Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 2

Ireland
Regarding this line  An opinion poll released January 27, 2008 showed that 45% of voters would vote 'yes', 25% would vote 'no', and that 31% were undecided. The ref link does not work and who are the extra 1%? This should be removed or if anyone has correct details please insert them. BigDunc (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The URL did not work as it was archived on The Post's website. I retrieved the permanent link to the story. The data are correct, the extra 1% is due to rounding. RossEnglish 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work thanks for clarification. BigDunc (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are we using an out of date opinion poll though? There's been another (see the Irish referendum page) in the last month where the yes vote is down to 25% or something and the undecided vote up to a whopping 60%. Surely we should update this. --Simonski (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Irish referendum results in a NO, but their government votes YES, will the treaty be be unratified by Ireland? If that should happen, what will be the result - will the treaty go ahead and come into effect across the EU, or will it not affect Ireland, or will it be outright rejected everywhere? This should be stated in the article — Jack (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack, the Irish constitution requires a referendum when amendments to it are made. So, if the result of the referendum is NO, they will probably do the same thing they did last time this happened, vote again 1-2 years later. Still, as it is rather clear that the referendum will come out positive for the treaty, this is just theoretical speculation. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is likely that the EU will have another period of 'reflection' like they had after the failed referendum in France and in the Netherlands. Also just to point out it is theoretical speculation to say that it will be passed in Ireland with a massive 60% undecided. BigDunc (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not very encyclopedic, but, in case of a NO from Ireland, the Treaty might very well come into effect everywhere except for Ireland, with would get some opt-out - and maybe later have another referendum. It wasn't the case with the NO to the TCE, because France is an important country (demographically, historically, and in the participation to the elabration of the TCE)for the European Union (which might not work well without France.)Kromsson (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kromsson, this will not work. The most important changes relate to EU institutions, which Ireland in any event has to be part of. You can't give them an opt-out from the EU Council, the Parliament etc. If the referendum will go NO (which is of course just theoretical speculation looking at just more than one poll), there has to be a new referendum before the treaty enters into effect. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I dunno, I have heard from a very prominent Irish academic that if Ireland says no to the treaty that it may even kill it off completely. Its not a far fetched opinion after all. Given that opinion polls show that most member states would like a referendum, to try and force it through again in Ireland like they did with Nice wouldnt seem a realistic option. Any government that would try that wouldn't last long in Ireland I dont think. Either way, it should be very interesting to see what happens. But it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that Lisbon is going to come into force and I think its dangerous to assume it will (though my own personal view is that it'll scrape through the refendum with like 51%). --Simonski (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, the people have rejected this treaty being shoved down the rest of Europe's unwilling throat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.204.47 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does a yes vote automatically ratify the treaty
Or does the Oireachtas have to subsequently vote to ratify it? Bogger (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a yes vote does not automatically ratify the treaty, the Oireachtas must vote on it to ratify. For example the 2nd Nice treaty referendum was held on 19 October 2002, the Oireachtas passed the Amendment act on 7 November 2002, see Irish Statue website. Snappy56 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual error in table regarding Irish votes
According to Wiki, the votes are as follows: 25% In Favour, 28% Against, 47% Abstention. This does not reflect the source it is citing, [46] Irish Times: 46.6% In Favour, 53.3% Against —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uppsju (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Portugal Ratifies Treaty
http://www.pr-inside.com/portuguese-lawmakers-overwhelmingly-ratify-r553572.htm

