Talk:Treaty of Lisbon

Introductory Paragraph

The Introductory paragraph says ...

"... signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 designed to change the workings of the European Union (EU). The treaty was ratified by all EU member states, with the Czech Republic the last to sign on 3 November 2009.[1] It entered into force on 1 December of the same year."

... here "1 December of the same year" is ambiguous as to which year it refers to. Raghuveer 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 

I don't see how it's ambiguous. It's quite clear that it's referring to the year 2009, as it was stated, "... the last to sign on November 3rd, 2009..." then goes on to say "1 December of the same year" (2009).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elektrisk (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism?

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

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

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

Yes, I agree this article is in need of a criticism section. This is a very important Treaty and will have an significant and lasting effect on the future shape of the European Union. Therefore it is only logical that questions of over centralization, higher levels of bureaucracy, loss of local and personal sovereignty should be presented along side the claims of "streamlining", "efficiency" and a "greater voice on the world stage". OrangeCorner (talk) 23:38 15 October 2009 (CST)

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

Having criticism does not mean having a criticism section. Criticism should be incorporated in relevant sections, where appropriate. --Boson (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely needs its own criticism section, or perhaps controversies. From all the protests I have heard on TV and the arguments used, there are definitely two sides of this coin, and it needs to be represented. --Nabo0o (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came here purely to read the criticism regarding this treaty, but there is no section for it! Definitely add this! 80.221.234.226 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some sourced criticism you can add it. Bevo74 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be foolish to think that the EU hasnt taken the initiative to control this definition. Of course it has, and consequently any criticism section, along with this comment, has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You can check it in the history page. However I find toot that this article should have a criticism section.84.220.118.123 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mixed and confusing language regarding The Council of Ministers and the European Council

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

- "*More powerful Parliament by extending codecision with the Councils to more areas of policy." Councils? Surely not? The European Council has no legislative role in codecision, nor does it gain one (as far as I am aware) under Lisbon. As codecision is a legislative process, which "Councils" are being referred to? It should be made clear. -"The legislative power and relevance of the directly elected European Parliament would, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, be increased by extending codecision procedure with the Council to new areas of policy." Not clear which council is being referred to. People may not know that only the Council of Ministers takes part in legislative action on the basis of codecision. The section is misleading as people are likely to think you are talking about the European Council (as that is the last mention of "the council" that readers see).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see that some of the issues the IP addressed are still on. I try to mend them having in mind what has been discussed here. I will use Council of ministers predominantly as it is the best to differentiate this institution from the European Council. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys would like to review whether the use of Council of Ministers in all cases makes sense. I am particularly unhappy with the section on this body, because there is a link via the Main-template to the associated article, which is called Council of the European Union. I have to admit that my action here is inconsistent, and hope you can improve. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the new double majority voting rights do apply for both Councils, don't they? I made edits assuming this. Please correct me if I am wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am done. Please review. I added two comments where I did not know which comment was meant. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

News on Åland Islands

A Finnish newspiece here [1]. 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)

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

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

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)

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)

Things are moving fast now on Åland, so now I also think we will see a decision very soon. Hawklord (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How/where did you obtain this information Hawklord? I can't find any recent news source this. Podex (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that you are actually fróm Åland Hawklord. So what is the news? Should this be added to the article (or probably the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon article). Podex (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I added an update to the relevant section. I have been to some political meetings about the Treaty to keep well informed. It's also well covered by the local media when something happens.Hawklord (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed clarify tag

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.

Some countries have a wrong colour on the ratification map

See [2]. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Klaus signed

Sky News [3], Associated Press [4], Reuters [5] reporting Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed Lisbon 3pm Czech time, 3 November 2009. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sequence shown in File talk:Lisbon Treaty ratification progress.gif

Am I wrong or is the sequence in which countries are meant to have ratified the treaty? Just as one example, did Sweden ratify after Germany? as far as I know the opposite is the case. I think this tabel is correct, but apparently not in agreement with the animated gif. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish parliament said yes after the German parliament said yes, but the Swedish parliament said yes before the German president said yes. The table seems to be mostly based on parliamentary votes as opposed to actual ratification, with an exception for at least the Czech Republic. seems more useful to me. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

OK, having identified the mistaken date and clarified the above confusion, I think we are close to resolving the issue. Indeed,

I would like to just say none of these animated maps have been based on parliamentary votes. The original map was based on presidential and royal assent dates. Urpunkt (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification is what this map is about. So, it's pretty clear what the sequence has to be. Germany ratified when the treaty was signed by its president.

