Thank you for better organizing my additions and moving some things that were not in the right place. I nevertheless strongly disagree with my contribution being called "POV vandalism": I tried to bring to this article more diverse points of view.

I was not the only one to feel that need for diversity (see above : "why is there no criticism")

In case Lucy Mary would like to erase once again the elements I have re-inserted on the web page, I would appreciate her to discuss it first in the discussion page. (86.197.143.188 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Recently, newspapers have published lots of articles on speculations of what will happen if

• there is a "no" vote in Dublin this week, or
• Lech Kaczyński won't ratify the treaty before spring 2010, or
• Václav Klaus won't ratify the treaty before spring 2010, and
• the Tory party win the next UK general elections.

The Tory party have promised a UK (+ Gibraltar?) referendum should the treaty not be ratified in all EU countries, and a majority of the UK public is likely to vote no. Since there is currently so much speculation on this matter, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, because wiki is about facts, not speculation. The UK has already ratified the treaty and there is nothing the Tories can do about it. Only if the treaty fails, a new treaty (if such one could come forward) could be subject to a treaty. Also, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified (which will happen before year's end if Ireland votes yes), then the UK would have the chance to have a referendum on leaving the EU. But again, that is speculation and doesn't belong into this article. P.S. Both the Polish President and Czech President have stated that they will ratify the treaty if Ireland says yes. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did Czech President stated that he will ratify the treaty if Ireland says yes?--Horaljan (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [7] "CZECH PRESIDENT Vaclav Klaus has signaled he will not sign the Lisbon treaty unless it is ratified by Ireland, even if his country's top court rules it is line with Czech law. "Only afterwards it would be the presidential signature's turn. I have no reason to be another European to urge Ireland to do something. Simply, no change can occur without Ireland changing its position," said Mr Klaus... Same for the Polish president.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the converse implication, you are misinterpreting it. Klaus says here that Irish ratification is a necessary, rather than sufficient, condition for his own signature. Klaus also mentioned other necessary conditions at various times, the most recent being resolution of the new complaint at the Constitutional Court, and that's not going to happen any time soon. — Emil J. 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is about facts, and it is a fact that there currently are lots of newspaper articles speculating on this. I'm not sure in which way it wouldn't be factual to mention that other people speculate about things. And as far as I know, Václav Klaus has only stated that an Irish yes is one condition for signing, not that it is the only condition, whereas I think Lech Kaczyński has stated that an Irish yes is the one and only condition for ratifying. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reread wiki guidelines. Wiki may not be used to state speculation, even if you say it's just speculation. You report facts, not the fact that there is speculation about something. If we were to go down that road, people could start to present the fact that they speculate about something... which would be a total mess. The only fact that really matters for this article is that the UK has ratified the Lisbon Treaty + there really is nothing British politicians can do about that now. They can hold a referendum on the next treaty, not on this one. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what the referendum promised by the British Conservatives would be about. The British instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is already signed by Queen Elizabeth II and deposited in Rome. At this point, the ratification cannot be rescinded. Britain is already a party to the treaty, as are the other signatory States that have ratified it, even if the ratifications have not yet been completed by all Member States, and even if the treaty has not entered into force yet. At this point, Britain can no longer take back its ratification, that has been already deposited with the Italian Government. What it can do at this point (i.e., now that the British ratification is irreversible under international law), is to hold a referendum on leaving the European Union should the Treaty of Lisbon enter into force. It is within the sovereignty of any member State to leave the EU (which entails the denounciation of all the treaties upon which the Union is founded). Britain can withdraw from the EU, and thus withdraw from the treaties; but it cannot pretend that it has not ratified them. And a ratification, once given, cannot be rescinded. Even if Britain were to leave the EU today (and thus cease being a party to the treaties), it is a fact that it has already ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, and so that ratification, as one of the preconditions for the Treaty to enter into force, is a precondition that has already been met, and there is nothing Britain can do to change that fact. The pretense that a country can take back a ratification freely just because the treaty has not yet entered into force is rubbish in the eyes of international law.--189.4.208.67 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that clear. Though it may be the case that ratification is complete, a state's consent to be bound is normally conditional on the treaty coming into force. Before that time the state may possibly withdraw its consent to be bound, and even restate its consent to be bound with reservations. That's when it starts to get complicated. In any case, the legal situation is sufficiently complicated that Wikipedia cannot make any assumptions as to what is legally possible.--Boson (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From BBC [8]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition given on [9], the neutral point of view "requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material".

