Talk:Treaty of Lisbon

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

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

Topolanek fell today

The Czech govt lost a no-confidence vote today. Lisbon still has to pass in the Senate before the Czechs ratify. What are the implications of Topolánek's fall regarding Czech ratification of Lisbon? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any direct implications. The government is not involved in the ratification process. The no-confidence vote may eventually (in the order of months) lead to a snap election to the Chamber of Deputies, but the Chamber has already ratified the treaty, it does not affect the Senate. — Emil J. 13:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Some senators, including Bedřich Moldan, think on the contrary that the no-confidence vote increased the chances of the Lisbon treaty, because it undermined the authority of Václav Klaus[2]. Note also that Vondra was speaking right after the vote, so it was more an emotional slap in the face of Social Democrats from a disgruntled minister rather than an accurate analysis of the situation. That is to say, commentators have differing opinions on the influence of the no-confidence vote on the ratification of the treaty, no one really knows.

The Senate caucus of the Civic Democrats met today to discuss their stance on the Lisbon treaty, but the result was inconclusive.[3] Some support it, some reject it, and many senators do not have a clear opinion yet, and will probably decide only just before the vote. — Emil J. 14:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this happening? Or does the proposed appointment of Jan Fischer mean that it isn't happening? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not happening. The President already announced that he will officially appoint Fischer as the Prime Minister this afternoon. — Emil J. 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Last minute update: today's edition of the Hospodářské noviny daily newspaper claims to have a list of at least 49 senators (which is the required 60% qualified majority to approve an international treaty) who decided to support the Lisbon treaty in the Wednesday vote[4][5], hence there is a good chance that the treaty will pass in the Czech Senate. — Emil J. 10:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar and Aland

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

Gibraltar does not ratify international treaties as the UK is responsible for their foreign/external affairs. See here: http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/gibraltar-lisbon-treaty.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.16.207 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

It seems that they don't vote based on that link. Does anyone else know otherwise? Is there any other link to say otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.226.49 (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please erase it according to the information above.Max Mux (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do it!Max Mux (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratified by 26/27 member states

The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by the senators/MPs of every country except Ireland.

A number of countries have not actually signed it yet e.g. Poland but that's because their president is kicking up a fuss. This should be added in. mspence835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.26 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not correct. In Germany the treaty is not signed by the Bundespräsident yet. He will sign the treaty if the Bundesverfassungsgericht (federal court) find it conform with the Grundgesetz (constitution) - but thats not done so far because there are some lawsuit pending. The treaty is not ratified in Germany. --Martin H. (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again. The internal process is over. The external process (deposition) is not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A little help with the map

Oh what to do?

So the Czech Republic Senate passes the treaty, and now we have four versions of the "At a glance" map to choose from. First is EmilJ who would seemingly keep the map the same, with the Czechs in dark blue. Next today was Ssolbergj and Kolja21 who would have Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic all as yellow. Then we got Schokotrunk who would have all three countries as light blue. I would keep Germany and Poland as yellow and update the Czech Republic to light blue. So pick your poison based on who you want to argue with.--Patrick «» 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I left it dark blue only because it seemed pointless to change the colour when either light or dark blue is used only for one country on the map. However, if you want to stick to the legend at File:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg, then your version with Czech Republic light blue (per today's parliament approval) and Germany and Poland yellow (per the countless discussions on this talk page) is indeed the correct one. — Emil J. 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. You can leave it as dark blue if that's a nicer shade, but then we should look to change the legend on each Wikipedia language where the map is used. Not the worst task, but perhaps an unnecessary one.--Patrick «» 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It took about 10 seconds to change the Czech color in the caption to 0085b8 in the English version and I believe that it could be even faster for other languages. ;-) Probably faster than to recreate an old/new picture. --Lumidek (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No point to make a new colour for just one country because it wasn't said when the law will be signed. That is, if Czech Republic is a parliamentary democracy, president can't hold indefinitely a law approved by two chambers of the Czech parliament. But let's see if there will be more comments of the case in the future. --Pudeo' 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the Czech president can do what you think he cannot. You are invited to read the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as approved by the Parliament of the Czech Republic [6]. Article 63 (1) says that the president a) represents the State with respect to other countries, b) negotiates and ratifies international treaties; he may delegate the negotiation of international treaties to the Government or, subject to the Government consent, to its individual members.--Lumidek (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We have four different situations and we need four different colours: deposition, ratification and not deposition (Germany, Poland), ratification only from parliament (Czech reb.) , unauthorized (Ireland). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? No deposition is because the presidents have not officially signed them and thus not deposited. The situation is the same in all three countries. --Pudeo' 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany and Poland the internal part of the process is complete. The president of the Czech Reb. didn't grand his approval yet. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, please see the new section below. They are not deposited for a reason. --Pudeo' 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think three colours are ok: approved (by parliament), deposited and not authorised. As regards the colours I preferred yellow to pale blue for a pure aesthetic reason. Ah please in the section "ratification", there is written: "Hungary was the first to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon on 17 December 2007. Since that date, according to the official information from the European Union[18] the number of Member States that have approved the Treaty has risen to 25 of the total 27". I think 25 should now be changed with 26... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor262 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion being again and again. The procedure has two parts. The national ratification process is complete only when the parliamentary approval is complete and President has provided his signature for the bill to be published in the national registry. Well, still the German President has repeatedly said that "he will only provide his signature for the treaty once the German Supreme Court has decided on a constitutional challenge of the ratification". Now, how is that possible? Well, it's possible because a SECOND signature is required for the INTERNATIONAL ratification process (= the deposition) to be completed. (Copied Themanwithoutapast and bolded some parts). -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the debate here is about whether or not the map (and table for that matter) should represent the distinction between Presidential Approval and Ratification. Painting a broad stroke, it seems we have two groups here, those who see 3 steps (Parliament, President, Deposit) and those who see 2 steps (Parliament & President or Parliament & Deposit). Part of the problem is that few if any media outlets recognize the subtly, and produce few sources for the 3 step editors to cite.--Patrick «» 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. I am following the article a lot of time and I can ensure you that the Europarliament page was updated according this article. In the beginning there was a confusion between parliamentary ratification and the national ratification. If someone checks the archives can see that I was confused in the beginning as well. Thanks to Themanwithoutapast and other editors I thought the subject was cleared. The Poland issue is more complicated (the president's statements complicated the things) but for the other countries I think we shouldn't have that much problems. Sometimes mass media are a bad source since they are trying to simplify the official press releases and procedures. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland should be set to yellow again and labeled as holding a re-vote. -- Annon 22:48, 7 May 2009

