State represents the approval of the parliamentary procedure, while the deposition of the Treaty refers to the last step of ratification, which may require a separate consent. For the discussion of the specific legal situation in countries which have not deposited the Treaty with the Government of Italy, see relevant section below the table.

Additionally, we would change the section on Poland, so that it contains the reference to the website of the European Union:

Ratification in Poland was stalled while awaiting presidential signature (so-called "ratification act"). The President, by that point, did sign the bill which allows him to ratify the treaty[112] (in that bill the procedure for granting consent to ratification was chosen according to Article 90.4 of the Polish constitution).[113] According to his official website, it did not mean that the treaty has been ratified in Poland he finished the ratification of the treaty. and the actual ratification now lies within his sole competence. the President is not obliged to ratify the treaty. However, according to the official website of the European Union, it is only the "ratification instrument" that remains to be signed.

Would that be satisfactory? --Botev (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's give it a shot and see what people say. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Let's hope that will finally put an end to the discussions on this subject. --Botev (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes look good. Thanks for staying so civilized during the discussion. Regards, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topolanek fell today

The Czech govt lost a no-confidence vote today. Lisbon still has to pass in the Senate before the Czechs ratify. What are the implications of Topolánek's fall regarding Czech ratification of Lisbon? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any direct implications. The government is not involved in the ratification process. The no-confidence vote may eventually (in the order of months) lead to a snap election to the Chamber of Deputies, but the Chamber has already ratified the treaty, it does not affect the Senate. — Emil J. 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[15] Czech deputy premier Alexandr Vondra admitted the ratification would now become "more difficult." AndrewRT(Talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some senators, including Bedřich Moldan, think on the contrary that the no-confidence vote increased the chances of the Lisbon treaty, because it undermined the authority of Václav Klaus[16]. Note also that Vondra was speaking right after the vote, so it was more an emotional slap in the face of Social Democrats from a disgruntled minister rather than an accurate analysis of the situation. That is to say, commentators have differing opinions on the influence of the no-confidence vote on the ratification of the treaty, no one really knows.

The Senate caucus of the Civic Democrats met today to discuss their stance on the Lisbon treaty, but the result was inconclusive.[17] Some support it, some reject it, and many senators do not have a clear opinion yet, and will probably decide only just before the vote. — Emil J. 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this happening? Or does the proposed appointment of Jan Fischer mean that it isn't happening? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not happening. The President already announced that he will officially appoint Fischer as the Prime Minister this afternoon. — Emil J. 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...and so he has. Thank you, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Last minute update: today's edition of the Hospodářské noviny daily newspaper claims to have a list of at least 49 senators (which is the required 60% qualified majority to approve an international treaty) who decided to support the Lisbon treaty in the Wednesday vote[18][19], hence there is a good chance that the treaty will pass in the Czech Senate. — Emil J. 10:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratified by 26/27 member states

The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by the senators/MPs of every country except Ireland.

A number of countries have not actually signed it yet e.g. Poland but that's because their president is kicking up a fuss. This should be added in. mspence835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.26 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not correct. In Germany the treaty is not signed by the Bundespräsident yet. He will sign the treaty if the Bundesverfassungsgericht (federal court) find it conform with the Grundgesetz (constitution) - but thats not done so far because there are some lawsuit pending. The treaty is not ratified in Germany. --Martin H. (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again. The internal process is over. The external process (deposition) is not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Czech president: Yes, he can

There are some doubts about the fact that the Czech president has the right to block the treaty indefinitely.

Yes, he can. Everyone is invited to read the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as approved by the Parliament of the Czech Republic [20]. Article 63 (1) says that the president a) represents the State with respect to other countries, b) negotiates and ratifies international treaties; he may delegate the negotiation of international treaties to the Government or, subject to the Government consent, to its individual members.

Now: For your convenience, here is a translation of his briefing [21] after the Senate Yes vote today:

[We've seen] the development of both the discussion as well as the voting of the Senate concerning the Constitutional - errr - the Treaty of Lisbon.

So please allow me to say a few words about the result.