Yes, the new map is helpful in the sense that it is correct (at least as fa as I can see). However, I find it less aesthetic and also the last frame is missing (i.e., the ratification of the Czech Republic). Perhaps these issues can be fixed. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification is what this map is about. So, it's pretty clear what the sequence has to be. Germany ratified when the treaty was signed by its president.

Not exactly. Originally this was the criterion I used for changing colour. Full assent of national governments. But a map based on deposition dates was requested as a replacement.

There is no frame for the Czech Republic because its instrument of ratification has not been deposited yet. There's nothing missing. I'm going to slow the speed down though. Urpunkt (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there are some things that I do not understand. Is the ratification process not finished when the head of state signs after the legislative has approved the treaty? Has the Czech Republic not ratified the treaty on 3 November? After introducing somehow the concept of deposition, which I admit was new to me, the related section says that the Czech Republic ratified on 3 November. Now, the caption of the figure talks about ratification, while you mean that no frame for the Czech republic should be added. I admit that I do not have a clear picture of what's going on, but isn't my feeling correct that at least some parts do not fit together? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the ratification process not finished when the head of state signs after the legislative has approved the treaty? Not quite. They have to do the paperwork and send it to Rome (Italy holds the presidency) and then Rome reports that it has been received and that everything is in order. I did the dates for these because that was requested. You're right there is an inconsistency that might imply that the C.Republic hasn't ratified the treaty, but it hasn't got a deposition date yet, so there is nothing to add. If we were to add the government assent date for it (3rd november), we'd have to add the equivalent for every other country to retain consistency. The instrument should be deposited on 13^th November so it'll only be a week until I can add a frame turning it green. Urpunkt (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Italy does not hold the presidency, at this moment that is Sweden.

Also: It was not government assent that happened on 3 November in Czechia, rather the president (as the head of state) gave his signature. The president is not the head of government in European (and many other) countries. Governments made their decisions amid the intergovernmental summit in Lisbon, which is to be differentiated from the ratification process.

I know, these corrections do not solve our problem. May I ask who wanted you to base the map on the deposition date; where is this discussion? I do not agree with this decision, but I should pobably read through the related discussion first.

At the moment my point would be that the last decision has been taken when the head of state signs. In the remainder of the steps, nobody has the right to change the ratification decision anymore. Therefore, my (current) point of view is that Czechia ratified on 3 November and not a later date. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is on Talk:Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon. The map was intended primarily for Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. We have some terminological confusion here. I am aware Vaclav Klaus is the Czech head of state and not the Czech head of government. I wasn't using the term government in the sense of separate branches of government but in the sense of the full organisation of state. The original map was made with the dates of the final stage of political approval in each country which I variously described as or national assent or full governmental assent. It's a legitimate use of the term. What I meant in any event was the sufficient approval of branches of government of the state in question. The [[6]] shows the approval of heads of state, use that one if you prefer. All the dates were taken from Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#At a glance. They are the final dates for each country which are marked 'Granted'. Urpunkt (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When talking about a ratification process whose purpose is to legitimate a governmental decision (obviously by something else than the government in its strict sense), it is particularly senseless to use for this approval the term governmental assent, based on the colloquial understanding that government equals state. And, the confusion of what a president is, is all to common here on Wikipedia, not to give you this hint. It was not meant as an insult, rather I am happy that you already knew what I was writing :-)

The link to the talk page does not really bring me to a discussion on which date is the date of ratification. Instead, people on this discussion seem to assume that deposition must be used. I want to challenge this. Has there been a discussion yet about my subject?

The link to the original map does not work. In any case this map does not illustrate what I would like to see implemented. This map is based on the decisions by the legislative organs. We have seen in many cases that the ratification can still be jeopardized after this. By the way, the original map is what I came here for to complain. So, how can you propose it to fit my needs. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

the map ToL_Progress.gif is not based on the decisions of the legislatures but by the final stage of approval in each country. It shows the approval of heads of state, though not in Bulgaria where the legislature's approval was the final stage of approval. I have made this point three times in separate places now, so I feel I need to stress the point a bit.