The present article describes the Treaty of Lisbon in a overall positive tone, without dealing with problems, criticism, internal or external contradictions. This qouestion was already raised on this discussion page (see Why is there no criticism). Other wikipedia articles about the Lisbon Treaty in other languages have a stable "criticism section", that is not called "non neutral". I wonder why that is not possible on the english speaking wikipedia?

"Neutrality of point of view" means "presenting fairly majority- and significant-minority point of view", not erasing all modifications without making any difference and calling them "POV". I will then, following the german speaking wikipedia page about Lisbon Treaty create a new section called "criticism", in order that all point of views are represented. Some other addings I made are just facts, that is a "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute". I will let them in the sections where they were.

If you don't agree with anyting, please take a bit of your time to discuss it on this page. (10:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.235.219 (talk)

You may add material provided that is properly cited from notable sources and is based on reality. You may not add your own opinion. This is exactly as for every other article on Wikipedia. --Red King (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition any opinion cited in the article must be presented as such, attributed and represent a mainstream and not a fringe opinion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing "Criticism on the Lisbon Treaty" section until each and every sentence get a citation from a primary reliable source. Below a short list of problems:

• "it was said" by who? provide a link or a DOI for a published paper
• "They bring little improvement about democracy...." Is this the opinion of the uncited authorities or a statement of facts?
• "Many analysts add" Who? A link should be provided! What does it mean "many" ?
• "as ruled by the German Constitutional Court about the Lisbon Treaty ratification" - provide a link to the sentence in which the German C.C. says that EU institutions are "out of the citizen’s control, either at the European or the national level, through the Parliaments"
• "This makes suspicion grow about the influence of the lobbies." Who is getting suspicious?
• "The fact that the treaty is a complex text makes it difficult to understand by the citizens." lack of citation (BTW anything to be said about the consolidated text published in the EU official journal?)
• "This was affirmed by 22% of the voters who voted no in 2008." IRISH should be inserted somewhere (not using capital case of course).
• "was criticized as a lack of legitimity, particularly in France and in the Netherlands" Again, who criticized, when, how ?
• "the governments decided" this statement is false.
• Criticism about so called "militarism" section please provide a full, not manipulated and without omission, quote of the whole article(s) you are quoting in this barbarous way. BTW just to help you:

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

• "Lisbon Treaty doesn’t modify the main orientations of European policies (notably about currency, trade and competition)." Which authorities do support this opinion? Why this is written as if it were a fact?
• "was also criticized" by?

Please solve all these problems before adding anything to the article or it will be deleted as it can be considered POV vandalism. --Nick84 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way people deal with this kind of issue is that they put a draft text in their sandbox and and invite people to determine whether it is good enough to go in the article, where "good enough" means sufficiently NPOV and properly cited. [The referenced material doesn't have to be neutral, just the way we describe it]. Of course to get a sandbox you (the user at 86.200.235.219) need to register. Doint that will also give you your own talk page where you can discuss things off stage. --Red King (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with having consultative "ratifications" in this article but, as long as they're there...

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

"With the ordinance for applying the Treaty of Accession 2005^[1] the European Communities Ordinance of 1972 was changed so that "any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom."^[2], thus the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by the United Kingdom also applies to Gibraltar.^[3]

1. ^ European Communities Ordinance ammendmend 28/2006
2. ^ Consolidated version of the European Communities Act (1972-18) (Gib.), as ammended up to September 2009 Section 2.(1)(o)
3. ^ Gibraltar & Lisbon Treaty, Ralf Grahn

The Treaty of Lisbon is neither a "Treaty entered into by any of the Communities" nor "a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties", and could not come under this clause, which as far as I can see only applies to treaties concluded as part of the EU foreign relations. In fact, none of the sources quoted support what the paragraph asserts. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of your current revision (that Gibraltar is in similar position to Aland - ToL can enter into force without its ratification/internal procedure, but will not apply to it in this case). When someone removed Gibraltar from the table of consultative votes (and if you insist on your revision - please add it in the table after Aland - that's what I was going to do then) I tought to put it back in, but before doing this I opened Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive_3#Consultative_votes.

