Talk:Treaty of Accession 2005

Agreed without a division - what does it mean
I took the liberty to copy here a message from User:Dbiv from another's user talk page for clarification of a few cases of votes:


 * For example, in the British House of Commons, the European Union (Accessions) Act 2005 approved the treaty. At no stage during its Parliamentary approval were there any votes on it: it was always approved on a 'voice vote' in which all the voices supported it. Therefore there are no numbers, and will never be any numbers in the future. 


 * The Austrian Parliament does things in a similar way. They raise their hands, and if the proposal has a clear majority, they simply note the number of members against without counting the much larger number who are for. Your insistence on putting in question marks is misleading - it implies that there is a number which has yet to be found and added. The real situation is that there is no number and never will be. 

-Mihai -talk 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

European Parliament
I think European Parliament vote should not be in the table. They have no right so ever to vote such a treaty. They can only give assent Bulgaria and Romania to enter the Union. Then the counsil votes as well. This is very brief summary the procedure. The Treaty as such is between souvern states. So by very nature EU has little rights there. In general it has s special status. So I remove the European parliament vote from the table, so it does not give a wrong impression that they have actually approaved or ratified the treaty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.174.111.250 (talk • contribs).

I see where your point of view is coming from but the vote was taken on the treaty and i think in the fullness of the encylopedia it should be included in the table.I also do not think that it gives the wrong impression because there aproval my only be ceremonial but it would be impossible for the treaty to proceed if the EU parliament rejected the treaty--Lucy-marie 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, its ok with me really. The results of the vote in the European parliament are shown earlier on the page. I can't agree that they actually voted on the Treaty. Although the treaty in reality is prepared by the institution of the European union, it is a treaty between 27 states. For this reason no official of the European union have signed it. I am not sure about this technicality, but it might be that the countries could have agreed even without refering to EU. For this reason I removed the vote of the European parliament, changed the section title to Ratification, re-ordered the countries according to the date of completion and made changes in the text. Now in the text there is an introduction to history of the treaty with the pre-liminary steps. Here in the discussion I made a proposal for the changes in the page. let me know what you think. Regards. Herzog Tryn 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-organization
As the treaty is going to enter into force on 1 January 2007, I think the page should be reorganized a bit. I think th efollowing sections might be good 1. Itroduction 2. Summary of the treaty and additional documents 3. History of the treaty, where the ratification table and other voting results will go. I will try to authenticate the vote results, using the data from individual parliaments, but it will take a bit. Please let me know what you think. Herzog Tryn 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started the reorganization of the page by adding references about the ratification procedure where ever possible. The section about the history of the treaty will be modified further considering that the treaty enters into force on 1st of January. I will as I am not an native English speaker and I do this in my free time (when I am pretty tired) it will be nice if you can check the language and style. Herzog Tryn 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge
All information in this article could easily fit in the 2007 enlargement of the European Union article (which is relatively short). - SSJ t 21:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither article is overly short and this article can be expanded further with the Protocol, the Act and the Final Act. James500 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgium
I've corrected the table for Belgium. There were several problems:

Brussels Regional Parliament: The reference given was not for the Regional Parliament but for the "United Assembly" which is the same people, but with a different voting procedure, a majority in each language group being necessary there contrary to the Regional Parliament. Both the Regional Parliament and the United Assembly needed to assent. So I have given them both, indicating votes by language group for the latter, because that's relevant for adoption there.

Flemish Parliament: That parliament had to vote on a single bill but twice (once with and once without members from Brussels) because it covers both community matters (extending to Brussels) and regional matters (not extending to Brussels). I've indicated both votes.

Walloon Parliament: Here as well there were votes on regional and (some) community matters (although for different reasons than on the Flemish side). They had two distinct bills. Again, I've indicated both votes (one with and one without members from the German-speaking region).

COCOF/Brussels French-speaking Parliament: This assembly also needed to assent (even though there were some hesitations on this at some point; for the legal position now see this opinion of the Belgian Council of State) in relation to the same community matters on which the Walloon Parliament also votes. Alas, the assembly's website doesn't contain the relevant documents for 2006, I therefore only have the official publication of the assent decree (which proves the assembly's assent, but doesn't give the votes). The assembly is identical to the French language group of the United Assembly, so probably the vote was the same (66 to 0), but that's just a supposition, someone might have changed their mind or have been absent at one vote and not the other. Therefore I didn't indicate the vote. Sigur (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow really great job! Could this help you with the COCOF vote? Tomi566 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Great! Your search abilities are manifestly much better than mine. Mind you, there now is an inconsistency of dates, but I guess one day (the MFA must really have done it on purpose...) isn't worth a big comment. Sigur (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)