Urpunkt (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

However it looks like I may have messed it up in some other way :/

Urpunkt (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Now, things are really getting confused, and if I am not completely mistaken, you are confusing them. Sorry. I started this section criticizing that ToL_Progress.gif shows first Germany and then Sweden. Your reply (explaining why this is) was The Swedish parliament said yes after the German parliament said yes, but the Swedish parliament said yes before the German president said yes. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I never said this. Nothing like it. Urpunkt (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I citated from the first reply to my first posting. I see now that this was just an IP that abandoned the discussion, and apparently not you. Instead, i overlooked your first comment. Whatever I said in between was based on believing that the original map was based on the legislatures, as claimed by the IP. OK, I shall now assume that this is wrong, unless the IP comes back and convinces us of the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this fit with your most recent statement that the same map is not based on the decisions of the legislatures?

Or the other way around: If your last statement was true (i.e., It shows the approval of heads of state), then why does Germany show up before Sweden. Germany's head of state approved after Sweden's, or not? And again, we are where I started this section ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you are just here. Perhaps, we can fix it right away :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay there was an edit conflict which has confused things more. I am doing my best to explain. None at these maps, at any stage, have been built using the dates of approval of legislatures as a basis.

I did not make a mistake with the dates myself in fact. Germany's president approved the treaty, according to Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon on 8th October 2008. What happened is I copied this date without thinking. What is the ACTUAL date for Germany's presidential assent? Urpunkt (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, having clarified the above confusion and identified the mistaken date, I think we are close to resolving the issue. Indeed, Horst Koehler did not sign in 2008, but on 23 September 2009 [7][8].

If this was now implemented correctly in the original map, would this map then show the correct sequence of when the final signatures took place? If so, I would prefer that map, but this may be another discussion ... Tomeasy _{T C} 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[ToL_Progress.gif] is now corrected and should show the correct sequence. This map is based on the criteria you want. The problem was with confusion with terminology, the table at Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#At a glance, and me repeating its error. Everything should be in order now provided no other dates from that table were wrong. Please can you check the sequence to see if it is right?

Sorry for being crabby and my mistake in copying that date. Urpunkt (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for staying and discussing with good faith all the way through. I added to the misunderstanding no less than you.

The map seems OK to me. I do not have a list where ratification dates are stated according to the definition that I prefer (i.e., final signature). Therefore, it is difficult to check the sequence. In the end of the process, however, I followed the news so much that I can say this part is correct.

Perhaps we should come to a conclusion here with the question which of the two maps, both presumably being correct by now, should be used. I am in favor of the original map.

Just in case you were trying this: [[:file:ToL_Progress.gif|ToL_Progress.gif]] Tomeasy _{T C} 08:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I could see the sequence seems to be correct, but the dates for Estonia and Finland are not. It is not July, but September, so 23/07/08 should be 23/09/08 and 30/07/08 should be 30/09/08. I guess it will be good if the map is correct. BloodIce (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm really sorry about that, that was a typo. Fixed now.

Urpunkt (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job :-). I so much like this map now. BloodIce (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Council terminology

There were many instances in this article where reference was made to the Council, and it was unclear whether the Council of Ministers or the European Council was meant. On 7 November, I gave it a serious try to clarify all passages related.

I am pointing on this, because I had a few problems where I would appreciate if you review my changes:

1. The Council of Ministers is officially termed Council of the European Union, which is much more difficult for the reader to distinguish from the European Council. That's why I adopted the clearer term Council of Ministers. There, I ended in the unlucky situation that we have a section on this body in our article, with a main-template referring to the related article. As I did it, the main template now has a different title then the section. Please improve, if you like/can.
2. At two instances, I did not know which of the two bodies was meant. I added a comment in the source code (like this <!-- ? -->). I am sure that some people here can also clarify these two instances.
3. As far as I know, the new double majority voting rights do apply for both bodies, or does the European Council only decide unanimously? I made edits assuming the former. Please correct me if I am wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I agree there is some inconsistency with the main template but not sure how to resolve it. However, the position now is much clearer than it was before your edits. So I do see it as an improvement.