First of all, I must express my disappointment by the fact that some Senators have - after something that, I admit, was an unprecedented pressure by the media and politicians both at home and in our country - have resigned from their opinions that have been defended by them until very recently. That also means that they have abandoned their political and civic integrity and they approved the Lisbon Treaty.

They have turned their backs on the long-term interests of the Czech Republic. Instead, they placed the short-term interests of the current political representations as well as their personal interests above those long-term interests.

It's a very sad testimony of the continuing malfunctioning of a significant part of our political elites which we have learned too well from analogous moments of the Czech history. Our politicians have always found similar cowardly justifications. We're small and weak. In the European context, we mean nothing. That's why we have to conform to the decisions of others even if we disagree with them. That's an attitude I reject. After November 1989, we have either regained our sovereignty and the responsibility for the new developments of our country - or everything was a tragic mistake. This question is very pressing, especially in the year of the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution.

As far as the future events go, I will be waiting whether a group of senators will submit another request to the Constitutional Court to evaluate the compatibility of the treaty with our constitutional system, as they declared previously as well as in the discussion today. If they do so, I won't be thinking about my decision to ratify or not to ratify before the Court publishes its verdict.

I would like to recall one important thing which all of you probably know. My opinions about this issue are well-known and clear. I cannot afford to be fundamentally against it at one moment and later, because it starts to be convenient for my personal and career goals, to easily change my opinion. That's something I cannot do.

But most importantly, let's not jump ahead of time right now. The Lisbon Treaty is dead at this very moment. It's dead because it has been rejected by the referendum in one EU member state. That's why the decision about my approval of the treaty is not on my current list of tasks.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you, the briefing is over.]--Lumidek (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you post, please read wikipedia's talk page policy. This page is reserved for discussions on improving the article "Treaty of Lisbon", it's not a general discussion form. Thank you, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As everyone else has understood, this section is here because it is essential to decide about the correct description of the status of the treaty in the Czech Republic. Next time, please check up whom you're trying to "teach" what Wikipedia is.--Lumidek (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the constitutional situation that the president is free to not sign the treaty, as you did in the beginning, is perfectly OK. Quoting his personal opinion for this (which consumes much more space) is unnecessary. 85.16.71.167 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, according to legal experts the president is not free to not sign the treaty.[22][23] He can only delay his signature, more or less indefinitely. — Emil J. 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Czech situation, but I know the concept of the "pocket veto" also exists in India. Delaying indefinitely is the same, in practice, as vetoing. See Pocket veto for an article discussing this concept. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand from a legal point of view, the Czech president may not withhold his signature and may face disciplinary action for failing to do his presidential duties if he were to continue without reason to withhold it. That's one of the reasons why he so vehemently points to a potential supreme court challenge which some of the Czech senators are supposed to work on. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A little help with the map

Oh what to do?

