Template:European Union

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

The portion of the At a glance section containing details of the UK's ratification of the Lisbon treaty includes two footnotes that are unreferenced. The first states, "House of Commons voting does not permit Members to abstain. 81 Members were able to vote but did not do so." Without a reference, this statement appears to be opinion--as a reader interested in this topic, I'd like to see where the editor got this information. The second statement reads, "The House of Lords approved the treaty bill without a division, after a procedural motion to defer consideration of the bill due to the the negative Irish referendum on the Treaty was defeated by 277 votes to 184." Once again, without a reference this appears to be someone's reading of the facts, but hardly verifiable. I've already attempted once to remove these opinion statements, but had my edits reverted by EmilJ, so rather than risk an edit war I wanted to bring the question up on the Discussion page. As decorum would dictate I did do a fair amount of rummaging about trying to find a source that would substantiate either of these claims (81 non-votes in the Commons, Lords approving without a division), but I must not be looking in the right place as I was unable to find a source confirming these specific details.

Before posting this, I read the relevant Wikipedia policies on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD, and feel that I'm on solid ground to request that these statements be either backed up with a reliable third-party source or removed from the article altogether. If anyone disagrees, please do share your thoughts as I certainly don't preclude the possibility that I'm wrong. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first point should probably be rephrased. I presume the editor meant:

"To abstain is to refuse to take sides in a vote. However, abstentions are not officially recorded in the House of Commons or House of Lords." [1]

--Boson (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that he's probably right on the abstention side, but given the section deals specifically with how the votes turned out in each country, it's the 81 abstentions on the Commons vote that I was hoping to get properly referenced. If anyone has a reference for that (in addition to one for the Lords results as mentioned above), I'd like to add it. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be OK to state "94 abstentions" citing http://ec.europa.eu/portugal/pdf/temas/lisbon_treaty/tratado_lisboa_ratificacao_estado_actual_22maio2008_en.pdf or explaining the simple arithmetic 646 - 206 - 346 and the rule quoted above in a footnote. Without a citation, I would agree that the reduction from 94 to 81 based on how many MPs were apparently not "able" to vote looks like original research. --Boson (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is an actual figure of how many MPs are able to vote on a bill in the Commons. The Speaker does not vote and neither do any of the Sinn Fein MPs, who do not take their seats. So not all 646 MPs could have voted for the Lisbon ratification. Please bear this in mind. David (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) The statment: "The House of Lords approved the treaty bill without a division, after a procedural motion to defer consideration of the bill due to the the negative Irish referendum on the Treaty was defeated by 277 votes to 184" is not a statement of opinion, but simply a record of what happened which can be verified by looking at the parliamentary record. There was, in fact, a procedural motion to defer debate on the bill until after a then hypothetical second referendum in Ireland. This motion was defeated by 277 votes to 184. After that the bill passed without a division. Where's the opinion? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the article I do not see criticism. In the German Wikipedia there is contained a lot of criticism: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertrag_von_Lissabon#Debatte_und_Kritik To read it in English: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVertrag_von_Lissabon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.86.208 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the German discussion page contains interesting facts. Although the translation is bad, the most important things can be understood: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiskussion%3AVertrag_von_Lissabon --92.74.193.6 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should definitely have a criticism section, given the large amount of criticism of the Lisbon Treaty from a wide range of sources, and the difficulty in getting everyone on board. I came here myself specifically in order to better understand the criticism of the Lisbon Treaty. Hopefully such a section can be added soon.

See Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Do we have a consensus that there is a need for a separate criticism section? Boson (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3],[4] and [5] for more information (the last can be translated at Google translate). --81.108.132.50 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.")[6] See also this [7], (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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

EUobserver states that the Bundestag voted 446-46 passing the new laws on the Lisbon treaty on 9 September while the Bundesrat will vote on 18 September. The president is expected to sign before the general election on 27 September. [8] Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He signed today: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,650748,00.html 85.179.129.219 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He signed a paper, yes, but not the Treaty of Lisbon: "Köhler unterzeichnet Gesetze zum EU-Reformvertrag". --Kolja21 (talk)

Currently, the changed table is wrong. It says the German president gave his presidential assent today on September 25th. This is incorrect. He signed the instrument of ratification today required for deposition (unfortunately, despite vigorous debate this separate step was never been included in the table). Still, September 25th is NOT the date of presidential assent, it's October 8th, 2008. In the deposition column we also can't insert September 25th because the date inserted there is when the documents physically arrive in Rome - today's signature means they can finally be sent there. Well, considering the long debates we had on this talk page, I doubt people will listen to the truth and react in a calm manner if I change the table. So I refrain from it, but just for the record: the table right now is incorrect. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming tiring. There is a banner on the top as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The table is still wrong. Presidential assent was provided on October 8, 2008, not on September 25, 2009 as the table currently states. Also, deposition is marked as September 25, 2009, which again is incorrect. The documents have not been deposited in Rome yet. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I agree with you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table seems to have been corrected. But since the table now correctly states that the german Instrument of Ratification has not yet been deposited in Rome, the map should be changed back. It clearly says that the color green is for those countries that have deposited the document in Rome, not for those that have completed national ratification. Germany's color should remain blue until the document arrives in Rome. At least, the table and the map should agree on this.