According to this article, Portugal has ratified the treaty. Should it be added to the wiki article? MDKarażim (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

k, sorry

"Arguably" in the intro
Doesn't wikipedia advise against/come down strongly against such wording as that in the second paragraph? To me it reads rather poorly... surely it needs sorted out? I mean for starters some people would debate the whole scrapping of the pillars thing as being over-exaggerated with them remaining in some form, and seems to read as if it is suggesting the changes will improve policy making, which again could surely be debated? I dunno, just to me it just doesnt sit right. I dont remember it being in the article a couple of months ago? --Simonski (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland did not ratify the treaty yet
The provincial parliament of Åland needs to ratify the treaty. It is the same as for Belgium and its provincial parliaments. The map should not show Finland in green. 83.215.3.71 (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ålands approval of the Treaty is not necessary for the treaty to come into force in Finland. Åland Parliament decides solely on the treaty will apply Åland or not. --Glentamara (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Åland Islands' population is 27,000, 0.5 % of total population of Finland and the regional parliament can't affect the national parliament's decicisions at all. Same with Gibraltar. Perhaps they should be removed completely from the template as they don't have anything to do with the actual ratification of the treaty, just that do the provisions apply on their territory. --Pudeo⺮ 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon
I have applied color codes to Austria. Comments? -- Cat chi? 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added another flavor. Not sure which one looks better. -- Cat chi? 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be shown Ireland has rejected it on the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from the 'ratification' section
The content there such as the court case in Germany is interesting, and relevant, and just because the incident is over or finished it doesnt mean that it should then instantly be removed. Rather such info should be left in as extra info surrounding the ratification. Please stop removing the content therefore! --Simonski (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotation link does not provide as advertised
I clicked through the Wikiquotes link and was taken to a search page, after removing the _'s from the search terms I tried again, nothing was returned. I don't know how to go about fixing the link, but perhaps someone with more skill can make sure the button is providing the intended service? --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.64.232 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in Greece
Greek parliament has 300 seats, so 8 were absent for whatever reason. At least some of them didn't vote because they disagreed with their party's position ( in Greek). I didn't change it myself because I saw that it has been previously reverted.--Ipnotistis (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reverter had some sort of misunderstanding: " Nobody voted abstention. 8 remaining MPs were absent during the procedure". I don't think the abstention is on the template to indicate "voted abstenstions", but all abstentions. --Pudeo⺮ 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to add a section. In the next 3 days the Greek parliament discusses the opposition's request for referendum. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work
This article is impressive. Congratulations to the authors, who I'm sure know as well as I do, how few people understand what all the niggly bits of EU law say, and pay attention to the fine distinctions between different institutions. I'd say "keep up the good work", but it unfortunately seems that the treaty has been consigned to history (then again, people said the same when the Irish rejected Nice).  Wik idea  16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag
I threw up a POV tag because the article lacks a criticism section or stub directed to other article. Irish voters voted down the treaty so there logically must be criticisms. I am sure other users are more knowledgeable on the subject than I.--David Barba (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, personnally I think it was just designed to trash national sovereignty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are discouraged per WP style. Plus the no vote does not mean a critic of the treaty, just that the majority of voters in Ireland participating in this referendum found that the answer no was closer to their personal favourite response, the critics on specific points are in fact interspersed in the article. I will thus remove the POV tagCyrilleDunant (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with CyrilleDunant. This article is discussing the treaty in itself not "public responses to the treaty". Arnoutf (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there shouldn't be a criticism section, but one read of the Irish ratification section as it stands highlights that the section there is completely non-NPOV and seems to be written in a manner which suggests the author is dissappointed with the Irish vote. There is far too much emphasis on the fact that the parliament supported it, as there was also a significantly broad coalition in the No camp, which despite getting covered in the press doesn't get any mention at all in this article. If someone was to read it they'd just assume it was only Sinn Fein, campaigning on a nationalist level, when infact there were also other aspects to the campaign, such as the admirable "Don't be bullied" slogan, allowing voters to vote against the manner that the EU was trying to force the treaty through despite the majority of EU citizens wanting a referendum. --Simonski (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but that is another issue. The text should be rephrased in a more reflective/neutral way. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not that knowledgeable about the Lisbon Treaty debate but it is ridiculous to claim that an article lacking any critical discussion of an inherently political topic can be NPOV. To claim NPOV is just to legitimate one point of view as inherently correct and in need of no discussion, a patronizing attitude. If not a Criticism section, then a Public Response section, as any political topic should. As is, the article strikes me as written in a highly technical, pro-EU manner, as if written by a EU bureaucrat.--David Barba (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A clear link to another article discussing debate, criticism, and public response to the treaty would also be acceptable.--David Barba (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Critical discussion is something else entirely from adding a critisism section or a public response section. Look around for other inherently political topics (e.g. US congress) and you will not find such sections there; actually not even Nazism has such sections (while it is "obviously" critically discussing the topic). Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * US Congress is a government institution, and the Nazi are a historical topic, neither are contemporary political proposals subject to current event POV sensitivity like the Lisbon Treaty. The article is striking in its lack of discussion on the merits or non-merits of the treaty.--David Barba (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * >>"seems to be written in a manner which suggests the author is dissappointed with the Irish vote."
 * >>"As is, the article strikes me as written in a highly technical, pro-EU manner, as if written by a EU bureaucrat"
 * This is what wikipedia is about -- acting in service of those with the most admins to edit as they need for a political propaganda spin. Imagine if it had been written in that tone and was on the side of the Irish voters?  It would be reverted within minutes.  I have altered the last sentence, first paragraph to underscore that Ireland was the only vote taken to the poeple.  The absurdity of claiming that "criticism" sections are discouraged is clearly meant only to turn you away.  It's used whenever the truth needs to be hidden that cannot be completely suppressed.  An essay has been written on just what lengths they will go to in order to keep the damaging info to them off the page -- Concealing Crimes of the CIA, Wikipedia Style. 67.170.205.8 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The rephrasing is much worse POV: "Ireland, the only Member State which allowed voters to participate in the election in addition to the parliamentary vote". The use of the word "Allow" clearly critisises all other countries, which in the legal context need not be an issue. I agree this was undone. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * May i just add that in some countries such a referendum would be forbidden by Constitution? This is the case for example here in Italy. Act that allow treaties to be ratified, as it's understood that an international treaty is a matter of foreign policy and of national interest, are uneligible for a referendum. By the way the Italian Constitutions doesn't provide for confirmative referenda for ordinary acts. It provides only for abrogative ones. A confirmative referendum is only allowed for constitutional amendments unless the parliament had approved them with less than 2/3 of the MP concurring in each house. There are two only recorded case in which a different kind of referendum ever occured: the first time it was in 1946 when Italians were asked to choose between Republic and the King, the second time in 1989 when they were asked to approve a proposal to give to the European Parliament the power to redact and enact an European Constitution. --82.56.39.39 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have become fairly discouraged with Wikipedia. Most articles with information that should cover material embarrassing to powerful institutions, and 'speak truth to power' as they say, are effectively butchered and made meaningless. Sourcewatch is generally more useful in this regard.--David Barba (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air opinions. Statements require sources and be written in a neutral tone of voice. I have to admit that the supporters usually have much easier access to sources and references, but that does not mean all kind of conspiracy theories (they say this is not true, therefor it must be hidden and still true) can have any merit on Wikipedia; critisisms must have reliable sources and be voiced in a fair and neutral way. In my opinion a separate "critisism" is not the best way for this article (and talking about undue attention, as 18 countries already approved; where is the "support" section). Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So...
So now that Ireland has rejected the treaty in the referendum does that mean that the treaty will not enter into force ? -- Ŧ®øüьℓغ πες το 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well obviously the answer to that question is......Yes and No. It may be possible to give a better answer after the forthcoming EU summit. In general, the most essential elements will almost certainly be re-presented to the voters (or not, if an actual referendum can be avoided) in some form or other. Sandpiper (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While recalling that Wikipedia is not a forum I think that we should only record what will happen in next months. As far as I know most of the countries that still hadn't ratified the treaty will continue the process anyway (with the possible exception of the Czech Republic). Whatever will happen it's simple a matter of time, and diplomacy, of course. --82.56.39.39 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious reference
I added a dubious tag to the assertion that Libertas & Sinn Féin were the reason behind the success of the no vote. The so called reference mearly quoted the groups respective leaders. I think we should remove the statement entirely. Jamesnp (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

