Template:European Union

Put new text under old text. .

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

• Ftd:USA sollen EU-Vertrag sabotiert haben

In european media journalists report that USA sabotaged the referendum in Ireland and that US gave financial help to the groups who worked against the treaty. GLGermann (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add it.85.66.224.202 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add it, but remember that it is based on speculation and not hard facts.86.42.204.140 (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference to the anti Lisbon treaty group Libertas (lobby group) whose founder Declan Ganley works for a company that has extensive contracts with the US military. Libertas spent a lot of money on the campaign, but under Irish law they were not obliged to divulge the source of that funding. There are suspicions that there were US sources for the money, but that would be breaking the law in Ireland (funding must be from Irish citizens), which Libertas insist they have not done. Ganley and Libertas are extremely tight-lipped about where the money did come from. These suspicions remain unproven, and as things stand Libertas are in compliance with Irish law, unless further evidence comes to light. Neelmack (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather a long shot to extrapolate and blame what one US company might have done, to blaming the whole USA. There is a left-wing anti-USA lobby in the EU, but no anti-EU lobby in the USA that I have seen. Ultimately the problem was that most of us here in Ireland could not read the treaty and understand it in terms of plain ordinary language.86.42.215.131 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has something happened when it comes to the ratification in this dependency ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.236.114 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. Åland is supposed to vote on the treaty in autumn this year though. —EuropeanElitist™ 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

What date would the parliament be likely to vote on the treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.111.171 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back through the edit history, I don't think anyone has actually tackled the question of what Gibraltar is doing about the treaty. Are they even debating discussion on the Treaty? What is the progress? --Paploo (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question you should be asking is why there should be any reference to Gibraltar at all. Britain can, and in fact has, ratified the treaty without needing Gibraltar's consent. Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason we include the voting of the Europarliament. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but the treaties do at least require the European Parliament to be consulted. What applies to Gibraltar could also apply to the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Neither of these count as part of the EU, but all three will/would have to pass legislation recognising the Treaty's coming into force. In comparison I'm reasonably sure all of Belgium's regions actually have to approve the treaty before the government can formally ratify the treaty. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[1] It's not going to be more "formal" than that. --Hapsala (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think there should be a part which deals with the future of the treaty, i.e. what will happen to it now that Ireland rejected it, can it be ratified at all, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.204.147 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It says clearly that all 27 EU memberstates need to ratify the treaty. If Ireland doesn't ratify it can't take effect. Any speculation beyond how the treaty may be implemented with or without Ireland is moot. There are endless possibilties that all involve new treaties. Other than drafting a new treaty or start the process again from stratch, the only possibilites are that Ireland may have another referendum or Ireland may size to be a memberstate (unlikely). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, if the treaty is ratified before June 1 2009 its rules would apply for the EP election, otherwise the rules from the Nice treaty. Is this correct?--Ambi Valent (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. It is one of the reasons why the Irish government is under pressure to clarify its strategy. However, it is now very unlikely that Ireland will hold a referendum before June, so the elections will have to be fought under Nice rules. The most likely date for a referendum (assuming there is one!) is October 2009. Any later than that and under the existing Nice Treaty, the number of commissioners will be automatically cut to fewer than the number of member states. This incidentally, is an 'own goal' for the anti Lisbon campaigners who objected to the cut in numbers under Lisbon, insisting that each state should have its own commissioner. Lisbon actually allows for each state to have a commissioner if all states agree, while Nice doesn't .Neelmack (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Barak Obama was elected last month with 52.9% of the vote, and the Irish rejected the treaty with 53.1% of the vote, will any EU leader say to him in 2009: "52.9% is just not enough - you should hold a second election"? I don't think so. Regarding the next vote, it is not likely to pass during a recession. And, until it does pass, the whole EU must be run by the pre-Lisbon arrangements.86.42.215.131 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Things shouldn't be listed as history until they have actually happened. Ratification is current and deserves its own section. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once (and if) every member state ratify the treaty is can enter into force. Every vote which is legally required counts as part of the ratification process, everything else is only consultation. Other than "National ratifications" what other kinds are there? Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

->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)[reply]

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.[2] 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)[reply]

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

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

Updated (12/10)[3]. --Hapsala (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Same with Germany. If you actually read the source article ([4]) 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

A Polish parliament source is given in the table in the article. Here it is again: [6]. — Emil J. 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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