Jump to content

Talk:Treaty of Lisbon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick84 (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 26 October 2008 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:European Union

Date of the ratings? Is the article getting better, little by little? Hope so:-) wiki-vr

There is now a draft treaty

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

Ratification in Slovenia

According the Slovenian costitution ([1] article 3, codicil 1), assigns the power of ratifies of the international treatys all' National Assembly, therefore in the regarding table l' iter of it ratifies to remove the reference to the National Council

Constitutional Court

Any idea when a ruling is due from the Czech or German Constitutional Courts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.241.65 (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany probably late Autumn!Olliyeah (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've heard, the Czech court is expected to rule in September or October. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

When is the parliament of Gibraltar due to vote on the Treaty? Does anyone have any news on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.241.65 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for that, too. Sadly I know don't know it.84.134.121.2 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it get a vote? And if it does, does the result make any difference? --Red King (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has a vote, but it only makes a difference on a national level if at all. It has no effect on the EU. —EuropeanElitist™ 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)
The UK has officially ratified the Treaty of Lisbon; though the UK parliament only has limited jurisdiction over the territory of Gibraltar. This requires the treaty to be separately debated and voted on by the Gibraltar parliament. If the parliament fails to pass the treaty then the treaty will not take effect in Gibraltar. This though has no effect on anywhere else in the EU. The UK government could theoretically force its passage by withholding funds and taking back powers etc. This though is unlikely as the parliament is generally rubber stamps EU treaties if they are passed by the UK parliament, even if controversial e.g. the Maastricht treaty, which was highly controversial at the time was easily passed by the then Gibraltar assembly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

Has the president signed the Treaty yet? The 9th September was the deadline for her signature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.241.65 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the 11.84.134.81.242 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this press release. Does that mean she signed or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think no.Max Mux (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she must have done it. Today is the 11.84.134.114.64 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard something?84.134.114.64 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deadline is the 16th September. The constitution of Finland says: "The president shall decide on the confimation within three months of the submission of the act." According to this source, the act was submitted to the government (and the president?) on 16 June.--Glentamara (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She signed it today. [2] — Emil J. 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia

According to the German wikipedia the National Council of Slovenia had to ratify, and it did, the Lisbon Treaty. This happened in the 29th of January 2008, the same day with the National Assembly. I think we should add it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Max Mux (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find any links supporting that this really happened. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands - Estonia - Spain

  • They have deposited on 11th September. [3]

84.134.111.14 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Poland has not yet signed: in the map it should be cyan, not yellow. In fact the President has signed the law that allows him to sign the treaty, which has not been done yet. Could somebody fix the map? Ciao, Sinigagl (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go to the archive and read a long discussion about that subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the archive??? Sinigagl (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here or check at the top of this page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact is that the Polish President has ratified but he is waiting to deposit it to our goverment? This is not what it was written by all the newspapers: we need more sources apart from the polish paper linked in the table. Sinigagl (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medianews "US sabotaged Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland

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

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

Germany? (Green suggest false fact: some countries aren't there yet!)

About the president:

Max Mux (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The news yesterday clearly said he hasn't signed, only given his approval.Max Mux (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It explicitly states that the treaty hasn't been signed yet. —Nightstallion 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Siegel writes it a bit different. My German is not that good to verify it but I think the new link is better than this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2008 (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. Germany has ratified as much as Belgium, Spain and Poland have so far. —EuropeanElitist™ 10:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)
That's all? Köhler is happy to sign the treaty if the Constitutional Court agrees, and yes, it's ratified (ie. parliamentary and senatorial majority), but it's NOT signed! The table says that all countries but Czechnia and Sweden agreed to the treaty in all necessary steps, and that's, by all means, misinformation. The presidents in question will not sign a treaty that is constitutionally questionable, and they say so in the very quotes given here. Sorry, but it's a long way to go before all remaining countries agreed!--FlammingoHey 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, how many of these are actually showing "green lights" correctly??? Is there more wishful thinking like the described in the rest of the table? (Sorry, don't mean to be blunt) --FlammingoHey 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you disagree. Green indicates which part of the procedure is done. Check here at the top of this page where we established a consensus about Poland. The Polish president has signed the treaty. He just refuses to send the papers. The German president signed as well. He is not sending the papers for the same reason above. So, in both countries we are at the last stage of ratification. At least, you had to use the talk page in order to change something that it's there for so long. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. What both have signed are the national laws that implement the treaty in Poland and Germany. That is a necessary national step - the last necessary national step before deposition in Rome. People need to differ between the Lisbon Treaty itself and the laws that the parliaments voted for. There needs to be a law in both countries that introduces the Treaty as binding within the borders of the country. Without signing the law on a national level there will be no treaty within the country, implementation of the law is necessary for the ratification. —EuropeanElitist™ 10:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

