Talk:Opt-outs in the European Union

Sweden
I think Sweden shouldn't be marked on the map, it is misleading. They have defacto yes but shouldn't be listed the same as the others. Also perhaps as the map is very simple, it could incicate more clearly the types of opt outs or numbers? - J Logan t: 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll indicate Sweden differently; however, I don't think we need to convey much more information as regards the numbers. — Nightstallion 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Although I'm actually having second thoughts about Sweden as a whole, it isn't actualy an opt out, its just a political situation. An opt out would have to be formal legally speaking? - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, their refusal to join the euro de facto constitutes an opt-out from ERM III -- and both the European Council and the ECB have stated they will accept this behaviour for now, thus legalising this opt-out de facto... — Nightstallion 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweden have import restrictions on alcoholic beverages by private citizens - does this not constitute an opt-out of the free movement of goods or food/drink? AadaamS (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really a formal opt-out, I'd say. — Nightstallion 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Edinburgh Agreement could easily be merged in here, it would help indivudal sections develop to include this detail. - J Logan t: 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh, I'm not sure I agree. The Agreement is an actual document and should have its own article. — Nightstallion 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a small agreement, and if you want to be technical the text ought to be on Wikisource. - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think it's worth its own article (BTW, the article doesn't contain the whole text...) — Nightstallion 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Reform Treaty
This section is currently POV. This is obviously a controversial issue. Jim Murphy, the British minister, has stated in a letter to European Scrutiny Commission that: "The UK-specific Protocol which the Government secured is not an “opt-out” from the Charter. Rather, the Protocol clarifies the effect the Charter will have in the UK. The UK Protocol confirms that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. In particular, the social and economic provisions of Title IV of the Charter give people no greater rights than are given in UK law. Any Charter rights referring to national law and practice will have the same limitations as those rights in national law. The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied upon before the courts, it does not change the status quo." (Letter from Mr Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman of the Committee, 31 July 2007) Intangible2.0 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me a single media reference which does *not* treat it as an opt-out. Denmark's fourth opt-out does nothing in practice, as well -- if you insist, we can mark the opt-out for the UK from the Charter as "i" in the table. — Nightstallion 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read your comment at Talk:Reform_Treaty; fair enough, I'll add the Guardian source that this opt-out may not do anything in practice. — Nightstallion 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go. Is this addition good enough for you? — Nightstallion 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is going on with Poland? The Charter was already becoming legally binding there. That does not change the opt-out Poland got via Protocol No. 7, does it? Intangible2.0 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tusk has stated that his government will rescind the protocol and that it will fully apply the Charter in Poland. Good news for Europe, the Polish election. ;) — Nightstallion 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article has quite a lot of problems:
 * Lead does not comply with WP:LEAD. It is one sentence, doesnt explain what the article is and it is hard to understand for a person outside of the EU because there is not a lot of general info. Also having dot points and flag icons in the lead is inappropriate.
 * Dot points in the Danish section should be prosified
 * Subheadings should not be linked in blue and bolded.
 * Comprehensiveness. The dealing and conditions for the countries in question led to quite a deal of debate among the member countries, among their domestic consituency and the relations with other countries. The background of these negotiations and horsetrading should be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner. There also needs to be more background to the EU joint ventures and so forth so that it is easier to understand.