There in the second link (citation 3 here above) you see that it is stated that the Gibraltar government responded that it does not need to ratify the treaty and that UK ratification is sufficient (something along these lines). That seemed strange to me - as you see (in the link for Gibraltar Laws) for the previous treaties and enlargements there were specific Gibraltar procedures, and as noted in the Treaty of Accession 2005 article - Gibraltar ratification is listed below UK just as Aland is listed below Finland, etc.

Then I saw the quoted text in the 2006 ammendment and IMHO it confirms the Grahn source - eg. ToL will enter into force for Gibraltar along with the UK entry into-force automaticaly, without additional Gibraltar acts.

I see that you don't agree with this, but let me explain my reasoning: The 1972 ordinance (later ammended multiple times and renamed to Act) basicaly entacts that in Gibraltar will be enforced a particular set of Treaties and also entacts that there are exemptions in their application (like non-participation in EU VAT, etc.). This set of treaties (parts of treaties where there are some exemptions) is listed in details in paragraph 2. It starts with the pre-1972 treaties (listed in the separate "Schedule 1"), the UK accession treaties and then with subsequent ammendments in the years the list defining the term Treaties in the act grows to include the next enlargement treaties, ammendment treaties, EEA foundation treaty, etc. The 2006 ammendment besides the BG/RO enlargemnt treaty added the quote we discuss now.

There is no mention in the quote/ammendment of "EU foreign relations" (I think because it covers not only these cases, but also others). Some commas/brackets are appearently missing and that's why it looks very tangled - it handles multiple possible scenarious in a single sentence. If we add some commas/brackets for clarity the quote will be as follows: 'any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States), or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom.' "any of the Communities" obviously means EURATOM or European Community (as defined in sentence 1 of paragraph 2 - there ECSC is also listed, but it is currently merged into the EC). The expretion "with or without any of the member States" covers both cases of Community treaties - these that cover only Community maters (like pure trade agreements) and thus are signed only by the EC without the member states and the cases where the treaty covers both EC competencies and member state competencies - such treaties are signed by the member states and the EC (like SAA pacts with the Balkan states). So up to here we both agree that treaties between the EC(with or without member states) and a foreign states are covered by the quote.

The second part deals with (re-phrased) 'any other Treaty entered into, by the United Kingdom, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties'. Here any of the the Treaties is defined (by paragraph 2) as all treaties listed above in the paragraph above the quote (points (a) to (n) plus those from Schedule 1 - I think that this covers pratctically all of these), so this includes the Treaty on European Union (paragraph 2(1)(k)) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (schedule 1, point 2).

The full name of the Treaty of Lisbon is "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community" - so it fits the definition of 'a treaty ancillary to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community', right? If not, please explain what means "a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties". Alinor (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancillary means secondary and supporting, and would (probably) include stuff like the Brussels Convention and EU trade agreements. But I gather that the phrase ("any other treaty...") has been copied-and-pasted from the corresponding British statute. If the UK proper needs to amend its law for Lisbon to give Lisbon force in domestic law, so does Gibraltar.

Under the dualist conception of international law which is used in the UK and Gibraltar, a treaty can be ratified without being incorporated into domestic law. The UK deal with Gibraltar's foreign relations and signed Lisbon on Gibraltar's behalf. As a consequence it applies to Gib in international law. But the UK Parliament ratification only applies to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the Gibraltarians need their own local law. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I see it - the question is if "amending" treaty is considered as "ancillary" to the treaty it ammends. According to your description it is not, thus we should keep Gibraltar listed in the second table. (If amending=ancillary then we should remove it and put back a rephrased explanation with the quote.) Alinor (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way out of hands. The only support for the theory that Gibraltar has to vote separately on the treaty is an interpretation of another law by some Wikipedia user. It's not reported in any other media or government source. We even have a source (itself not terribly reliable, though) explicitly saying that WP is wrong on this account. As such, keeping it in the article is a blatant violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS. We are not supposed to discuss here what is or is not ancillary, whatever that means; if you claim that the UK ratification of the Lisbon treaty does not apply to Gibraltar, find a reputable source saying so, and only then it can be added to the article. — Emil J. 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said that the UK's ratification doesn't apply to Gibraltar, but owing the the UK and Gibraltar's dualist approach to international both have to pass domestic legislation incorporating if a treaty, such as the Lisbon Treaty, is to be incorporated into their respective domestic laws. In the case of Gibraltar this is, essentially, a technical requirement.