So the Czech Republic Senate passes the treaty, and now we have four versions of the "At a glance" map to choose from. First is EmilJ who would seemingly keep the map the same, with the Czechs in dark blue. Next today was Ssolbergj and Kolja21 who would have Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic all as yellow. Then we got Schokotrunk who would have all three countries as light blue. I would keep Germany and Poland as yellow and update the Czech Republic to light blue. So pick your poison based on who you want to argue with.--Patrick «» 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I left it dark blue only because it seemed pointless to change the colour when either light or dark blue is used only for one country on the map. However, if you want to stick to the legend at File:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg, then your version with Czech Republic light blue (per today's parliament approval) and Germany and Poland yellow (per the countless discussions on this talk page) is indeed the correct one. — Emil J. 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. You can leave it as dark blue if that's a nicer shade, but then we should look to change the legend on each Wikipedia language where the map is used. Not the worst task, but perhaps an unnecessary one.--Patrick «» 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It took about 10 seconds to change the Czech color in the caption to 0085b8 in the English version and I believe that it could be even faster for other languages. ;-) Probably faster than to recreate an old/new picture. --Lumidek (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No point to make a new colour for just one country because it wasn't said when the law will be signed. That is, if Czech Republic is a parliamentary democracy, president can't hold indefinitely a law approved by two chambers of the Czech parliament. But let's see if there will be more comments of the case in the future. --Pudeo' 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the Czech president can do what you think he cannot. You are invited to read the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as approved by the Parliament of the Czech Republic [24]. Article 63 (1) says that the president a) represents the State with respect to other countries, b) negotiates and ratifies international treaties; he may delegate the negotiation of international treaties to the Government or, subject to the Government consent, to its individual members.--Lumidek (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We have four different situations and we need four different colours: deposition, ratification and not deposition (Germany, Poland), ratification only from parliament (Czech reb.) , unauthorized (Ireland). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? No deposition is because the presidents have not officially signed them and thus not deposited. The situation is the same in all three countries. --Pudeo' 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany and Poland the internal part of the process is complete. The president of the Czech Reb. didn't grand his approval yet. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, please see the new section below. They are not deposited for a reason. --Pudeo' 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think three colours are ok: approved (by parliament), deposited and not authorised. As regards the colours I preferred yellow to pale blue for a pure aesthetic reason. Ah please in the section "ratification", there is written: "Hungary was the first to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon on 17 December 2007. Since that date, according to the official information from the European Union[18] the number of Member States that have approved the Treaty has risen to 25 of the total 27". I think 25 should now be changed with 26... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor262 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion being again and again. The procedure has two parts. The national ratification process is complete only when the parliamentary approval is complete and President has provided his signature for the bill to be published in the national registry. Well, still the German President has repeatedly said that "he will only provide his signature for the treaty once the German Supreme Court has decided on a constitutional challenge of the ratification". Now, how is that possible? Well, it's possible because a SECOND signature is required for the INTERNATIONAL ratification process (= the deposition) to be completed. (Copied Themanwithoutapast and bolded some parts). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the debate here is about whether or not the map (and table for that matter) should represent the distinction between Presidential Approval and Ratification. Painting a broad stroke, it seems we have two groups here, those who see 3 steps (Parliament, President, Deposit) and those who see 2 steps (Parliament & President or Parliament & Deposit). Part of the problem is that few if any media outlets recognize the subtly, and produce few sources for the 3 step editors to cite.--Patrick «» 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. I am following the article a lot of time and I can ensure you that the Europarliament page was updated according this article. In the beginning there was a confusion between parliamentary ratification and the national ratification. If someone checks the archives can see that I was confused in the beginning as well. Thanks to Themanwithoutapast and other editors I thought the subject was cleared. The Poland issue is more complicated (the president's statements complicated the things) but for the other countries I think we shouldn't have that much problems. Sometimes mass media are a bad source since they are trying to simplify the official press releases and procedures. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland should be set to yellow again and labeled as holding a re-vote. -- Annon 22:48, 7 May 2009

Just to voice my opinion to the map change - although it's correct Germany, Poland and the Czech Repuplic are all in the "ratified by parliament" category, the map still is misleading now as it doesn't include the interim step of ratification by Presidents. I remain convinced that more precise distinctions are required. That is Germany and Poland yellow as having the national ratification completed with deposition outstanding and the Czech Republic light blue as having both the national ratificaiton and deposition outstanding. But I am probably talking against forces here I cannot overcome... Themanwithoutapast (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic should share the same color on the map. There are differences between all three situations, that's true. But I think using three colors would be overstating the differences, and using two would need clearly existing groups. And there's easily an alternate two-color division putting Poland and the Czech Republic together, because their presidents may or may not sign, and keeping Germany in its own category, because the German president must sign if the Constitutional Court approves and must not sign otherwise. Ambi Valent (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland and Germany have finished with the internal process and the Czech Rep. not yet. That's the difference. If the presidents will finish the procedure by deposing this is another story. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I have seen Poland requires ratification by the President, Germany is waiting for a ruling from its constitutional court and Presidental signature, Czech Republic is now waiting for Presidental signature and possibly the result of a legal challenge by members of Czech Senate. Meanwhile Ireland hasn't even submitted the required bill in the parliament to arrange a referendum at this time, so I would propose that Germany, Poland and Czech Republic have one colour and Ireland a separate one to distinguish the different status between them.--Joshuaselig (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your distinction doesn't work. The German president has the right to deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome right now. He doesn't have to wait for the Constitutional Court - he does in order to avoid uncomfortable legal situations. The same is correct for Poland, the Polish president may deposit the instrument of ratification whenever he wants to - he doesn't because he is using the current situation for national political reasons. On the other hand the Czech president couldn't yet deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome, because it's not available yet - he has yet to sign the national law which the House and Senate approved and have it publish in the national registry. As far as I see it, that's the only logical legal difference between Poland/Germany on the one side and the Czech Republic on the other. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You talk about Poland, Germany, and Czech Republic. So please take notice of the articles in