Best regards,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I'll work on it. — Nightstallion 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first three. As for the fourth one, probably an EU resident would be able to evaluate the end product. I tend to not do repeated GA assessments anyway.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! — Nightstallion 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Table
The table is not accessible to people with red-green color blindness. -- Beland (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh, you're right. Any suggestions as to what we should do with it, then? — Nightstallion 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace it with one we can have the green to blue? It would also fit with the map then. Or can we change the yes no code used?- J Logan t: 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, per JLogan's suggestion I've changed it to blue. — Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed the ifc tag, since it appears the image has been fixed. Rswarbrick (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure
What exactly do you dislike about the way it's currently organised? I think it's okay... — Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, most of them are current and it won't be long until the few future ones are also current. "Additional" Danish deals with all of them - also as a theme, not just the others, with EMU mainly talking about the UK situation with only a side mention of Denmark. The other changes were in response to those. Poinbt is, there is way too much overlap, it doesn't seem clear. It should be listed by country or opt-out, right now it is both.- J Logan t: 13:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mh. You've got a point there. Is it okay if I rework it along the lines of your proposed changes, but the way I'd prefer to word it? — Nightstallion 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the changes I made? Good enough? — Nightstallion 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, still doesn't seem overly clear who has what at a glance, but hopefully they'll be more than glancing. Good now though, and the table looks nice too.- J Logan t: 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your input! — Nightstallion 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What defines an opt-out?
Sweden has an opt-out from the snus ban. Should Sweden be listed as having an opt-out because of this? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
 * That's not really an opt-out. — Nightstallion 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It says: "However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not participate in the common structure in these fields", which seems to fit with the snus ban: Sweden doesn't participate in the "common structure" of "this field", i.e. the Swedish police and government don't prevent factories from manufacturing snus, or shops to sell it. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
 * That's not a common structure, that's simply a minor footnote to an unimportant directive. If you find more of these minor things, we could introduce a small section on minor opt-outs like that, but on its own, the snus exemption is irrelevant. — Nightstallion 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we make the division as legislative and treaty? Legislation is full of opt-outs, that is its nature. These are important as they are major parts of the EU's structure and functioning - the decision making process. So lets just say treaty opt-outs (or related to them to cover Sweden on the euro)- J Logan t: 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mh. Fair enough, so if we find enough info, we could make a section on legislative opt-outs. — Nightstallion 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Romania
The EU has currently regarding the BG and RO have some mechanisms similar to opt-out (but resemling keep-out): Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification for Bulgaria and Romania.

"When they joined the EU on 1 January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria still had progress to make in the fields of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime. To smooth the entry of both countries and at the same time safeguard the workings of its policies and institutions, the EU decided to establish a special "cooperation and verification mechanism" to help them address these outstanding shortcomings.

The reports on progress in Bulgaria and Romania: The Commission reports under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism every 6 months on progress with judicial reform, the fight against corruption and, concerning Bulgaria, the fight against organised crime."

So, as I understand, currently BG and RO do not participate as full members in these fields (judicary&security) of the European Community institutions, etc. - similary to opt-out. They have to cover some criteria, as described in the regular reports, and afterwards the verification mechanism (keep-out clause) will be lifted... This is very similar to Eurozone/Schengen membership... And dissimilar to the various temporary provisions in the treaty about delays for implementation of certain policies of the EU in particular member states (about these maybe we should mention some general date like "end of last transition period for Malta: 2014".

Maybe in the future enlargements there will be similar cases also. So, I propose to add these three areas (judiciary, corruption, organised crime) to the opt-outs article. Alinor (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really fit for this article... It's about actual opt-outs, not about transitory measures (which Bulgaria and Romania also fall under). — Nightstallion 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The transitory measures are different - they are just periods after joining during which some policy/regulation/etc. does not apply to some new member state. These "keep-out"s that I mention are PERMANENT - there is no end date for their application. They will be removed only if the EU acknowledges that BG and/or RO have fullfilled the criteria established. So I think that they are more similar to Eurozone/Schengen than to transition periods. The difference is that Eurozone/Schengen are integration steps that no all members have choosed to go trough, but these BG/RO keep-outs are integration steps that the EU has choosed not to extend to the new members.
 * So as I see it - we have the following "classes":
 * opt-outs/keep-outs [both treaty-based] - all to be listed
 * transition periods [treaty-based] - maybe to add notes "end of last treaty transition period for state XXX - date"
 * minor opt-outs (and keep-outs?) [legislation-based] - to list if enough info (very large task)
 * transition periods [legislation-based] - to list if enough info (even larger task) Alinor (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, even if not included in this "opt-out" article I think that this Cooperation and Verification Mechanism is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. Suggestions about appropriate article? Alinor (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe simply an article preciselyabout the CVM? — Nightstallion 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes you are right, the better solution is sometimes the simplest :). Alinor (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find the articles in the Treaty of Accession (2005) that regulate the CVM, so I can't check/source the assumptions like "do not participate as full members in these fields", "do not vote in Council over these fields", etc. Alinor (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the same thing as an opt-out. An opt-out means that a country has opted not to be part of certain things. As far as I've understood, the member states concerned may at any point choose to drop an opt-out on their own (in some cases requiring a referendum). But in the BG/RO case, it seems that the countries do want to be parts of certain things, but they can't be that until someone (European Parliament? European Commission? Other member states?) choose to accept them. There are also a few temporary measures (e.g. "derogation on eurozone participation" = obliged to join the eurozone eventually, but convergence criteria not yet fulfilled, and temporary suspensions of the right of movement for certain countries, and "Schengen not yet fully implemented" (BG/RO/CY)). It would be nice to have a separate article about those temporary things. Some things are mentioned in Eurozone and Schengen Area, but it would be nice to have it all collected at one place. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification Alinor (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bornholm has the wrong colour
Map error: Bornholm should be red instead of purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, thanks. — Nightstallion 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Czech Charter opt-out
The European Council has taken the decision to add Czech Republic to the protocol for UK/Poland opt-out. To be added with the next accession treaty. See also the Ireland-clarifications declaration from 2008 (not a opt-out, but likely to be included with the same accession treaty). Alinor (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a section about this to the "future opt-outs" section. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