If you wish to remove Gibraltar, it's no sweat of my back. But coincidentally where are the sources for Aland? I can't see anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty that conditions its application to Aland. As far as I can see, Finland signed the treaty for the whole of its territory and the treaty will apply to Aland when it comes into force. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly explicit and recent source for Åland is right there in our table: [10]. — Emil J. 12:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, Ireland ratified, meaning "has not been ratified by all" (the lead, footnote #1, etc.) must be altered:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/03/world/AP-EU-Ireland-EU-Treaty.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.201.156 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland has not ratified yet. There is still a process to go through. It will take a week or two. It may even take longer than that if a legal challenge is lodged against the result. Moreover Poland and the Czech Republic have yet to ratify either. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I shouldn't change the map to include Ireland? TastyCakes (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the map should show Ireland, along with Poland and the Czech Republic as countries where the ratification process is on-going. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It hinges on the Kaczynski twins agreeing and President Klaus not excessively hindering things, as well as Ireland making a document deposit with the Italian government. — 173.19.201.156 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it actually hinges only on one Kaczynski - the president, on Klaus and on the Irish parliament and Irish head of state to complete the process. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue to add this to the section on specific ratification issues in the Czech Republic: It is possible that the Czech government files a complaint against the Czech president for inactivity. The threat alone to do so has already worked for another international treaty ratification - the acknowledgement of the ICC. The possibility to do this is detailed here: [11]. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be needed. According to the (London) Times, the Czech president has fairly clearly indicated his intention to sign, saying "the Czech President warned David Cameron that it was “too late” for him to stop the document taking effect."Too late for the Tories: Czechs dash hopes of delaying EU treaty --Red King (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Finnish newspiece here [12]. Just to inform you what's going on: I added the mid-November date to the template, because we used to have the coming dates before the treaty was ratified in other parliaments as well. While the treaty will have to have 2/3 of the parliament's support in Åland, it is likely to pass in the 30 seat parliament even if there were some tough negotiations. Provincial Governor Lindbäck believes opponents of the treaty will have atleast 5 of the 30 seats. While Treaty of Lisbon will come into effect even without Åland's approval, it may even lead to the exemption of Åland from the whole union, as Finland would be penalised for not putting directives into effect in its territory.

They will vote on the issue between 10th and 15th November. Weird if similar news aren't heard from Gibraltar? --Pudeo' 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up this issue here where it seems that Gibraltar doesn't vote on Lisbon. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this discussion of the same matter Talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon#Gibraltar. Alinor (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what Lindbäck says about Åland since the interview is in Finnish, but there is no timetable set in the parliament for any vote. It will begin its autumn sessions on 2 November 2009, and then we'll see what happens. Hawklord (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no date has been set. However, as you mentioned they begin their sessions in November, Lindbäck says it's likely it's one of the top priorities and will be voted on between 10th and 15th November.--Pudeo' 11:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the comment in the article asserting that "Ireland has been the only member state to hold a
referendum on the treaty," is incorrect. France also held referendum as well as at least one
other /member state, which, at the moment I cannot recall. Please correct your data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.204.189 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are perhaps thinking of the Constitution (different treaty).--Boson (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. — Emil J. 10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know so little about this subject that I won't edit what seems to be a typo on the year under the Timetable section, but it says elsewhere that it's 1-1-2010 (which makes "intended" make more sense.) (Sh/C)ould someone with more authority correct this? PJV (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date is correct, this was the original intention when the treaty was signed. Obviously, we are past that date, so it's no longer possible to achieve. — Emil J. 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091009/tpl-uk-eu-lisbon-czech-q-a-43a8d4f.html