• pl:Traktat lizboński
• de:Vertrag von Lissabon
• cs:Lisabonská smlouva

All three have the same information: "Approved by Parliament" (not signed by the President). --Kolja21 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can speak of the discussion on the German wiki - it was quite heated back in the days, as people pointed to the inconsistency on "presidential assents" etc. in a couple of countries. At the end the consensus was to be less precise and just go with the "approved by parliament" category, even thought that meant to leave out a legal step and thus omit information. There just weren't enough sources in German of presidential assents for the table in the German wiki. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

President Kaczyński not signed treaty. I'm a Pole and I watched that issue very carefully. On April 8, 2008 Lech Kaczyński signed only act over process of ratification, but not same treaty. Later Kaczyński announced he will sign treaty if will be ratified in Ireland. User:Ron 1987]

Please see the discussion in the section #Treaty of Lisbon not ratified in Poland above. — Emil J. 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany again

It is just outrageous that someone still insists that the German president has "granted presidential assent". If you actually bother to read the source for the article claim it was signed, you will clearly see it's not signed.

"However, he had not formally signed off on it, Kothe said of the act that would finalize German ratification." [25]

It's pretty clear actually, there is no court clarification, and he can't sign it until that. However, he indeed has "personally approved" it, meaning he will sign it into law as soon as possible when the court clears it. It is also ridiculous that Poland is stated to have given Presidential Assent as well. The article and many news sources clearly tell he will not sign it until Ireland ratifies it, see any contradiction? Unfortunately I can't read Polish, so I can't read the source.

I can't comprehend why it's hard for some to understand no deposition means no presidential assent. It can't be deposited if it's not signed into law by the president. If someone wants to add German presidential assent again to the template, find another source. That source states he has not signed it yet. I removed German presidential assent, and suggest someone with Polish skills to examine the other source.

They are not deposited for a reason. They can't deposite it because those presidents have not signed them into law. That's the final part of the ratification. Deposition is done to the Italian Parliament and has nothing to do with the presidents after they have signed it.--Pudeo' 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just weird that a well established part of the article changes without discussion in the talk page with an edit summary "see talk page". I won't repaet arguments found everywhere in the archives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC

An edit note can't be as comprehensive as talk page message. The source in the article does not support the claim. You are wrong to revert my edit when the source actually says the opposite you are claiming. Again, "he had not formally signed it off" but just said he personally said he will support it.

Get a new source for reinserting the claim in the article. Obviously it's just ridiculous to say the President of Germany has signed the law when the source you are adding as well says the opposite. --Pudeo' 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice. I provided a better link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

..whatever. Let's just keep non-factual information in the article until it is really signed and deposited. Easier to wait than try to talk to walls.. --Pudeo' 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pudeo, the official source of the EU says the following about Germany: "The Federal President has signed the law on ratification. He will not sign the instrument of ratification until the Federal Constitutional Court rules on the compatibility of the Treaty with the German Constitution" [26] - so you are wrong, the German president has signed the law on ratification, it's just the deposition which is outstanding. The official source of Germany from the Auswärtiges Amt also gives the same information: "In Germany the parliamentary ratification process has already been completed: the Bundestag and Bundesrat both approved the law approving the Lisbon Treaty by a large majority. Federal President Horst Köhler issued the law ratifying the Treaty on 8 October 2008, and it was then promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette. Legal proceedings have been instituted with the Federal Constitutional Court on the grounds that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would allegedly breach fundamental constitutional principles. Federal President Köhler will not sign the instrument of ratification until the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court have been concluded. The Court has fixed a date for the hearing: 10 and 11 February 2009." [27] "Instrument of ratification" is another word for the letter that accompanies the ratification bill which is sent to Rome for depostion. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The link I provided is even more clear: "The German President approved Germany's ratification of the treaty this morning, following votes in the two houses of parliament." EUobserver explains the procedure: "Although Germany's parliament has ratified the treaty and the president has signed it off, the final step to complete the process – formally handing the papers over in Rome – will remain stalled until the court has decided." [28]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar and Aland

