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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1]) 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." [2]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Some senators, including Bedřich Moldan, think on the contrary that the no-confidence vote increased the chances of the Lisabon treaty, because it undermined the authority of Václav Klaus[5]. 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 Lisabon treaty, but the result was inconclusive.[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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.

[7] - 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)[reply]

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 - [8] - 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [9] as a source. --Botev (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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