KKK reference?
At line 5:"It was formed and proposed by the famous Klu Klux Klan." Better remove this vandalism! 80.165.183.40 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in Poland
In article is serious misunderstanding with ratification of the Treaty in Poland.

Procedure of ratification in Poland: 1. Sejm (lower house of Parliament) votes on statute, which grants the President consent to sign the Treaty 2. Senat (higher house of Parliament) votes on the same statute 3. President can sign or veto the statute in 21 days (in Poland President Lech Kaczynski signed it April 10th, 2008) 4. Next, president can sign the Treaty, (ratification is done), or can refuse his sign (ratification fails). Time for President to do so is not precised. President Kaczynski officialy stated, that his sign on statute is only technical matter, and subordinated futer consign The Treaty from law whereby he can block unfair EU directives. So, ratification of The Treaty in Poland is not done yet.

Sources (in Polish): 1.official web site of the President Kaczynski explain the matter:

http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011848&eventId=16527987

2. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland (in English)

http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm see articles 90 & 133

Source cited in article, [53]Euobserver is not correct when states: 'Poland accepted' the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, Mr. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of minority in Parliament, brother of the President Lech Kaczynski, stated, that is no need to block the Treaty in Sejm, because President can do it anytime. Also, the map showing process of ratification in EU countries, is not correct. Poland should be blue (not ratified). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.34.12 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * About the map, see the official europa.eu-site --Pudeo⺮ 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland's situation is identical to that of the UK. The British Act of Parliament has received Royal Assent, but that does not oblige the Government to deposit the instrument of ratification. Same in Poland: The President has signed the Act of Parliament, but that does not oblige him to deposit the instrument of ratification. In the table, that shows in the lacking date in the column "Deposited" and the specific political problem is explained in the section "Poland" below the table. Sigur (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigur, I don't think Poland's President has yet signed the bill ratifying the treaty. The situation thus is different than the one in the UK. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes he has. As our anonymous IP friend explains him/herself above, the President had 21 days after the vote to either sign or veto. He hasn't vetoed, so he had to sign.  (Put the corresponding Polish Wikipedia page through the Google translator and you will see they say that happened on 9 April, our IP friend says it was on 10 April, I don't have any other source for the date.)  In any case, we agree that points 1 to 3 set out above have been accomplished and that it is point 4 that still is due (Signing of the paper that will be sent to Rome - and under the Polish constitution that will have to be done by the President as well).  I think that there can be no doubt that "Royal Assent" is point 3 and we all agree that that's done. Sigur (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. In the step 3 Polish President only signed the law in which is said HOW the ratification will be done (i.e. that the step 4 is necessary, resp. that the ratification would not be done by the referendum). But the "Royal/Presidential Assent" will be this Step 4. --194.228.235.230 (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some new sources (in English) describing situation with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Poland:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/europe/02europe.php