2) The first instance refers, I believe, to the European Council. The second, I believe, to the Council of Ministers.

3) Not 100% sure what you mean by "new double majority voting rights"? If you mean just increased use of QMV then the European Council also uses it, yes. Article 15 TEU for President of European Council, Article 17(7) TEU for President of the Commission, Article 18(1) for the High Representative. I am sure there are more, but not in the mood to hunt them out.

Hope this helps. Lwxrm (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you helped.

3) I did not mean the extension of policy areas to which QMV applies. I was not sure whether QMV exists at all in the European Council. By my question, I meant the change of rules to determine what a QM is, do they apply to both councils. I understand your answer of as a confirmation of my assumption, i.e., QMV exists in the European Council, and the change of rules due to the Treaty of Lisbon applies to both councils equally. Can you reconfirm this? Tomeasy _{T C} 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the same rules apply to both Councils equally. Article 235(1) TFEU makes it clear that both Articles 16(4) and 238(2) TFEU governing the use of QMV in "the Council" also applies to the European Council. In addition, the protocol on transitional provisions (No 36) Article 3 also confirms that the same transitional rules of QMV apply to both Councils. I hate the renumbering, why oh why do I need to relearn all of these articles!? Anyhow, if I can be of any more assistance, just let me know! Lwxrm (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2) I will make changes as you suggested but keep the comments in case somebody else wants to double-check. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the comments. The two instances were clear. i do not know why I had trouble at first. One was with the Council President who only acts in relation to the European Council. (The Council of Minister will still be chaired by the 6-month rotating presidency). The second instance was obviously related to the Council of ministers, because it was linked to Council of the European Union. Anyway, thanks for your help. If you have an idea for 1), just go ahead ... Tomeasy _{T C} 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is "The Treaty of Lisbon" but it is "as written in the treaty" -- "T" or "t"

I guess the heading make my point clear. I find numerous instances in the article where the word "treaty" is used an an ordinary noun but with a capital T. I think, this is wrong and I corrected it here and there, but now I have the feeling that this is consistently done wrong, and I get wary that my correction should be discussed first.

My stance: "The Treaty of Lisbon" is a name and therefore capitalized. However, when simply using the word treaty to refer to what is written in the Treaty of Lisbon, we must not capitalize it. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I agree. When referring to the text of "the Treaty" it is still the proper noun being used. In the same way you can speak of a directive, when referring to a particular directive it is always the Directive. This seems to be consistent in academic writings. Check any number of journal articles/textbooks discussing any treaty.

By way of a more common example, when referring to Queen Elizabeth in England we also refer to matters relating to "the Queen" as opposed to "the queen". If it refers directly to the document, it should be capitalised. But I am in no way an expert in English grammar, and am willing to be proved wrong. Lwxrm (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a difference between "normal" usage and legal (and possibly other academic) usage, where words like "Treaty" are capitalized in the document itself, and in discussions of the document. The EU itself similarly capitalizes significant words which have a special meaning in context (e.g. "Member State"). I don't think Wikipedia generally adopts this convention.

I think we need to distinguish several different cases in normal usage:

• A proper name is usually capitalized using headline style (i.e. all major words including verbs, adjectives, etc. are capitalized), e.g. "the Blue Danube", "the Treaty of Accesssion 2005". The EU seems to make an exception to this with treaties named "the Treaty establishing . . .", which seems to me to be a proper name rather than just a description, but "establishing" is not capitalized by the EU (we perhaps should, though it could be argued that the non-capitalization is part of the name and can therefore be decided by the authority responsible for the name).
• Shorter alternative names that are unambiguous in context, such as "the Queen" or "the President", when in the Commonwealth and the United States, respectively.
• Generic (non-deictic) references such as "Elizabeth II was the first reigning queen (or monarch) to appear on television."
• Anaphoric references to a person or thing previously mentioned, which should, in my opinion, not be capitalized in normal usage (as opposed to legal usage). Examples, in my opinion, include terms like "the treaty", "this document", "it", etc. Although it is not always easy to define the difference between a contextually unambiguous proper name and an anaphoric reference, I think it is often intuitively obvious and can be tested by asking if the term is functionally equivalent to something that is more obviously deictic (e.g, "this agreement", "it"). I think many people tend to confuse anaphoric use and wider contextual resolution when the same word is used (rather than a pronoun or a synonym).