There is also a de-facto opt-out in Czech Republic from the EMU. Euro is not a valid currency in Czech Republic and it does not seem to be at any soon time (while at some shops it is possible to pay with euro, in most of them it is not possible. All other internal transactions occur in CZK currency)... (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Semi)
 * That's something different: They have not yet introduced the euro, but they didn't opt out from it. They have yet to fulfill the criteria, that's all. — Nightstallion 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

multi-speed europe
There are the following types of inequalities of EU law application in regards to member states:

We have two also articles focusing on the differences in the cooperation levels in Europe: European integration and Multi-speed Europe. The first focuses on more pan-European issues and the second on more EU-focused issues.

I think that we should:
 * establish some central article for all types of inequalities inside the EU - per the above table - maybe Multi-speed Europe
 * devote European integration for cooperation between EU and non-EU states (this includes EFTA, European microstates, non-EU states participation in particular Agencies of the European Union, etc.)
 * International organisations in Europe to remain as non-EU-focused article encompassing all of Europe (CoE, OSCE, etc.) Alinor (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Post-Soviet states to focus on applicable organizations like CIS/EurAsEC/etc. Alinor (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The term Enhanced Cooperation is rather special reflecting on one model of the trend to extending federal power. You name Multi-speed Europe to carry the inequalities inside the EU but in reality the article was born out of an article presenting the Core Europe idea. The idea has blurred a bit but the pro-european (non-eurospectic) trend does still exist. Atleast politicians drive the concept of a European Union Superpower assembling their military and police elements just as stakeholders in the economy like to have the single-market attributes. May be one should shelve out elements where there are efforts inside the EU to deepen the integration? (e.g. European Air Group or the Falkensteiner circle). Guidod (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean is to organize the two articles in a different way. Currently both European integration and Multi-speed Europe deal with intra-EU and extra-EU initiatives. I propose that we restrict Multi-speed Europe to activities between EU members only (regardless if inside or outside EU structures - CVM, Enhanced cooperation, opt-outs, etc.) - as you said it was born out of 'core europe' (proposal for activity between EU members); and I propose to restrict European integration to activities between EU and non-EU states (like Schengen, NATO, EEA, etc.). Additionally there are the general Europe article and the post-Soviet space article.
 * As you say Multi-speed Europe was born out of 'core europe'. 'Core europe' can be implemented as part of 'variable geometry europe' (one of the vectors would go further ahead coherently together) and 'variable geometry' is possible (arguably already in effect) trough Enhanced co-operations+Opt-outs in the European Union. Alinor (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a footnote about latest dates of " temporary transitional periods after accession of new states " in the CVM article, but this is not the best place - the supposed central "intra-EU-differences" article would be more appropriate for such minor notes. Alinor (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The minor Legislation derogations/exemptions and Accession treaty exemptions are mentioned in the Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification background section. Alinor (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PJCCM should be Justice and Home Affairs for UK and Ireland
I am pretty certain the UK and Ireland have an opt-out regarding the whole former Justice and Home Affairs pillar, and not only the PJCC remnant that was left after Amsterdam. As far as I know, the whole issue has nothing to do with to qualified majority voting in PJCCM. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to have a source? — Nightstallion 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you take for example the December 2008 Commission proposal for the Conditions Receptions Directive of the second phase legal instruments for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), which was part of the JHA part transferred by the Treaty of Amsterdam to the Community pillar, the Commission argues the following:

"Legal basis

This proposal amends Directive 2003/9/EC and uses the same legal base as that act, namely point (1) (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 63 of the EC Treaty.