Why are there still no news about them?Max Mux (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar does not ratify international treaties as the UK is responsible for their foreign/external affairs. See here: http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/gibraltar-lisbon-treaty.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.16.207 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatr about the consultative vote?Max Mux (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that they don't vote based on that link. Does anyone else know otherwise? Is there any other link to say otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.226.49 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please erase it according to the information above.Max Mux (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do it!Max Mux (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

article about controversy?

I'm having trouble finding some detailed explanation of various points of controversy around this treaty. Shouldn't there be a link to such an article or a heading about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.126.175 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) noMax Mux (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

German Constitutional Court Decision

The court has issued a press release (German) stating that it will announce its decision on the Treaty on 30 June. Can someone please add this in? — 152.78.61.144 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Enlargement map

The enlargement map does not match its legend. I added the red color to the legend but I cannot figure out how to alter the actual image. The SAP countries are listed as light green but appear as pink. I could have changed the legend to match, but the distinction seems important to me. If anyone here knows how, please change the image. Thanks. Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Treaty limits to 27 states?

"Further enlargement enabled: by removing the Nice Treaty limitation to 27 Member States." It says this in the article. But does the Nice Treaty state there is a limit of 27 states? I doubt it. Ithink it is just Merkel and Sarkozy would like another treaty before new members come in. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nice Treaty only defines voting rights / number of MEPs for a union of up to 27 members. An EU with more members would be undefined under current rules. An ascension treaty could define such situations, but there are other issues which have to be taken into account. Changing the number of MEPs is not easy. With new members you change the current balance of power in the EU institutions: Country A: If I get now x MEPs I want the new rule Y to secure my influence, Country B: If A gets rule Y I want rule Z and so on... (There are MANY examples for this - e.g. Italy and the question of 750/751 MEPs)

The current result of balancing the different interests of the currently 27 members in preparation of more members is the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore I suppose it will not be easy to agree on a new ascension treaty (when the Lisbon Treaty is killed in Ireland a 2nd time) without incorporating half of the content of the Lisbon treaty in it. --84.163.79.165 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatia/Iceland MEPs?

Will the number of MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty remain at 751 if/when these countries add the union? If so, some of the "virtual MEPs" might never become real MEPs, if their countries lose some of their newly gained seats to Croatia or Iceland. (Remember Iceland would get at least 6 seats under the treaty, although it only has 300,000 inhabitants). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More ratificiation issues

This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8066946.stm) from the BBC suggests that the Lisbon Treaty will have to be effectively re-ratified by every member state to accommodate changes made for the Irish. Where should this go? I was going to insert it into the Ireland section but really, as it effects all countries, I feel it needs a more prominent position. --Mas 18 dl (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article unfortunately doesn't distinguish between the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of some concessions to Ireland. There are a multitude of possible ways to give Ireland what voters want. None of the considered ones require a ratification procedure of the scale of the Lisbon Treaty. There are lots of things passed on the EU level with anonymous consent (= "ratification" of something by all memberstates). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read several times that the idea is that the Irish concessions would be passed as an attachment to the expected accession treaty with Croatia. — Emil J. 10:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Enlargement enabled?

The summary box says that "enlargement is enabled by removing the Nice Treaty limitation to 27 Member States."

I think that is nonsense, because the Treaty of Nice doesn't say the Union cannot enlarge beyond the current 27 Members. And even if it would, that would be amended by an Accession Treaty (which also usually includes provisions about e.g. the number of seats in the EP for the acceding country/countries). To my knowledge the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't change anything related to the enlargement of the EU, it doesn't award seats to Croatia should it join for example (so that has to be negotiated in the Accession Treaty).