Having said that, I don't know if WP:MOS has a specific opinion on whether to apply normal or specialist usage in such cases.

The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) has: "Full formal or accepted titles of . . . treaties, . . . are uusally capitalized . . . . Incomplete names are usually lowercased: . . . Illinois Constitution, the state constitution, the constitution . . .", as opposed to "the Constitution", which in the USA (even in Illinois) would mean the "Constitution of the United States".--Boson (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the interesting input. Both sounds very reasonable. I am convinced it is true what Lwx.. wrote about the legal usage, yet I am not certain that we have to adopt it. I see my intuition very much reflected in what Boson explained, though I got a little bit lost how I should not confuse anaphoric use and wider contextual resolution.

Have a look here how Britannica does it [9]. The say the treaty in the first paragraph after they had introduced The Treaty of Lisbon.

Otherwise, I have to admit that I have little to add to the solid arguments already give both ways. Still, it would be nice to conclude something and apply it consistently. Perhaps, we should bring it up at WP:MoS? Tomeasy _{T C} 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned which way this goes, provided this is consistency within the article. My leaning is towards "the Treaty", but that could just be because I am so used to seeing it in academic works/EU/foreign office documentation. If pushed I would argue that it is not particularly a specialist use, but rather a shorter alternative name in Boson's typology. It is not ambiguous in the context of the article (or particular sentences). However, I can see the point is arguable either way. Other wiki articles are no help. Particularly if you look at the Treaty of Nice article, it mixes usage quite a bit. Lwxrm (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was a bit confusing. As a rule of thumb, I would say if you could have used a shorter term (like "the Queen" or "the President") without having mentioned it before in the text (including the title) then this is "wider contextual resolution", i.e. the potential ambiguity is resolved by the general context; you would know what was meant, even if it hadn't been mentioned earlier. If the meaning is clear only because of the normal rule that "the x" (like pronouns) refers to a recently mentioned x (the antecedent), then we are talking about an anaphoric reference. If two treaties in Britain referred to "the Queeen" it would be a proper name and it would be the same person that was meant; if the two documents referred to "this document" or "the treaty" it would be different things that were meant; it would not really be a proper name. So I would tend not to capitalize "the treaty" but I can see the point of adopting what I would think of as "legal" usage, and I am also not that worried, as long as there is some sort of consistency. It might be worth raising the issue at WT:MOS, in case it has been discussed before.--Boson (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion here at MOS. Please improve the rationales I presented for both positions. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you see the result of the discussion? There were clearly more voices for the t than for the T. However, even more clearly, the discussion was not very vivid. Can this be called consensus? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When exactly will it enter into force?

At 00:00 of 1 December 2009 is clear enough, but which timezone? Would it be Central European Time (that is to say, 23:00 of 30 November 2009 UTC), or does it come into force at the specified time in the local time zone of the territories to which it applies? Citation(s) please? – Kaihsu (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked EUR-Lex but could not find any relevant instrument. I suppose one opinion can be that the seats of all EU institutions are in the same timezone, which applies. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it will be 00:01 (GMT) on 1 December 2009. Vandagard (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any legal reference regarding this claim? Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This date has now passed and the box saying that the page needs to be edited is still there and I was just wondering what needs to be changed?

Only part one is available...am I right...???

• http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

--222.64.214.120 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Boson (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The treaty is available here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

--Boson (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon and the resulting consolidated Treaties are here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/ ; paper copies can be ordered, and PDF copies downloaded here: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm – Kaihsu (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK and Poland DO NOT HAVE OPT OUTS from the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Has Charter Protocol which clarifies legal effects for UK. Currently, this article - and that on opt outs - reads as though they do.