Apparently he wants opt outs before signing.Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a source that states the ratification documents have been deposited in Rome. We should refrain from altering the table to reflect final deposition until we have a source for that. The president's signature on the instrument of ratification is not enough, the phsycial presence of the documents in Rome is key. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. Unfortunately there's been a fair bit of jumping the gun. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change maps without reading the summary: "Green: Ratified (signed by head of state)". --Kolja21 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that the map could be entirely green and still no be into force as the instruments of ratification are lacking doesn't bother you? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause not. In this map green stands for "signed by head of state". This map is used in multiple wikipedias. So if you don't like this map, use an other one. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now corrected the image summary and the image (again). Deposition with Italian government is the final step in the ratification process. Signing by Head of State is only the second last. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the summary - and a lot of articles had been wrong for a few hours. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, a lot of countries have not had the treaty ratified by the head of state. For example, no laws or treaties whatsoever are ratified by the Swedish head of state. Instead, the parliament takes care of those things. So if green means "ratified by head of state", then Sweden needs to be in another colour. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Poland has signed and ratified the Lisbon treaty. This is confirmed by BBC News and other news sources, see here for conformation. This leaves Czech Republic not yet ratified the Lisbon treaty. Please update the map again, along with the correct section of the article. Jonfr (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not until they've lodged their instrument of ratification they haven't. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exacly what they did do today. The Poland has made the final step in the process, there are no others to take. There are plenty of news sources that affirm this, here is one of them, here is a other one. The EU web page has not been updated due to the weekend. I expect it to be updated on Monday. Jonfr (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't bothering about legalities, they are trying to talk about political realities. Here at wikipedia we are more precise than the mainstream media, we care about the law. Article that state Ireland has ratified the Treaty are as wrong as articles that say Poland has. Ireland needs votes in their parliaments and the assent of the head of state + deposition. Poland has to deposit the ratification documents in Rome - no source has yet confirmed that. These are required steps, what the mainstream media says is irrelevant, only official sources (EU website or Polish foreign ministry etc.) should be used and the actual ratification steps should be observed. Regarding Poland, once a person can cite a source that claims the documents have been deposited, we should change the table and map. If we do it before then, we are jumping the gun. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! You might as well wait until the document hanging on a wall in the Italian government. :d Poland has finally ratified yesterday. No paranoia please! Incidentally, the German document has not yet arrived in Rome too. No normal thinking person would question though that Germany has ratified. --Tolgawingies (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has arrived, the official source cited above states, that the German ratification was deposited the same day it was signed. Yes, it is political reality that Poland has already ratified, but we'll need to be as accurate as possible with the legalities (because after all, political reality is also that Ireland will certainly ratify, but the process will take a little time). When the official page is again updated with the confirmation of the date of deposition of the Polish ratification document, then we're free to update. Until then, what's the need to hurry? The article already provides all the relevant information about the current situation, and that should be all that counts.

I totally agree with Themanwithoutapast. To tell that the country has completed all the necessary procedures it requires to ratify, sign (if necessary under the national law) and deposit the treaty by that country. Poland has ratified and signed the treaty, but it has not deposited it. Saying that "Germany has deposited the treaty in the same day it has ratified/signed it" doesn't prove Poland has done the same in any way. We don't play a lottery here. Only then the deposition will be a known fact it will be possible to respectively edit the map. Plus I also agree that if the map might be all green but still not all the procedures can be finished that are required for the treaty to come into force, this would be misleading. So if you want to change the description of the map I suggest this class.: "All procedures have been finished"; "Deposition required"; "Sign of the head of state necessary"; "Ratification in progress"; "Ratification cancelled". All the other Wiki's articles should be changed respectively. Giedrius S. (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--131.188.24.174 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone remember this page? Germany has deposited as of 25 September, Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic are still pending. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the information about Ireland can be updated:

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20091008.XML&Dail=30&Ex=All&Page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.38.121 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite yet. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please update the article to explain what remains to happen in Ireland? For someone who is not very much into Irish politics (like me), the situation is rather confusing:

• The table lists two remaining "presidential assents", but I cannot tell a difference between the two.
• The table says the Dáil and Seanad must pass a "statute bill". If the debate from the link above was not about the statute bill (what was it about?), then something is missing in the table. Otherwise the line could be made green.