It has arrived in Rome on the 25th according to this source. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official source[9] does not confirm it. — Emil J. 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they may not have updated their page, but it cannot be more official than the German Foreign Office [10]: Mit der Hinterlegung der Ratifizierungurkunde [deposition of the ratification document] im italienischen Außenministerium in Rom ratifizierte Deutschland am 25. September 2009 den Vertrag von Lissabon und ist damit völkerrechtlich gebunden. Germany has completed the ratification process on September 25. The discussion here is very odd. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This official statement from the Italian foreign ministry is equally clear and refers to the receipt by the Ministry's Secretary General of the ratification instrument on the 25th. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the map then, so that it says the same thing as the table and the relevant article section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.133.221 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the official source[11] now confirms the date of September 25, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since German ratification has now been officially confirmed, shouldn't Germany be removed from the section about "Specific Issues"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to keep the bulk of information referring to Germany. (1) It explains why the German ratification came so late. (2) The important and somewhat controversial decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe will influence the future interpretation of the Lisbon treaty (by the German government) in case the treaty will come into force. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the information should be preserved, but i disagree that it belongs into this particular section. The "specific issues" part lists all the member states that have not yet ratified the treaty, and what is holding up ratification in those states. A new section might give information about states that have completed ratification but have required additional safeguards, including the Karlsruhe ruling (and the additional assurances given to the Irish, once Ireland has completed ratification as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the information should be preserved. The ruling of the constiutional court in Karlsruhe gives definite answers to questions which are often asked about the treaty like: "Will it abolish the souvereign states"? How should one handle the democratic deficit of the EU? Where are the competences in different fields and who has the competence to grant and revoke competences?

Having a section like "Interpreation of the Treaty" would be nice. For a start, the part from the Germany ratification could be moved there and be expanded. The decision by the the Czech Consitutional Court dismissing the first complaint against the treaty should also be included. When the treaty is passed, subsequent rulings of the ECJ could also be added to this section.

In any case: We have here an in depth analysis (>100 PAGES!) of the consequences of the treaty on one of the EU members which is legally binding (unless the German people give themselves a new constitution in an referendum...). The only reference to this in the article should not be simply deleted.