Just to voice my opinion to the map change - although it's correct Germany, Poland and the Czech Repuplic are all in the "ratified by parliament" category, the map still is misleading now as it doesn't include the interim step of ratification by Presidents. I remain convinced that more precise distinctions are required. That is Germany and Poland yellow as having the national ratification completed with deposition outstanding and the Czech Republic light blue as having both the national ratificaiton and deposition outstanding. But I am probably talking against forces here I cannot overcome... Themanwithoutapast (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic should share the same color on the map. There are differences between all three situations, that's true. But I think using three colors would be overstating the differences, and using two would need clearly existing groups. And there's easily an alternate two-color division putting Poland and the Czech Republic together, because their presidents may or may not sign, and keeping Germany in its own category, because the German president must sign if the Constitutional Court approves and must not sign otherwise. Ambi Valent (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland and Germany have finished with the internal process and the Czech Rep. not yet. That's the difference. If the presidents will finish the procedure by deposing this is another story. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as I have seen Poland requires ratification by the President, Germany is waiting for a ruling from its constitutional court and Presidental signature, Czech Republic is now waiting for Presidental signature and possibly the result of a legal challenge by members of Czech Senate. Meanwhile Ireland hasn't even submitted the required bill in the parliament to arrange a referendum at this time, so I would propose that Germany, Poland and Czech Republic have one colour and Ireland a separate one to distinguish the different status between them.--Joshuaselig (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your distinction doesn't work. The German president has the right to deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome right now. He doesn't have to wait for the Constitutional Court - he does in order to avoid uncomfortable legal situations. The same is correct for Poland, the Polish president may deposit the instrument of ratification whenever he wants to - he doesn't because he is using the current situation for national political reasons. On the other hand the Czech president couldn't yet deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome, because it's not available yet - he has yet to sign the national law which the House and Senate approved and have it publish in the national registry. As far as I see it, that's the only logical legal difference between Poland/Germany on the one side and the Czech Republic on the other. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You talk about Poland, Germany, and Czech Republic. So please take notice of the articles in

• pl:Traktat lizboński
• de:Vertrag von Lissabon
• cs:Lisabonská smlouva

All three have the same information: "Approved by Parliament" (not signed by the President). --Kolja21 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can speak of the discussion on the German wiki - it was quite heated back in the days, as people pointed to the inconsistency on "presidential assents" etc. in a couple of countries. At the end the consensus was to be less precise and just go with the "approved by parliament" category, even thought that meant to leave out a legal step and thus omit information. There just weren't enough sources in German of presidential assents for the table in the German wiki. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

President Kaczyński not signed treaty. I'm a Pole and I watched that issue very carefully. On April 8, 2008 Lech Kaczyński signed only act over process of ratification, but not same treaty. Later Kaczyński announced he will sign treaty if will be ratified in Ireland. User:Ron 1987]

Please see the discussion in the section #Treaty of Lisbon not ratified in Poland above. — Emil J. 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany again

It is just outrageous that someone still insists that the German president has "granted presidential assent". If you actually bother to read the source for the article claim it was signed, you will clearly see it's not signed.