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0701/breaking6.htm

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/50611

According to above, I propose to change status of ratification in Poland to: "pending". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.34.129 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro is so one-sided it's an incitement to vandalism
"The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty designed to streamline how the European Union (EU) works" ... Pull the other one. This is a quite disgusting misrepresentation of what the Treaty of Lisbon is all about. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Streamline has a bit positive connotation (ie streamlining is generally an improvement). How about "redefine the working of the EU" (ie redefining can be for the better or the worse). To me that sounds more neutral. Arnoutf (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think neither streamline nor redefine "how the EU works" is actually capturing what the Lisbon Treaty does. In essence, the most neutral way to say it would just be "the Treaty of Lisbon is desgined to change the EU Treaty and EC Treaty...". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that this is somewhat uninformative. Who has some sources detailling what the treaty is supposed to do? I don't doubt there are plenty of press releases from the EU, endorsed by the governments of all the member states, stating it is intended to streamline etc etc. Are you saying these governments are lying? If so, some source would be needed to support such a claim. In general governments are  considered a good source of information. Sandpiper (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word "streamline" sounds somewhat loaded. But I think it can be used deliberately in this case, because the pure definition of the word fits what this treaty actually does. It means that reaching decitions will get easier (less vetoes and a long-term consensus-driving council president) and the amount of red tape is cut (fewer commissioners and MEPs, intricate pillar system removed), all of which is true when it comes to this treaty. With the exeption of The Sun, which categorically refers to Lisbon as "the hated treaty", virtually every news article I've read about the Lisbon Treaty online, says something à la "the treaty is designed to streamline the desition-making in an EU of 27 countries." Even the wannabe "EU-neutral" BBC uses the word: "The Lisbon treaty is meant to streamline the workings of the enlarged EU and give it a stronger voice in the world" - SSJ ☎ 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see more comments here. I'm trying to justify the word. - SSJ ☎ 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll say one thing in favour of "streamline" - it's less biased than "improve", which is what the current version says the Treaty seeks to do to (or for) the EU. The version that began with, "The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty that amends the Treaty on European Union ..." has been the most "encyclopaedic" so far (though it should have said "... would amend ...") and IMO it should be restored.
 * But then there'd still be the second paragraph: "Prominent changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include reduced chances of stalemate in the EU Council through more qualified majority voting ..." That's one way of putting it. Another, perhaps equally biased, way would be: "Prominent changes ... include further substantial transfers of sovereignty from the member states to the EU through the removal of national vetoes in sixty [from memory] new areas ..." Acceptable? Probably not. But it's as acceptable as what's currently there.
 * Then there's the third paragraph. If you're really paying attention, you'll pick up that there's some sort of connection between the Lisbon and Constitutional Treaties. What you won't come near to realising (cos it just ain't there) is that the single most defining, originating, sine-qua-non-tastic fact about the Lisbon Treaty is that it is a re-arranged version of the Constitutional Treaty produced with the sole aim of getting as much as possible of the original Giscardian treaty into EU law. EU-reformists claim that the new treaty is 98% the same; EU-ever-closer-unionists say that it is ... about 80% the same? But that difference is unimportant. Neither group denies that the Lisbon Treaty is, always was and ever will be a rehashed version of the Constitutional Treaty, so there is nothing unencyclopaedic about stating this most salient of facts in the intro to the article.