Maybe someone can add a little info on these points. --Berntie (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure even that many people who are involved in Irish politics know this. Normally it's the kind of technical stuff I'd prefer to out of the articles, but here it is for anyone who's interested:

Due to a Supreme Court decision certain changes to the EU treaties may require an amendment to the Constitution. These amendments have, thus far, come in the form of authorisations to ratify a certain treaty: much along the lines of: "The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, agreed signed ...". The procedure follows is this:

1. The Dail and Senate debate and pass a bill to amend the Constitution. The bill, is passed in a referendum, will authorise the state to ratify the treaty, but it doesn't do anything else to progress that ratification.

2. The referendum is held (2 October) and the official results are published in the official gazette (this was done on 6 October).

3. Within a week of the results being published in the gazette, a legal objection (called a "referendum petition") may be lodged with the High Court. If no objections are lodged the President will sign the bill. The last day for objections is tomorrow (12 October). If there are no objections the President will sign the bill into law on Tuesday (13 October).

4. Dail Eireann approve the terms of the treaty by resolution. This is required for all treaties which may have an impact on public funds, but has no other legal consequences. (In fact, this has already been done.)

5. The Dail and Senate debate and pass an ordinary bill. This bill will amend or replace (it hasn't been published yet) the European Communities Act, 1972. Ireland is a dualist state and this act will incorporate the Lisbon Treaty into our domestic law.

6. The President signs the bill, any questions over its constitutionality having been satisfied by the amendment to the Constitution.

7. The instrument of ratification will be prepared, signed by the President and sent to Rome. Once there it will be deposited with the Italian government and the process is complete.

It should be all over before the end of the month. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so far so good. That means the above link ([13]) concerns point 4. Shouldn't we add another line (like "Dáil resolution" or something) to Ireland in the "At a glance" table? --Berntie (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table tells that Polish Presidential Assent was granted on 9 April 2008. But the Polish president also did something today. I realise that he did something on both dates, so shouldn't both of them be mentioned somehow, since both seem to be related to the ratification process? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Today's (10 October) signature is the authorization for deposition. For simplicity's sake this is not shown, merely the actual deposition (which usually occurs the same day or a few days later). Unfortunately there has been continuous confusion about these signatures (see archives). Khajidha (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is the presidential assent (to a bill approving the treaty), another thing is the presidential signature of the country's intrument of ratification. The first signature is part of the internal constitutional procedure of the country in question, whereby the bill approving of the treaty, passed by the Houses of Parliament, becomes law. The second is a signature on a document of international character, usually signed by each country's Head of State, announcing to the other parties that the country in question (having completed its internal constitutional procedures that are required to authorize ratification), thereby ratifies and binds itself to the treaty, solemnly promissing to carry out its obligations under the same faithfully. That document is only issued after all steps required by the country's constitutional norms as a precondition for ratification have been met. And then there is one final step, that is the delivery of the istrument of ratification to the Government that has been appointed to fullfil the role of depository of all instruments of ratification (the Italian Goverment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.208.67 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When does Poland plan to deposit the treaty to the Italian government? Any specific date? —Terrence and Phillip 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably tomorrow. I imagine the Italian foreign ministry was closed for the weekend. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has now deposited its ratification instrument to Rome. 204.108.96.21 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some German politicans frustrated over Klaus's stuborness want to oust Klaus from the ratification process or kick out the Czech Republic itself from the EU. Article here While there is discussion to have the Czech prime minister sign the treaty instead, is it possible one's defiance could result in his whole country expelled from the EU? 204.108.96.21 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of expelling the Czech republic from the EU - and no German politician brought up this topic. The Times article is just one of many ways of the British conservative media to add some fuel to the Lisbon debate. --DaQuirin (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there is no defiance here in the strict sense because nobody can order Czech Republic to ratify the Treaty. If the Czechs decide to block the ratification, they have full right to do so. --Botev (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: the Czechs, as represented by their democratically elected parliament, decided that they agree with the treaty. It's one madman who tries to block it. — Emil J. 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that man is the president, and has the authority to do it. His signature is after all needed on the ratification instrument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.208.67 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I tried to draft something about Klaus refusal to sign and request for an opt-out. I post it here since I suspect someone could say it contains original research... Feel free to use it:

Beside the constitutional challenge president Klaus, notwithstanding Czech parliament approval of the treaty, asked for an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. He said that, were the charter to gain full legal strength, it would jeopardize Beneš decrees^[1], and in particular the decree that confiscated, without giving compensation, the properties of Germans and Hungarians during WWII. These decrees are still part of the domestic law of both Czech Republic and Slovakia (the latter not having requested any exemption from the charter). It should be noted that this argument had been already invoked by right wind populists^[2], when both countries were ready to accede to the European Union. In 2002 the EU Commission asked a legal opinion on compatibility of the decrees with the EU treaties. In the opinion^[3] it was argued that, were the Beneš decrees enacted today, they would breach EU treaties, but since they were enacted in 1945 their status would have been unaffected. The opinion quotes a sentence on this subject by the European Court of Human Rights in order to explain that, even if the EU, as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, recognizes the right to ownership as a fundamental right, the treaties cannot have a retroactive effect:

In the opinion it's also noted that, even if those clause concerning property rights were enforceable, EU would not have any say on this as the Treaty establishing the European Community explicitly states (art. 295) that

This clause has been slightly reworded by the Lisbon Treaty in order to make it referring to both the TEU and TFEU treaties and is going to become art. 345 TFEU.

--Nick84 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to diminish your effort or research on the topic, but I think this is just too much information for the article, which is itself already much too long for wiki standards. The article already notes that there is an issue with Klaus' signature. I don't think it is warranted to explain things beyond that Klaus' has demanded certain opt-outs from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. His motives aren't clear, despite the speculation that you explain in detail. Anyway, I doubt Klaus will achieve anything anyway. There are legal ways to compel him to sign the treaty (mentioned above on this talk page). I doubt however things will go that way, after the Constitutional Court rejects the second challenge in the next weeks, Klaus will very likely sign the treaty considering political and legal realities in the Czech Republic. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus is at it again, this time reaching Wikipedia's current event portal. This article hints that the chances of Klaus signing the treaty may not happen, even if the Czech Republic is given an opt-out. —Terrence and Phillip 08:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Czech press is sceptical about veracity of the Times' story.[14] — Emil J. 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Themanwithoutapast Article length is another reason that made me post here rather than edit the article. Anyway I think that we should say something (edit: something more) about this "opt-out" request. --Nick84 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can always create Poland and the Lisbon Treaty. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe even Czech Republic and the Lisbon Treaty -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I got confused with all these repeated questions about Poland. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about moving all the national issues with ratification in a separate article? --Nick84 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. The ratification part is already way too long. Moving it to a separate article while keeping a short summary here would be better. People who just want to get an overview of what the Reform Treaty is might not want to see lengthy sections on signatures of various presidents or Irish referenda. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The article's length is over-inflated, mostly due to the ratification part. It would be better for the rader if this could be split into subarticles. —Terrence and Phillip 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has led to a substantial reduction in the size of the article and improved readability at least as far as I am concerned. Given that only Ireland and the Czech Republic are still outstanding, I think it was also a prudent move. I have expanded the lead in to the old ratification section explaining the ratification process and adding details of what is still outstanding. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been done with more precision. Just two examples: the involvement of national constitutional courts (Germany) is omitted. Too much weight is given to the "deposition", called here the international ratification process - in reality, it's much easier: once the ratification process is over, the instrument of ratification is deposited... --DaQuirin (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fell free to add information regarding constitutional court challenges. They are however not part of the legal ratification process, so we would require a separate section on them. Regarding "deposition", I am not quite sure what you mean. The international ratification process requires several steps, physical deposition of the documents is the last one. I think it is necessary to explain that someone has to authorize the physical deposition first. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that the ratification process has both legal and political implications, as we now see with the Czech part of the story. The decision of the Karlsruhe court was above all the legal precondition for the end of the ratification process in Germany, once the challenges had been made. As for Germany, the Karlsruhe decision will heavily influence the future interpretation of the Lisbon treaty. And what do you mean exactly with the international ratification process and the strange division between two main processes: A. the national ratification process and B. the international ratification process (deposition)? There is only one ratification process in each country. After its completion, the instrument of ratification is to be deposited - and that's it. There is no "second process". --DaQuirin (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German constitutional court decision has only implications for Germany. It had no implications for Germany's ratification procedure, the treaty was ratified "as is." The international ratification process, in contrast to the national ratification process, is a two-step process requiring the authorization of the deposition of the instrument of ratification by the relevant national authority and the actual physical deposition. It can only start once the national ratification process in a member state has been completed. Anyway, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. You aren't actually pointing out any errors in the explanation, are you? If you think the ratification process required to be completed by each member state isn't described clear enough, you are certainly free to make changes to the explanation. Cheers, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, you have a special interest here for the deposition aspect - which is indeed a technical aspect of the procedure, once the ratification process is over. Contrary to the political problems involved (in Poland and the Czech Republic), it was of minor importance here. The controversial interpretation of the Lisbon treaty by the German court is an important legal document and will certainly influence the understanding and the intepretation of the Treaty. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deposition is an important part of the process as clearly shown by the ratification process in Poland (not sure why you mention the Czech Republic as well in this regard). The decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht is certainly important for German lawyers in Germany dealing with German constitutional law, it has however no bearing on the ratification process and certainly no influence on the interpretation of the treaty within Europe in general. I consider the sentences in the ratification section in the article dealing with the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht therefore redundant to the separate section on constitutional challenges in the article. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deposition is an important part - well, the Polish president had political considerations to stop the procedure (the second Irish referendum) that should be mentioned because otherwise the part is unclear. Maybe you should accept that an important Treaty like this is a legal document of course, but its creation, ratification and interpretation are controlled or even dominated by political considerations. Instead of the textbook explanations about ratification processes in general, we should focus on the actual problems and the (summarized) history of the yet unfinished Lisbon ratification process: referendums in Ireland, the Court decision in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic. Now, when we have a separate part on the interpretation of the treaty, it's even better, and there is no redundance in separating the history of the ratification process and the "interpretation of the treaty". Besides, I think, that the raging debate on a future Lisbon or "Post-Lisbon referendum" in Britain should be mentioned. Since we do not have a "Critics section" on Lisbon, it's difficult to find a place... --DaQuirin (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland has fully completed the process of surrender to the Lisbon Treaty. The country's president signed the document, making it legally binding. [15] Please, correct the map. --Lumidek (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the Irish president only signed the bill that changes the Irish constitution. They still need to ratify the treaty in parliament, have another presidential assent and deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome. Will take at least until the end of the month if not longer. 77.116.31.197 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the clarify tag from the part about the democratic deficit. If someone needs more clarification, he/she can look into the reference at the end of the sentence and will find in the first section with the word "deficit":