Before creating a critism section, where analyses by biased think tanks (Open Europe and Center For European Reform - I'm looking at both of you!) are used to make a point either way, we should really work towards incorporating these official interpretations of the treaty... --84.163.94.198 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the Presidential Assent in Germany was the 25.09.2009, not the 08.10.2008 as stated in the table at the “At a glance”-chapter. At the 8th of October President Köhler just signed a law, which enables the implementation of the treaty in Germany. Just one possible source: [12] – For further detail see also the German Wikipedia Article de:Vertrag_von_Lissabon#Verfahren_in_Deutschland. Can anyone please correct the date? --Teilzeittroll (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article writes that the ratification was done at 25.09.2009. We are ok. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There still was no "Presidential Assent" on 08.10.2008. But who cares...--Teilzeittroll (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Assent refers to the act of signing the parliamentary ratification bill which is required to publish the bill in the federal gazette (the Bundesgesetzblatt). This was done on October 8th, 2008. On September 25, 2009, Köhler signed the so-called "instrument of ratification", which is required for deposition (basically he signed the order to have the documents sent to Rome). This is not part of the "presidential assent" because it is outside of the national ratification procedure, but is part of the international deposition procedure. Here is a link to a very good, official explanation from the Auswärtiges Amt: [url]http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Europa/LissabonVertrag/Reformvertrag.html[/url] ("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.") Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed answer! --Teilzeittroll (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Houses of the Irish Parliament have voted to hold another referendum shouldn't Ireland be shown as blue (process of ratification still ongoing) instead of red? The red color seems to imply that Ireland is done and that the treaty cannot come into force ever. That is clearly not the case here. Regardless of whether you believe this second vote is right or wrong, the fact remains that it is being done. The map should reflect that. Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its again how you view the stages in different countries. After the Irish vote, it will either stay red or turn blue, because even if the referendum passes, the treaty then goes back to the Oireachtas and President for more ratification before Ireland could potentially turn green.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ratified means that the process has ended, and the treaty has been rejected. Until the Irish parliament decided to try again, that was the situation in Ireland and the red color was appropriate. Since then the Dail has voted (one step in the ratification process), the Seanad has voted (another step in the ratification process), and the second referendum has been set (yet another step in the ratification process). Obviously the ratification process is ongoing. Leaving Ireland red is misinforming the readers of this page. As for your points, I understand that even passing the referendum doesn't end the process - I just think that we should show that the process hasn't stopped. Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the map to include Germany's ratification, which took place yesterday. It was signed by the German President Horst Koehler. Lazyhoser (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a reliable source that contacted the German Foreign Office, the ratification document was 'on its way' to Rome / to be deposited on the same day (Friday, September 25): Die Urkunde sei bereits auf dem Weg nach Rom und werde dort noch heute bei der italienischen Regierung hinterlegt [will be deposited today], hieß es beim Auswärtigen Amt (see here). The ratification process has been completed in Germany. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either the document is in Rome or it isn't in Rome, but can we please try and have consistent information in the table and the map? Yesterday, the map said Germany has deposited the Instrument of Ratification, and the table said it hadn't. Today it's the other way around. Besides, the map now shows Germany in yellow, but it nowhere explains what yellow is supposed to mean. How is anyone supposed to make sense of this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.140.9 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the dust to settle. — Emil J. 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems really important. I shouldn't have to feel like I'm learning calculus from scratch/have to follow half the bluelinks on the introduction/ just to learn the irreducible principles (which must be very few) of what it does. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand it now. Well, enough that I don't care to learn more. I had to read the European Constitution article, the last section of this article, the introduction, the navbox, the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2008.. Damn this stuff is complicated! Could you include a "section for clueless people completely unfamiliar with EU branches/semi-presidential systems and only somewhat familiar with parliaments"? Even your own voters can't understand it, and they already know the basics like what the heck all your Councils and pillars is and why you'd need more Euro things besides the Parliament and Euro Court(s) and now you're planning to add even more stuff.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Picking through the main article is something of a minefield when talking about these two bodies. At times the Council of Ministers is confusingly called the EU Council, why not the normal names it has? "Specificially there are several areas where according to the Basic Law the German representative on the Council must act only on the instruction of the Bundestag and/or the Bundesrat of Germany." As well as the typo on "Specifically", it is not clear which Council this applies to, or is it both?

- "*More powerful Parliament by extending codecision with the Councils to more areas of policy." Councils? Surely not? The European Council has no legislative role in codecision, nor does it gain one (as far as I am aware) under Lisbon. As codecision is a legislative process, which "Councils" are being referred to? It should be made clear.

-"The legislative power and relevance of the directly elected European Parliament would, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, be increased by extending codecision procedure with the Council to new areas of policy." Not clear which council is being referred to. People may not know that only the Council of Ministers takes part in legislative action on the basis of codecision. The section is misleading as people are likely to think you are talking about the European Council (as that is the last mention of "the council" that readers see).

-"The new High Representative would also become a Vice-President of the Commission, the administrator of the European Defence Agency and the Secretary-General of the Council." Again which council?

I think the problem stems from the times the European Council is referred to as "the Council". It is normal for "the Council" to mean the Council of Ministers, but not the European Council. My proposal would be to only refer to "the Council" when talking about the Council of Ministers and NOT to use the expression when referring to the European Council. 81.132.161.64 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion, I would suggest replacing all references to "the Council" by references to "the European Council" and "the Council of the European Union", respectively. As an alternative we could use "the Council of Ministers" for "the Council of the European Union", but that would have to be clearly explained, and it might add to the confusion by adding a third term. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Council of Ministers" is far more widely used and is more self-explanatory (which is probably why journalists prefer this form). I strongly support using this form, perhaps with a pipe trick to the grandiose title. --Red King (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Europa Web site now seems to (increasingly?) use "EU Council" for the institution. Whatever we go for, I am wondering if we should have a sort of glossary, prominently advertised and easily accessible from all relevant articles, showing the various (EU and non-EU) institutions with the official names and the various synonyms, including: European Council; Council of the European Union (EU Council, Council of Ministers; the Council); Council of Europe (independent of the EU); Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers, previously (?) Council of Ministers); Nordic Council of Ministers. I can't think of a very good way of implementing this. Boson (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two choices: a strip [that goes along the bottom of every article (normally unexpanded)] or a side box. Either would lead to a glossary article. I prefer the side box idea. Have a look at Template:Buddhism as a pro-forma. --Red King (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could just add a Glossary line to Template:Politics of the European Union which is already at the side of most articles (including this one). --Red King (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfaumhaukfql/rss2/