 * Then there's the fourth paragraph - but that's in the next section. One thing at a time. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you not agree that it is a fact that the governments of the European Union member states created the Lisbon Treaty (which virtually every news paper say would "streamline EU decision-making") in order to improve how EU institutions work? That must be an unquestionable, real-world fact. - SSJ ☎ 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. The word "improve" is judgemental and therefore conveys more than whatever the real-world facts are. (One man's streamlining is another's steamrollering.) Surely this is uncontroversial? I'm not saying that today's architects of ever-closer-union are dishonourable. They may well believe that what they are attempting can neutrally be described as "streamlining" or "improving". But this is an encyclopaedia and we have a duty to stand back and stare.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [I've just looked at the article again.] I see you've reverted the opening para. Fine. Let's discuss the changes first. But you have also reverted a minor change in the second: "reducing" has gone back to "reduced". Your English is beyond excellent but still ... I reckon "reducing" is more idiomatic there.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say "Lisbon improves how the EU works". It says "The Treaty of Lisbon is a treaty designed to improve how the EU works." There's a major difference between the two. One is judgemental, the other informatively explains the overarching intention of EU leaders. - SSJ ☎ 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "designed to improve" is a partisan interpretation of the overarching intention of EU leaders. Their notion of improvement is not universal - indeed, if the Irish referendum is a credible guide, it's a minority view. Personally, if I designed a treaty to improve the EU it would do the opposite of what the Lisbon Treaty does: reduce the EU's competencies, increase national vetoes, scrap the Parliament, burn the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and so on. For those who are unhappy about the fifty years of blind creeping unstoppable ever-closer-union, such a treaty would be a great improvement. But how would a neutral describe it? Not as a treaty designed to improve how the EU works, that's for sure.Vinny Burgoo (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it this way; "reduced chances of stalemate is a change in the treaty" - isn't that a valid sentence? Before, "innovations" was used instead of "changes"; would that word be more correct in relation to the rest of the sentence? E.g. "Improved aerodynamics is an innovation introduced with the MiG 21." I just want to keep this summary-sentence as short and informative as possible, with a coherent tense. - SSJ ☎ 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some modifications to the intro to try and fix some of the issues I saw with neutrality. Of course, if you think it needs improvement feel free.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland referendum results
Clearly there's going to be back-and-forth editing on the issue of whether the people who didnt vote in Ireland should be counted as "abstaining". I personally feel that putting an abstention figure in here has been done to try and undermine the result somehow. I mean if you talk about the percentage vote in an election, who actually ever gives the "real" percentage result. US Presidents would be getting elected with what, around 25% of the popular vote etc? I dont understand why all of a sudden we should change this for this page. Surely an "N/A" would suffice in the abstention column therefore. Plus, I do think its the sort of thing that people will come to this page, see, and keep changing, so why not just have it as it should be. --Simonski (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is quite silly. If someone wants to show the percentage of voters that went to the polls, he or she should do that with a footnote, not by distorting the numbers in a way that don't make sense. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed and agreed. The attempt to equate deliberate(d) abstentions by democratic representatives in the various legislative assemblies with the crude tally of ordinary punters who, for whatever reason, didn't turn up to vote is not only moronic, it is, given the comparatively high turnout in the Irish referendum, a quite disgraceful (but, alas, typical) attempt to misrepresent the truth. But yes, Simonski, the table will keep being changed by partisans of both sides. So why not simply take Ireland out of it? It doesn't belong there anyway. Being the only member state to decide this issue wholly by a popular vote, Ireland doesn't belong in a (let's face it, somewhat tendentious) table of parliamentary doodads. Vinny Burgoo (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed and Agreed, though now the Irish result is not as prominant as the results in other countries. Doed MOS allow for highlighting by colour/bold font? Bogger (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In-text highlighting doesn't look good. The fact that the information is there, is sufficient. - SSJ ☎ 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a diehard europhile, but taking Ireland out of the table under the pretext that we have renamed it "parliamentary ratifications" just doesn't feel honest. I can understand the vandalism argument, but I'm not sure the vandalism is going to stop anyhow.  As a compromise, can't we put the Irish parliament back into the "parliamentary ratifications" table (as ratification doesn't appear to be completely ruled out), because there would have to be a vote in the two Houses after a positive referendum anyhow.  Then there could be a note "Referendum see below" in a red field, because all that green and no red seems a bit shocking given the facts.