The further development of the competences of the European Parliament can reduce, but not completely fill, the gap between the extent of the decision-making power of the Union’s institutions and the citizens’ democratic power of action in the Member States. Neither as regards its composition nor its position in the European competence structure is the European Parliament sufficiently prepared to take representative and assignable majority decisions as uniform decisions on political direction. Measured against requirements placed on democracy in states, its election does not take due account of equality, and it is not competent to take authoritative decisions on political direction in the context of the supranational balancing of interests between the states. It therefore cannot support a parliamentary government and organise itself with regard to party politics in the system of government and opposition in such a way that a decision on political direction taken by the European electorate could have a politically decisive effect. Due to this structural democratic deficit, which cannot be resolved in an association of sovereign national states (Staatenverbund), further steps of integration that go beyond the status quo may undermine neither the States’ political power of action nor the principle of conferral.

Please see the discussion I have started at File_talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg#New_colours. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To use the German recycling "green point" in this graph, seems quite silly to me. --ALE! (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has returned the mistake in the article that claimed that the treaty "will" do the things written in it. That's incorrect because such a statement seems to imply that the treaty will be adopted which is not known at this moment. Many signs indicate that the treaty will never be adopted.

I urge all editors to avoid excessive speculation and pushing NPOV. Thanks, LM --Lumidek (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of POV but one of grammar: if ratified, the treaty will amend the treaties it is meant to amend.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cyrille, except that the sentence "If ratified" was added by me. --Lumidek (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me a treaty is void until ratified, so this "if ratified" is redundant. I left the "if" thinking it would be seen as an acceptable compromise, and the matter left there. Obviously I was wrong.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]