Color green in the "At a glance" table

I've just spent a good while trying to force Wikipedia's difficult table coding to not color the border between Spain and Sweden's deposit date cells green. It's harder than you think. But this has got me thinking about the coloring in general. Is the plan to eventually have the entire half of the table green, except for the one red row for the Irish referendum? Is the color green really necessary here, as it slowly takes over the entire column?--Patrick «» 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think after the procedure is done, we can replace it with white. Right now is really helpful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific National Issues

Could someone write up entries for Belgium, Spain, and Gibraltar for this topic? I know we discuss Gibraltar in here, but how about the other two? Paploo (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with Belgium and Spain? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, nothing with Spain, now that they have deposited. Paploo (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...why hasn't Belgium deposited theirs? 150.160.252.34 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For no particular reason. It just takes time. — Emil J. 09:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus?

What is this now with Cyprus? The press release says " Cyprus´ Ambassador to Rome Mrs Athena Mavronicola-Droushioti submitted on 26 August, on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus, the ratification document for the Treaty of Lisbon, signed by the President of the Republic Mr Demetris Christofias.". It's obvious the papers submitted as soon as they were signed. The ratification completed 2 days later. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication whatsoever in the press release that the deposition occured on the same date as the president's signature. For other countries it often took weeks or even months between the two. In fact, it is almost logistically impossible for the document to be signed in Nicosia on the same day as being deposited during a ceremony in Rome. — Emil J. 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press release was on the 28th of August. Two days later. They just underline the fact that they submitted on the 26th -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the press release in Greek: [4]. I won;t insist since inhere the deposition date is given as the 26th. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Deposition

Just a heads up that Belgium deposited on the 15th of October. I'd change the table and map if i could, but its beyond my limited technical capabilities Bernerd (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland II

The page clearly states and shows the the Polish President has not given his assent to the ratification of the treaty. Therefore, Poland is not a country that hasn't simply deposited in Italy, it's pending because the process hasn't finished within the country nor has it been terminated. Am I missing something here? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comment of Europeanelitist above and the discussion we had some time ago. We tried to find many formulas to describe the situation in the table. In fact, until another editors removed the green color from the Presidential assent in Poland, there was a date as well there. The day the President by his signature completed the national part of the ratification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was rather confusing but what I got from it was that he had signed a law that allowed him to sign the treaty but not the treaty. The three news links all stated that he hadn't signed. Am I right in thinking that the same day he signs will be the deposition date? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if someone more expert answers that question. As you may see from the discussion above, I got confused myself. I think what's missing is to sign the final documents submitted to Italy, but this has nothing to do with the national procedure which it's finished when he signed the law. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Therequiembellishere is saying is exactly what I was saying at the end of septemper as you can see up here! Poland should be Light Blue, because the president hasn't signed the treaty yet, but only the bill that allows him to sign the treaty (whenever he will like). Sinigagl (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read, the page should not consider that the Polish president has signed the bill. Here is the article from just this week where he reiterated his decision not to sign the treaty until Ireland has. I've changed the map to correspond with this. I also used a different base SVG for the map, one with an accurate map of Kosovo.--Patrick «» 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the addition of Kosovo. It's not a country recognized by all the countries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain are the only member states who don't. Croatia and Turkey are the candidate states who don't and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are the only potential candidate states who don't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I didn't add Kosovo, it's been in the map since the beginning. I just corrected the borders, which were crudely drawn in the SVG file.--Patrick «» 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already even quoted the German constitution to explain the situation. Same thing applies to Poland. I could quote the Polish constitution, too, but I think it's become useless to me too fight over this, because people to not understand the ratification process anyway. You need to differ between the national necessary steps and the international necessary steps. People act as if signing the law within the country was just an optional part of the process and worthless, when in fact there will NEVER be a treaty if that law is not signed. Signing the law is the final and absolutely necessary step within the national process. It concludes the national process. Without the signature the process on the national level is incomplete. Signing the papers and depositing is a whole different step and belongs in the deposition table column, nowhere else. I do not know what other sort of Presidential Assent people are waiting for than the one in which the President signs the law and therefore explains that this law is constitutional and the country is allowed to sign the treaty. If you want it this way - actually there are two "Presidential Assents" necessary - the one in which the law is signed (national assent), and second the one when he signs the deposition papers (international assent). I do not know why people do not want to understand this simple information. But it's probably all about the confusion the media has caused. But whatever the media says is pointless. What counts is what the law says. —EuropeanElitist™ 07:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) And BTW just FYI: I'm a Law student majoring in European and International Law. —EuropeanElitist™ 07:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