Sigur (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) It Seems to be ignored the referendum isn't the ratification, but gives the oirachtas the right to ratify it.

I disagree with the removal of Ireland. I suggest we change the section title to "Ratification progress" give the result as it should be 53%-47% (something like that) and make a footnote for more details. None releases results counting the people who didn't vote and these people don't affect the result even if they are the majority. We want to give an idea of the progress of the ratification and not just count the abstentions, the agreements and the disagreements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with Magioladitis. Even if I admit that the abstention rate would be more precise, but less clear to the viewer.Finedelledanze (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no abstention rate the normal Joe Soap not going to the polling station because Eastenders is on is not an abstention and in no way should be regarded as such. BigDunc  Talk 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, someone has removed the irish results??? How is this justified? the irish parliaments passed the referendum legislation, it used tosay so, surely? Has this become untrue now? If the other countries have multiple entries saying by what it was passed and by how much, this should too. And then a big red note saying it failed the last step. Why was this deleted??? Sandpiper (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding UK House of Lords vote
I post here the source as the official web page won't be updated until tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.121.137 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What does "Agreed w/o div." mean? --Playmaid (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the British parliament, a voice vote is taken and only if it is inconclusive is the question taken to a division. Apparently in this case no division was required (I'm a bit surprised, but there we are).  Pfainuk talk 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation. I was very surprised myself. --Playmaid (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although strictly speaking this is correct, politically speaking you could take the last minute amendment vote, which was to delay ratification, as the de facto vote on approval. Politically speaking, if the amendment wasn't going to pass there's no point in counting the vote for the final agreement. This would be more informative than just leaving blank - would this be ok? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to that. This and this both treat the failure of the delaying amendment as more crucial than the final vote, and it seems fair to recognise that the parties were not agreed on whether to ratify.  A detailed explanation could be put in a footnote (say, "Figures are for an amendment delaying ratification.  The final vote to ratify the treaty proceeded without a division"). Pfainuk talk 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather suggest to put in a footnote the figures fot the amendment and to leave the actual result for the final vote in the table --84.223.121.137 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is appropriate as there's no way of knowing if people who voted against the delay or for the delay ultimately voted for the ratification or against it. There were likely rebels on the vote, but there's no way of knowing how that broke down. More may have rebelled on the actual vote than the amendment or vice versa. Having unknown or hand count would be better as without division is very misleading.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WHY IS ROYAL ASSENT BEING REMOVED.