"However, he had not formally signed off on it, Kothe said of the act that would finalize German ratification." [7]

It's pretty clear actually, there is no court clarification, and he can't sign it until that. However, he indeed has "personally approved" it, meaning he will sign it into law as soon as possible when the court clears it. It is also ridiculous that Poland is stated to have given Presidential Assent as well. The article and many news sources clearly tell he will not sign it until Ireland ratifies it, see any contradiction? Unfortunately I can't read Polish, so I can't read the source.

I can't comprehend why it's hard for some to understand no deposition means no presidential assent. It can't be deposited if it's not signed into law by the president. If someone wants to add German presidential assent again to the template, find another source. That source states he has not signed it yet. I removed German presidential assent, and suggest someone with Polish skills to examine the other source.

They are not deposited for a reason. They can't deposite it because those presidents have not signed them into law. That's the final part of the ratification. Deposition is done to the Italian Parliament and has nothing to do with the presidents after they have signed it.--Pudeo' 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just weird that a well established part of the article changes without discussion in the talk page with an edit summary "see talk page". I won't repaet arguments found everywhere in the archives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC

An edit note can't be as comprehensive as talk page message. The source in the article does not support the claim. You are wrong to revert my edit when the source actually says the opposite you are claiming. Again, "he had not formally signed it off" but just said he personally said he will support it.

Get a new source for reinserting the claim in the article. Obviously it's just ridiculous to say the President of Germany has signed the law when the source you are adding as well says the opposite. --Pudeo' 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice. I provided a better link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

..whatever. Let's just keep non-factual information in the article until it is really signed and deposited. Easier to wait than try to talk to walls.. --Pudeo' 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pudeo, the official source of the EU says the following about Germany: "The Federal President has signed the law on ratification. He will not sign the instrument of ratification until the Federal Constitutional Court rules on the compatibility of the Treaty with the German Constitution" [8] - so you are wrong, the German president has signed the law on ratification, it's just the deposition which is outstanding. The official source of Germany from the Auswärtiges Amt also gives the same information: "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. Legal proceedings have been instituted with the Federal Constitutional Court on the grounds that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would allegedly breach fundamental constitutional principles. Federal President Köhler will not sign the instrument of ratification until the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court have been concluded. The Court has fixed a date for the hearing: 10 and 11 February 2009." [9] "Instrument of ratification" is another word for the letter that accompanies the ratification bill which is sent to Rome for depostion. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The link I provided is even more clear: "The German President approved Germany's ratification of the treaty this morning, following votes in the two houses of parliament." EUobserver explains the procedure: "Although Germany's parliament has ratified the treaty and the president has signed it off, the final step to complete the process – formally handing the papers over in Rome – will remain stalled until the court has decided." [10]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Czech president: Yes, he can

There are some doubts about the fact that the Czech president has the right to block the treaty indefinitely.

Yes, he can. Everyone is invited to read the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as approved by the Parliament of the Czech Republic [11]. Article 63 (1) says that the president a) represents the State with respect to other countries, b) negotiates and ratifies international treaties; he may delegate the negotiation of international treaties to the Government or, subject to the Government consent, to its individual members.

Now: For your convenience, here is a translation of his briefing [12] after the Senate Yes vote today:

[We've seen] the development of both the discussion as well as the voting of the Senate concerning the Constitutional - errr - the Treaty of Lisbon.

So please allow me to say a few words about the result.

First of all, I must express my disappointment by the fact that some Senators have - after something that, I admit, was an unprecedented pressure by the media and politicians both at home and in our country - have resigned from their opinions that have been defended by them until very recently. That also means that they have abandoned their political and civic integrity and they approved the Lisbon Treaty.

They have turned their backs on the long-term interests of the Czech Republic. Instead, they placed the short-term interests of the current political representations as well as their personal interests above those long-term interests.

It's a very sad testimony of the continuing malfunctioning of a significant part of our political elites which we have learned too well from analogous moments of the Czech history. Our politicians have always found similar cowardly justifications. We're small and weak. In the European context, we mean nothing. That's why we have to conform to the decisions of others even if we disagree with them. That's an attitude I reject. After November 1989, we have either regained our sovereignty and the responsibility for the new developments of our country - or everything was a tragic mistake. This question is very pressing, especially in the year of the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution.

As far as the future events go, I will be waiting whether a group of senators will submit another request to the Constitutional Court to evaluate the compatibility of the treaty with our constitutional system, as they declared previously as well as in the discussion today. If they do so, I won't be thinking about my decision to ratify or not to ratify before the Court publishes its verdict.