The only reason that Lisbon would allow enlargement, and Nice not, is that Sarkozy and Merkel won't enlarge with only Nice in force. They want Lisbon to be in force before enlarging. If that is what is meant here, the sentence should be rephrased. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

True, there is no limit of 27 memberstates in the Nice Treaty. The problem the EU faces (right now already with 27 countries) is complicated voting, too many decisions requiring unanimity, too many can be blocked by just a couple of countries etc. etc. In addition you have to resize the number of MEPs and limit the number of Commissioners (27 is much too big right now already). So, yes it is a matter of bringing the EU back into a institutional framework in which it works again before adding more countries which would make the current institutional framework work even less. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland in the map (rejected - red)

Considering that Ireland's parliament has now approved the law which allows the second referendum, shouldn't we change it's status in the map to "Ratification in process" that is blue? Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The ratification is not in progress, they are consulting with the electorate to determine if the process of ratification can begin. The most recent decision was a "rejection". Respect the Irish vote. Thanks. Beganlocal (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A referendum bill has been passed. The process is again under way. Labelling the Irish Republic as having rejected the treaty ignore that the process has begun (again). Colouring the Republic "Teal Blue", which is indicated as "not ratified", better corresponds with the NPOV policy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at the graphic so I didn't see the option for "not ratified". I have no issue with defining at per your suggestion. My views on the quality of democracy where the government repeatedly asks the people to agree until they reach the "correct" decision has no bearing here. Beganlocal (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Respecting the Irish Vote

As stated in the article, the Irish voted to reject the Lisbon treaty in their referendum. While it is appropriate to state that the government are planning to hold a further referendum, it is not accurate to describe the treaty as "pending ratification" by Ireland or to use any language which suggests that the Irish people will vote in favour of the treaty. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The most definitive recent decision taken by the Republic re the Lisbon treaty was to reject it, and then to offer a second referendum. I do not believe it appropriate to use language which preempts the referendum result or gives undue weight to the policy decision to impose a second referendum. Beganlocal (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither is it correct to say "rejected" as it implies a definative rejection. There's going to be a second vote. They might say yes. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. Again, I have no issue with "not ratified". I do object to "pending referendum" etc which is the reason for my revert of the other editor. I assume that even if they do reject it a second time, it still won't be definitive as the government will simply exercise its discretion to ask the electorate once again (and as often is necessary until they give the correct answer). Beganlocal (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear. From a legal side the rejection in the referendum has been surpassed completely by the new vote in the parliament. Ireland is now at the stage where it was immediately before the first referendum. Back then it was labeled as "ratification pending". The map which shows it as red and says "not ratified" is strictly speaking correct, but the distinction between "in ratification process" and "not ratified" isn't. I would either go back to the original version which had distinctions between Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic (deposition vs. internal ratification process) and then have Ireland has "not ratified" or if we keep with the "ratification process pending" we would have to lump all 4 countries into that category. Well, I guess we won't come to a conclusion, because people get agitated when someone mentions Germany and Poland just require deposition and have completed the internal ratification process already.... Themanwithoutapast (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points. However "ratification pending" assumes the outcome of the Irish referendum - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is appropriate to say not ratified - I am agreeing that "rejected" could be misleading as the decision of the Irish people in their first referendum was not considered final. Beganlocal (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear "ratification pending" means that the first step of ratification has been completed but not the last. That's clearly the case in Ireland. The referendum is part of the ratification process, it's not the ONLY step to be taken. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany in "At a glance"

I've removed the "Ratification has to be redone" and the following two sections from Germany due to the following:

Ratification in Germany was implemented in three laws:

1) Act Approving the Treaty of Lisbon (see above) [29] - This is the law on the ratification of the treaty itself and is the entry we used in the table up until now. The WON'T be another vote on this act since it is in accordance with the basic law.

From the federal diet homepage: [30] Gesetzentwurf (16/8300) (Ratifizierungsgesetz der Bundesregierung): 515 Ja-Stimmen, 58 Nein-Stimmen, 1 Enthaltung - Gesetzentwurf angenommen

2) Act Amending the Basic Law - A small change to the basic law which regulates when the Bunderat/Bundestag is allowed to go to the European Court due to percived violations of subsidarity (1/4 of votes necessary)[31]

3) Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union Matters [32] - violates the basic law (why is described in the article) and has to be changed. The vote on this act was never included in the article and I don't see why the next version of this act should appear on the table.

