Template:European Union

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

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

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

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

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

This section -

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

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

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

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

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

How can so obviously polemic sources like "George Pascoe-Watson (June 22, 2007). EU can't mention the war. The Sun. Retrieved on 2007-06-26." [1] been used for citation in wikipedia? By the way the article incluedes flase informations. Germany has 82,5 million inhabitants- not 88. The word choice makes it obviously that the author don't like Germany and that he is a non neutral observer.84.181.86.56 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The Polish section seems to be lacking somewhat on the German-Polish relationship in aftermath of the Merkel agreement.[2][3] Intangible2.0 12:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Some concerns on this table:

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

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

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

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

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

Tools for this are eg [4]--84.163.126.80 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section needs some work. There is a lot of discussion if these provisions are actually worth something, or not. The European Scrutiny Commission found that the current text of the provision is possibly inconsistent.[5] Intangible2.0 20:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Commission still talks about the Reform Treaty [6][7]. I'm in favour of calling it the Treaty of Lisbon, and rename the article only a few days before the official signing in December. Intangible2.0 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

"The following new Article 35 shall be inserted:

"Article 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

Themanwithoutapast 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is already an article called Treaty of Lisbon. I think the old article should be renamed. Please someone do it. In 4 days, after the renaming, i can fix all the redirects using AWB if you like. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]