OH YES THEY DO (sorry, it's pantomime season). It is Protocol (30) of the consolidated treaty. See page 399 of http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st06/st06655.en08.pdf --Red King (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For convenience I attach the relevant texts below. Whether one ought to call such opt-outs or not can be further discussed. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Protocol 30

PROTOCOL (No 30) ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

WHEREAS in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

WHEREAS the Charter is to be applied in strict accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Article 6 and Title VII of the Charter itself,

WHEREAS the aforementioned Article 6 requires the Charter to be applied and interpreted by the courts of Poland and of the United Kingdom strictly in accordance with the explanations referred to in that Article,

WHEREAS the Charter contains both rights and principles,

WHEREAS the Charter contains both provisions which are civil and political in character and those which are economic and social in character,

WHEREAS the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles,

RECALLING the obligations devolving upon Poland and the United Kingdom under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Union law generally,

NOTING the wish of Poland and the United Kingdom to clarify certain aspects of the application of the Charter,

DESIROUS therefore of clarifying the application of the Charter in relation to the laws and administrative action of Poland and of the United Kingdom and of its justiciability within Poland and within the United Kingdom,

REAFFIRMING that references in this Protocol to the operation of specific provisions of the Charter are strictly without prejudice to the operation of other provisions of the Charter,

REAFFIRMING that this Protocol is without prejudice to the application of the Charter to other Member States,

REAFFIRMING that this Protocol is without prejudice to other obligations devolving upon Poland and the United Kingdom under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Union law generally,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2

To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised

in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.

— C 115/314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.5.2008

Relevant Declarations by Poland

61. Declaration by the Republic of Poland on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The Charter does not affect in any way the right of Member States to legislate in the sphere of public morality, family law, as well as the protection of human dignity and respect for human physical and moral integrity.

62. Declaration by the Republic of Poland concerning the Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to Poland and the United Kingdom

Poland declares that, having regard to the tradition of social movement of ‘Solidarity’ and its significant contribution to the struggle for social and labour rights, it fully respects social and labour rights, as established by European Union law, and in particular those reaffirmed in Title IV of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Declaration by Czechia

53. Declaration by the Czech Republic on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

1. The Czech Republic recalls that the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and division of competences between the European Union and its Member States, as reaffirmed in Declaration (No 18) in relation to the delimitation of competences. The Czech Republic stresses that its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law, and not when they are adopting and implementing national law independently from Union law.

2. The Czech Republic also emphasises that the Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law and does not establish any new power for the Union. It does not diminish the field of application of national law and does not restrain any current powers of the national authorities in this field.

3. The Czech Republic stresses that, in so far as the Charter recognises fundamental rights and principles as they result from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights and principles are to be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.

4. The Czech Republic further stresses that nothing in the Charter may be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective field of application, by Union law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States' Constitutions.

The population of Spain is not 45 millions, it is 46.7 or 46.6 millions

46.745.807 million people live in Spain on the 1st January 2009, on the next annual census (1st January 2010) it is expected that the population of Spain will exceed 47 millions.

http://www.la-moncloa.es/ConsejodeMinistros/Referencias/_2009/refc20091211.htm#Empadronado

Could you change it?

You can check, as well, the article of Spain

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espa%C3%B1a

92.0.226.39 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Some points on the Charter of Fundamental Rights

1. The UK has a protocol, not an opt-out. It is still open to UK residents to invoke the Charter before the UK courts. The protocol just limits how the Charter applies to acts undertaken by the UK government in order to implement EU law. Anyone affected by an EU legal measure (be they within the UK or without) can take a case arguing that the measure is invalid because it conflicts with the Charter and if they win the and the measure is declared invalid, the measure is invalid in all member states.

2. Strictly speaking the Charter isn't really legally binding in any member state. Certainly not in the sense that EU residents have legal rights which are assertable against the member states themselves. The Charter applies to the EU's institutions and bodies. EU citizens, residents etc. derive rights from that application but not otherwise.

3. Only the political rights are limited to EU citizens. The other rights apply to anyone in the jurisdiction of the member states. (Excluding the parts of member states which are not in the EU). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Protocol may go a little further than you've indicated in (1). Although it's not 100% watertight, I think it would relegate the Charter to the status of soft law in both Poland and the UK, to the extent that it creates "justiciable rights" which are not provided for in national law. That raises the interesting question of the extent to which the corresponding HRA rights are justiciable, and whether they would remain so if the UK repealed the HRA. I think you're right in (2), any fundamental rights of general application created by the Charter would operate vis-a-vis EU bodies. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)