I just tried to find the voting results of this act and could't find any...

I assume Germany wasn't the only country where the Lisbon Treaty caused several acts of parliament (due to both ratification and implementation). And up until now it seems only the ratification act was listed in the table.

--84.163.72.5 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Constitutional Court explicitly ruled that the Lisbon Treaty must not be ratified until the third law in your list is changed. Thus, we should at least add a line for the Court decision, IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a concrete example to the last point, in Czech Republic, a law very similar to the change required by the German Constitutional Court had to be passed before the Treaty was ratified by the Senate. — Emil J. 09:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But did the Czech senate have to decide on the same law twice due to a court decision? Otherwise this is not really comparable to the German situation.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not relevant. What is relevant that the table only contains entries corresponding to the ratification of the Treaty itself, not any related and/or accompanying laws. Since we do not include such laws for other countries, they should not be included for Germany either. — Emil J. 10:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Only steps directly related to ratification are included in the list in its current form. Therefore court descisions like in the Czech Republic and Germany are not listed. More complex situations are described in the text section below the table. This is even explicitly spelled out in the intro of the "At a glance" section. If the constituional court would be included it would imply that the court decision was part of the normal ratification procedure. In addition: What would you present in the BVerfG row? Delayed? Approved?

And in case we would add the "Act Extending and Strengthening the Rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in European Union Matters" to the list, we would have to include similar from other countries (which are internal matters for each Country btw.).

The current version has a special section dedicated to Germany where the german situation is explained in detail, which I think is the best solution. Keep the (quite long) "at a glance" list short and elaborate on details where it is possible - an extra text section.

At least we can surely agree that the version you offered with "redone" in the BVerfG entry and two rows for the Bundesrat/Bundestag entries for the second version of the 3rd act (from the list above) was over the top?

--84.163.77.189 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. However, are you sure that "presidential assent" was given on the claimed date? One of the two references given in the table claims that Köhler "assented" in May 2008, the other doesn't mention an assent at all. I suppose presidential assent means signing the law on the treaty, not the treaty itself? Köhler has definitely not ratified the treaty yet. (Thouph it would be strange to do one thing and not the other.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of Ireland leaving the EU

I removed the line under Second Referendum, "But the issue will be whether Ireland remains a member of the EU or voluntarily departs." The article referenced to support this statement,(ref 106), is merely giving a hypothetical situation whereby an all or nothing vote would secure a strong Yes vote, i.e. either accept Lisbon or leave. Support for continued EU membership is in the 80+ per cent region, leaving the EU is complete nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.10.151 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Consultative votes

What does everyone make of these? [33] [34] Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have a problem. Does anybody has a source backing the claim that Gibraltar decides on the applicability of the treaty to itself? — Emil J. 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are living in Aland, you don't have a problem. Aland can't block Lisbon. If they agree, good for them, if not, things are a bit different - but they have no bearing on the EU itself. Some thing for Gibraltar. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant "we" as in the Wikipedia editors of this page. And we have a problem because the link provided by Therequiembellishere strongly suggests that the information in our article pertaining to Gibraltar is erroneous. Åland, on the other hand, has nothing to do with it. — Emil J. 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone with more knowledge of the subject have anything else to say? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Source seems reliable. I would remove this. Unless someone who edits this page emails the Gib gov and finds out for certain if this is the case. I am pretty sure though that Gib does not handle foreign policy and external relations (ie international treaties), most UK dependencies/overseas territories do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.249.50 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory ratification by referendum in Ireland

I don't want to edit the article since I've never done it before, but I can tell you that the section regarding Irish ratification is wrong. It references the Crotty judgement, but it implies that the judgement forces the government to hold a referendum on the treaty. This is widely believed even in Ireland, but is incorrect.

The decision is much narrower than that, and the bulk of the treaty could be passed by the Dail. Only foreign policy provisions require a vote of the people to ratify.