Article 1 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, states that Ireland and the UK may ‘opt in’ to measures establishing a Common European Asylum System.

In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom gave notice, by letter of 18 August 2001, of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of the current Directive.

In accordance with Article 1 of the said Protocol, Ireland decided not to participate in the adoption of the current Directive. Consequently, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the aforementioned Protocol, the provisions of the current Directive do not apply to Ireland.

The position of the above mentioned Member States with regard to the current directive do not affect their possible participation with regard to the new directive once it comes into force. In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not bound by the directive nor is subject to its application."

The Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland was changed by the Treaty of Lisbon to Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice. It states very clearly that the UK and Ireland have an opt-out (with the possibility of opting in) for the complete chapter, not only for PJCCM matters:

"Article 1

Subject to Article 3, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The unanimity of the members of the Council, with the exception of the representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, shall be necessary for decisions of the Council which must be adopted unanimously.

For the purposes of this Article, a qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."

I have no idea why it was written down here that the UK and Ireland only have an PJCCM op-out. The only times I read that is here on Wikipedia. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also Denmark has a complete JHA opt-out. It is widely known that Denmarkt participates in the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations on a bilateral basis, like Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. As for the rest, Denmark does not participate in any JHA legislation. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweden has no "de facto opt-out"
Sweden doesn't have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In accordance with the treaties, Sweden has a derogation from the euro participation because it does not fullfill the convergence criteria just like Poland, Lithuania, Hungary etc. This is a transitional provision (article 139(1) TFEU), which will cease to exist when Sweden eventually fullfills the criteria. This is the same situation as for example the Czech Republic and Hungary. All since the Swedish referendum on the euro adoption, which resulted in a "no", its governments have deliberately failed to fullfill the convergence critera. But also the governments of the Czech Republic and Hungary are reluctant to adopt the euro. That does not mean that they have any opt-out, neither de jure nor de facto. In principle there are no differences between the Czech/Hungarian situations and the Swedish. So, Sweden should be removed from this article (or should all member states outside the eurozone be included). --Glentamara (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is different because Sweden is, as you said, deliberately failing a single criterion of their own choosing, and there has even been talk of forcing Sweden to adopt the euro (though the discussion ended quickly). — Nightstallion 10:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But neither the Hungarian government nor the Czech government are striving for adopting the euro, so why don't you call this for "de facto opt-outs"? Just because the Swedish government deliberately fails to meet the criteria, it doesn't mean that Sweden has an opt-out. Sweden has acted entirely in accordance with the treaties. It would have been another situation if Sweden actually fullfilled the criteria, without joining the eurozone. That would not be compatible with the treaties, and if that was accepted by for instance the Commission, then one could call it a "de facto opt-out". --Glentamara (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nightstallion: So why did you remove the paragraph I added here discussing how the Czech Republic was contemplating either negotiating an official opt out of the EMU or following Sweden's lead by intentionally not fulfilling the criteria. I'm not opposed to mentioning de facto opt outs, but we should be consistent and mention the Czech (and possibly Hungarian) situations as well.  TDL (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Czechia and Hungary are given some leniency in fulfilling the criteria; they have not directly stated that they are intentionally not adopting the euro in the long term, just that they are delaying it further in the short term. That's part of the difference. — Nightstallion 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm? But the Swedish government hasn't stated that Sweden is intentionally not adopting the euro in the long term. The Swedish government has just stated that Sweden won't adopt the euro until the Swedish people votes in favour of adoption in a second referendum on the euro. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC))

Not colour-blind friendly
The two colours (not the red) used in the table near the bottom and the image on the top right corner of this article are not very easy for some to differentiate, especially those of us who are colour-blind. Perhaps someone can edit them, I would if I could... 119.235.86.3 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Schengen treaty
Schengen treaty is legally not part of EU law, since there are non-EU states participating in this treaty: Norway,Iceland,Liechtenstein,Switzerland

Can anybody update this in article ?