Somebody changed the table and the map again. So it's once more wrong. Well, that's a pity, but we probably aren't going to convince people that only the deposition is missing in Poland, despite it being the fact. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to EuropeanElitist for the clarification from the lawyer’s point of view. The clear message is: “There are two ‘Presidential Assents’ necessary - the one in which the law is signed (national assent), and second the one when he signs the deposition papers (international assent)“. I would add that in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic) “international assent” only takes the place (not the sign of the law). However, this assent is very important.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that the row „presidential assent“ can be understood as his assent as a whole, i.e. including both the national assent – if any – and the international assent. (The other option would be to divide the row „presidential assent“ in some countries into two parts.) It means: My opinion is that both Poland and Germany should be in light blue.--Horaljan (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidential Assents in Germany and Poland are about the same as all of the Royal Assents in other countries, like Spain. They also FIRST sign the law, which is what we marked as Royal Assent so far, and SECOND the King/Queen or someone else - not necessarily the King/Queen in every country (depends on what their constitution says) - signs the papers for the deposition in Rome after signing the law. We so far have NEVER put down the date of when the deposition papers were signed. We do not have the dates of the signatures on those papers, we only have the dates of when the papers were received in Rome. The signature dates do not matter really anyway, because for the deposition only the date of the arrival of the papers in Rome matters.
„presidential assent“ can be understood as his assent as a whole - I would disagree on that, because if you check out the German constitution there are two very different sections that regulate how the President has to sign the law first and later has to sign the international contract, meaning: the Lisbon Treaty. It's not ONE process, but it's two completely different steps. In Poland it's not any different. —EuropeanElitist™ 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)
Here's my issue, this map seems like a nice way to summarize the status in each country. However, I find it misleading to summarize Lech Kaczynski's decision to not sign the document as merely "Not yet deposited", which puts Poland in the same category as Germany, where Horst Köhler does approve. The two situations are not the same, as the map would lead viewers to believe. Secondly, the map should not be in conflict with the table on this page, where the Polish presidential assent is still empty.--Patrick «» 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the table has been restored to its correct form. Regarding the comparison made between Poland and Germany I should say that they are indeed in the same legal situation. The map (and the table too) isn't supposed to give you info on the reasons that stand behind the status of the process but only on the status of the process itself. And Germany and Poland are, whithout any doubt, at the same stage of the process even if there's a huge difference in the political situation. So please don't mix legal and political things. We have a correct place where to insert info regarding the political debate and another place where we put legal infos. Messing it up wouldn't help an accurate representation of the facts. And by the way stop removing the presidential signature date for Poland unless you can prove that the law hasn't been signed. --Nick84 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. —EuropeanElitist™ 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The chamber of debuties has ratified on 1 April 2008. Max Mux (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it in this book:

  • Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2009: Zahlen Daten Fakten

Max Mux (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was just the first reading. Read more about the ratification process in the Czech Republic here.--Glentamara (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The chamber of deputies most definitely did not yet ratify the treaty, it only passed the first reading (which basically just means that the chamber agreed to take a vote on the treaty). — Emil J. 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar and Åland

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

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

Criticism

I suppose there is no criticism against the Treaty's content, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.209.207 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there has been some criticism as, I think, we all know. But we discussed the issue of having a "criticism" section before (see the archives). --Nick84 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council section

The Council section starts

"The remaining part of the Council of the European Union will still be an organised platform of meetings between national ministers of specific departments (e.g. finance- or foreign ministers)."

without first explaining any sort of division. I surmise that this section once followed the European Council section, which states

"The European Council of national heads of government or heads of state (either the prime minister or the president), will officially be separated from the Council of the European Union (national ministers for specific areas of policy)."

Not having followed previous changes, I am not sure how best to fix this. --Boson (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon&oldid=247736755"