I would like to recall one important thing which all of you probably know. My opinions about this issue are well-known and clear. I cannot afford to be fundamentally against it at one moment and later, because it starts to be convenient for my personal and career goals, to easily change my opinion. That's something I cannot do.

But most importantly, let's not jump ahead of time right now. The Lisbon Treaty is dead at this very moment. It's dead because it has been rejected by the referendum in one EU member state. That's why the decision about my approval of the treaty is not on my current list of tasks.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you, the briefing is over.]--Lumidek (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you post, please read wikipedia's talk page policy. This page is reserved for discussions on improving the article "Treaty of Lisbon", it's not a general discussion form. Thank you, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As everyone else has understood, this section is here because it is essential to decide about the correct description of the status of the treaty in the Czech Republic. Next time, please check up whom you're trying to "teach" what Wikipedia is.--Lumidek (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the constitutional situation that the president is free to not sign the treaty, as you did in the beginning, is perfectly OK. Quoting his personal opinion for this (which consumes much more space) is unnecessary. 85.16.71.167 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, according to legal experts the president is not free to not sign the treaty.[13][14] He can only delay his signature, more or less indefinitely. — Emil J. 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Czech situation, but I know the concept of the "pocket veto" also exists in India. Delaying indefinitely is the same, in practice, as vetoing. See Pocket veto for an article discussing this concept. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand from a legal point of view, the Czech president may not withhold his signature and may face disciplinary action for failing to do his presidential duties if he were to continue without reason to withhold it. That's one of the reasons why he so vehemently points to a potential supreme court challenge which some of the Czech senators are supposed to work on. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

article about controversy?

I'm having trouble finding some detailed explanation of various points of controversy around this treaty. Shouldn't there be a link to such an article or a heading about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.126.175 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) noMax Mux (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

German Constitutional Court Decision

The court has issued a press release (German) stating that it will announce its decision on the Treaty on 30 June. Can someone please add this in? — 152.78.61.144 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Enlargement map

The enlargement map does not match its legend. I added the red color to the legend but I cannot figure out how to alter the actual image. The SAP countries are listed as light green but appear as pink. I could have changed the legend to match, but the distinction seems important to me. If anyone here knows how, please change the image. Thanks. Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Treaty limits to 27 states?

"Further enlargement enabled: by removing the Nice Treaty limitation to 27 Member States." It says this in the article. But does the Nice Treaty state there is a limit of 27 states? I doubt it. Ithink it is just Merkel and Sarkozy would like another treaty before new members come in. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nice Treaty only defines voting rights / number of MEPs for a union of up to 27 members. An EU with more members would be undefined under current rules. An ascension treaty could define such situations, but there are other issues which have to be taken into account. Changing the number of MEPs is not easy. With new members you change the current balance of power in the EU institutions: Country A: If I get now x MEPs I want the new rule Y to secure my influence, Country B: If A gets rule Y I want rule Z and so on... (There are MANY examples for this - e.g. Italy and the question of 750/751 MEPs)

The current result of balancing the different interests of the currently 27 members in preparation of more members is the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore I suppose it will not be easy to agree on a new ascension treaty (when the Lisbon Treaty is killed in Ireland a 2nd time) without incorporating half of the content of the Lisbon treaty in it. --84.163.79.165 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Croatia/Iceland MEPs?

Will the number of MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty remain at 751 if/when these countries add the union? If so, some of the "virtual MEPs" might never become real MEPs, if their countries lose some of their newly gained seats to Croatia or Iceland. (Remember Iceland would get at least 6 seats under the treaty, although it only has 300,000 inhabitants). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More ratificiation issues

This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8066946.stm) from the BBC suggests that the Lisbon Treaty will have to be effectively re-ratified by every member state to accommodate changes made for the Irish. Where should this go? I was going to insert it into the Ireland section but really, as it effects all countries, I feel it needs a more prominent position. --Mas 18 dl (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article unfortunately doesn't distinguish between the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of some concessions to Ireland. There are a multitude of possible ways to give Ireland what voters want. None of the considered ones require a ratification procedure of the scale of the Lisbon Treaty. There are lots of things passed on the EU level with anonymous consent (= "ratification" of something by all memberstates). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read several times that the idea is that the Irish concessions would be passed as an attachment to the expected accession treaty with Croatia. — Emil J. 10:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been studying the Lisbon Treaty and our (Ireland's) so-called 'guarantees' for some time now. The guarantees are merely a statement by the Council of Europe, and the EU has said that these have no legal weight. So the only way I can see for the guarantees to become legally binding are for them to be directly incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty, something that the EU leaders are unwilling to do, as this would likely have to be re-ratified by each country. Moydow (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)