Siyac 05:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's wrong. It's part of EU law, but external states can participate. — Nightstallion 14:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was integrated into the EU law by the Treaty of Amsterdam. --Glentamara (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"de facto" opt-out
It's been three years since it was discussed and Sweden is still mentioned in this article ?!? And why is there a need for discussion at all ?!?

All EU member states not participating in ERM 2 have got a de facto opt-out. There is nothing special about Sweden. Simple as that.

So remove Sweden or add BG, HR, CZ, HU, PL, and RO. Knisfo (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would strongly agree. Moreover as far as I can see whenever it's been discussed the conclusion has been the same: there's no such thing as a de facto opt-out. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It might be worth mentioning in passing, but it's not an "opt-out".  TDL (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Danish citizenship
I'm not sure that the Danish citizenship clause really constitutes an opt-out from the EU treaties. I know that sources do describe the Danish citizenship provisions as an opt-out, but they do so as well with the Irish provisions:. This describes the significance of Danish citizenship provisions as "limited" and says they are "little more than a clarification of the treaty". For consistency, I think we either need to include the Irish provisions, or drop the Danish citizenship provisions. Perhaps the best approach is to have a separate section on "legal guarantees". What do others think? TDL (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For one, the clause was contained in a Decision of Council and was never annexed to the treaties. Looking through wikisource:Consolidated_protocols,_annexes_and_declarations_attached_to_the_treaties_of_the_European_Union/Protocols, the only mention that I can find is in the preamble: "HAVING NOTED the position of Denmark with regard to Citizenship, Economic and Monetary Union, Defence Policy and Justice and Home Affairs as laid down in the Edinburgh Decision".
 * Secondly, the wording ("The provisions of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to citizenship of the Union give nationals of the Member States additional rights and protection as specified in that Part. They do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.") really doesn't sound like an opt-out, but more like a legal guarantee. It makes no mention of a different applicability to Denmark (although the entire Decision does "apply exclusively to Denmark and not to other existing or acceding Member States").
 * Thirdly, the Irish guarantee contains quite similar language (ie "Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.") and in fact contains much stronger provisions impacting the applicability of the treaties exclusively to Ireland ("Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1, 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.")

Schengen
Regarding the table in the end of the article, shouldn't we write out that Denmark participates in the Schengen agreement on an intergovernmental basis, and not on a supragovernmental basis like other member states do?

I also propose that "(opt-in)" is added for the UK and Ireland when it comes to the Schengen agreement, since these two countries can opt-in into parts of the Schengen acquis, just like they can when it comes to other policy areas in the area of freedom, security and justice. --Glentamara (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've gone ahead and added some text as well as included this in the table.  TDL (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! --Glentamara (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ireland and AFSJ
According to a declaration attached to the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish government intended to review its opt-out from the area of freedom, security and justice within three years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Does anyone know if the Irish government (or parliament) has adopted any report reviewing the opt-out? --Glentamara (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Charter
What do others think about this recent change which lists the UK and Poland as having "NO" opt-out from the Charter. There is certainly legal debate about the effect of the Protocol (see for example ) but I'm not convinced it has been conclusively resolved that the Protocol has no effect.

If we are not going to list these provisions as an opt-out, obviously it needs to be done consistently throughout the article (ie sectioning and the map). Should we move these charter provisions to the legal guarantees section? TDL (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Opt-outs in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071109150418/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn020207euf.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn020207euf.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Opt-in or opt-out? Yes.
Unclear sentence...

"This allows them to opt-in or out of legislation and legislative initiatives on a case-by-case basis, which they usually do, except on matters related to Schengen."

Since opting-in or opting-out are the only two possibilities, telling us that they "usually" opt-in or opt-out tells us nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

EMU
What is said about EMU in the article, is actually concerning the introduction of the euro, which is just a subset of EMU. I would therefore suggest that we replace "Economic and Monetary Union" by "Introduction of the euro" in, e.g., titles and tables. Denmark participates fully in the EMU otherwise, just like the other non-euro EU countries. --Glentamara (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this conversation before making my edits. That also applies to other policy areas (ie Ireland does participate in parts of Schengen).  I just took those the be the high level policy areas within which the state has an opt-out, not that the opt-out covers the entire policy area.  TDL (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)