I feel this could clarified better in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.174.70 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Secession under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Moved this

" although member states of the UE could leave it under the general laws of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties"

to talk as original research and possibly misleading (as stated without reservations). Articles 61 1nd 62 of the Convention, concerning withdrawal from binding treaties, are fairly restrictive and some (e.g. Joseph H.H. Weiler) apparently opine that under the present treaties, withdrawal from the EU would be illegal. See the Convention itself [35]) and Stephen C., Sieberson (2008). Dividing Lines Between the European Union and Its Member States: The Impact of the Treaty of Lisbon. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9789067042840. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |origdate= (help)
--Boson (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt under international treaty law that a withdrawal is legally possible if all memberstates agree (essentially, the treaties would be changed to eliminate one country from the EU). But I agree, referencing the Vienna Convention doesn't make much sense in this regard and contributes to confusion. I would thus argue to include a. more information on the new procedures (2/3rds majority required of memberstates to have another memberstate leave etc.) and b. include that under current international treaty law, leaving the EU is only possible by unanimous consent which changes the existing treaty (and my even require countries like Ireland to vote on the subject). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we would need sources for any non-obvious interpretation of the various treaties, but, as I see it, the (formal) situation would be that

• under the present treaties
  • there is no specific right to withdraw
  • a treaty can normally be changed by unamimous consent of the parties -- I assume, though it might not be so simple for the EU; it is conceivable, for instance, that the EP would have to consent too, and the ECJ might have its own views on the matter
  • the Vienna Convention provides for unilateral withdrawal from a treaty under exceptional circumstances (though that might conceivably not apply to a constitutional treaty); but stating that explicitly for a particular treaty might be giving it undue weight
• under the Treaty of Lisbon, if and when it comes into force:
  • any member state has the unconditional right to withdraw, giving two years notice
  • by agreement, the member state can withdraw earlier or later than that and the terms of the withdrawal can be agreed. Such an agreement between the EU and the member state requires only a (slightly modified) qualified majority in Council (not unanimity) and the consent of the European Parliament.
  • If no agreement is reached, the two-year period can be extended only by unanimous agreement, including the agreement of the withdrawing member state .

--Boson (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Presidential assent in Poland

I have corrected the ratification table, which incorrectly stated that presidential assent had been given to the treaty in Poland. In fact, in Poland, the assent of both houses of parliament is given by the passing of a bill. The President has now signed that bill into law and that completes the process of parliamentary assent. Presidential assent is a separate process which has not been completed, as even the footnote itself makes clear. See [36],[37] and [38] for more information (the last can be translated at Google translate). --81.108.132.50 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On a further point, the German president has not given his assent either. As the second footnote makes clear, he has merely stated his approval ("However, he had not formally signed off on it, Kothe said of the act that would finalize German ratification.")[39] See also this [40], (my translation: "Before President Horst Köhler signs the treaty, the participation rights of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat must be strengthened.") German Wikipedia correctly shows assent as pending. --86.25.236.213 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand what the phrase "would finalize German ratification" mean? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The president has signed nothing. He has merely consulted. --86.25.236.213 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What the source says is "Koehler's Berlin office has its own legal team which reviews laws and treaties. His spokesman, Martin Kothe, told news agency dpa that "after extensive examination" Koehler had found that document raises no significant constitutional concerns." This isn't presidential assent. That's something the other source makes clear. --86.25.236.213 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"The German law which introduces the Treaty in Germany was signed - and that finanlizes the national ratification process in Germany. What's missing is him depositing the Treaty in Rome, that's all - but that is part of the international ratification process. You need to differ between what's necessary on nation level and international level. —EuropeanElitist™ 10:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)" -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

EuropeanElitist is wrong to differentiate between international and national ratification processes. The Bundestag's vote is part of the national process too and that's irrelevant. The only international part is the deposition of papers at the end. Every country has its own process for ratifying treaties and the president must still sign his assent. Firstly where is EuropeanElitist's source that says the law was signed? Secondly the assent of The presidential assent is a separate process, in addition to deposition, isn't it?--86.25.236.213 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no... Just don't tell me this debate is still going on. Can't you people READ what I wrote just above the table after a long discussion on the situation in Poland (see the archives of this talk page). May I point you to the phrase: Note that the assent of the Head of State represents the approval of the parliamentary procedure, while the deposition of the instrument of ratification refers to the last step of ratification, which requires a separate signature of the Head of State on the instrument for it to be deposited.? --Botev (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)