it is required for ratification. as is signing by the president of some other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They ratified it without division? Wow, I didn't expect that one. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean when they went "all the ayes say aye" that almost everybody went AYE?? --Simonski (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. In the Lords they say "content", but it amounts to the same thing. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Assent is the third and final stage of Parliamentary approval. The Queen in Parliament is not merely a formality but a vital part of ratification, which has not yet been given. So why is it not in the ratification table and why had the UK already been coloured green on the map? 77.99.230.33 (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now THAT is great! If you leave "Royal Assent" for the UK, I'll add "Royal Assent", "Assent by the Walloon Government" (twice: regional and transferred community matters), "Assent by the Government of the French Community", "Assent by the Flemish Government", "Assent by the Brussels Regional Government", "Assent by the United College", "Assent by the COCOF College" and "Assent by the Government of the German-speaking Community" under Belgium. Under Belgian constitutional law, they all act as parts of the legislative branch legally equal to the relevant parliamentary chamber(s). Politically it's as much a formality as the Royal Assent in the UK, because this is a parliamentary system where the government needs to have a majority in parliament, but legally it's as essential as the vote in the parliamentary chamber. And when I'm done with Belgium, I'll start checking the other countries... Sigur (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having Royal Assent added. A 'formality' it may be but they give extra information on the stage of ratification. In short, there is absolutely no need to remove it, even if you don't agree that it is added. It is information which is verifiable after all. Nulli secundus (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "need to remove it" is that once I'm through checking all the remaining member states, this table will have become completely unreadable, but if you want it I'll do it... Sigur (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the addition of Royal/President assent as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The rearrangement of the ratification section
It looks far worse than before with the table on the right side, especially when you have a higher resolution. The table should stand for its own, without text on either side of it. Also, the new date format is very unusual and normally not used in wikipedia. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the new date format as well.-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't e.g. "11.07.2008" ok? It takes much less space, and looks tidier (all dates have the same width) IMO. And the map isn't shoved on small screens. - SSJ ☎ 12:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The old wordy format is nicer. The other format is tidier but looks like a telephone book. Finedelledanze (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it more compact. What's wrong with telephone books? This guideline says that "However, they [short dates] may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." - SSJ ☎ 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Map
The map is wrong, the UK should still be blue as although the Commons and Lords have passed it, the Queen hasn't signed it into law yet. As per the table, the UK technically HAS NOT completed ratification yet, though probably will do in the next day or two. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm if you want a source. - JVG (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if consider formal approval, approval, then you have to put some other countries into blue as well. For instance, in Germany, the president has not given his assent yet (he is awaiting a decision by the Constitutional Court). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then put them into blue as well. Even with Royal Assent the damn thing still isn't ratified in the UK so it should certainly be blue.  195.171.25.206 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can do it both ways. The map can show whether the countries in question have completed all formal steps of approval and ratification or we can say that if all necessary parliamentary approval steps (that is the label of the table by the way) have been taken (except for deposition of the documents in Rome). If we do it the first way, we would have 15 countries that have approved the treaty, otherwise 19 countries (+ Germany, Poland, UK, Finland). Considering that all major news outlets consider parlimentary approval the key point in the ratification process (they all say 19 countries have ratified), I am in favour of the second way. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This major news outlet considers the UK not to have ratified the constitution. Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the same major news outlet [] disregards formal approval stages in Germany, Poland and Finland and says 18 EU-countries (excluding the UK) have ratified the treaty. So, they are inconsistent, which means they have no idea of what they actually mean when they say "x countries have ratified" the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the colour of Cyprus. It has already ratified Treaty yesterday. --Dima1 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The map was changed because of partisan reasons. Germany has already ratified the treaty and is only waiting to deposit it. It should be yellow. In addition, it should be updated because it has been ratified by Spain ever since (it hasn't been deposited yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
this article is extremely biased towards the teaty, it needs the treaty's critsisms added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We had the discussion - see section "POV tag" above. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratification table: where has Ireland gone?
Someone must have removed Ireland from the list. Not sure what that's about? Ireland is still a member, hehe. ;-) --Playmaid (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either, but someone thought it would be a good idea to split the section "Ratification" into parlimentary ratification and ratification by referendum. In essence, this has created much more confusion than it helped the reader. I would also plead for a reinsertion of Ireland into the table, which we could then label "Ratification by country" without artifically splitting it. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ireland would still have to get parliamentery ratification even if the referendum was carried. put it back on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since a parliamentary vote may still take place, I would also be in favour of re-inserting Ireland and adding a note (preferably in place of the figures) reading "see text"--Boson (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It needed a amendment to the constitution to allow it to be ratified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure to whom that question was addressed but, as I understand it, the necessary constitutional change requires a parliamentary vote followed by referendum with a yes answer, and then a parliamentary vote could approve ratification. If, as with the Nice treaty, there is a second constitutional amendment by a referendum with a yes answer, I presume there would then be a vote in parliament to aprove the ratification.--Boson (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It should go back into the table. Leaving it lout gives a totally false impression of unanimity and just make people wonder what happened to the Ireland entry. I am also puzzled about how the Irish constitution amendment processs takes place. I would have thought that a parliamentary vote would have been a necessary first step to a constitutional amendment, so this must already have been voted upon with a numerical result in the irish parliament.
 * Not a supporter of UKIP, but I was impressed by the summary of the situation by their leader: That 100% of governments asked had said yes, whereas 100% of peoples asked had said no. This struck me as significantly accurate, contrary to the gloss which many politicians prefer to place upon it of the irish referendum being anomalous. So contrary to my earlier comment, I might favour a pair of tables, one listing all the unanimous ayes from the government, and the unanimous nays from the people. But there needs to be an irish entry. Sandpiper (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) has de facto approved it by agreeing that the question be put to referendum. See Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland. "The procedure for amending the constitution is specified in Article 46. A proposed amendment must take the form of a bill to amend the constitution originating in Dáil Éireann (the lower house of parliament). It must first be formally approved by both the Dáil and the Senate, but in practice the Senate only has the power to delay an amendment adopted by the Dáil. Then it must be endorsed by the electorate in a referendum." It is the people, as owners of the Constitution, who give (or deny) their assent to such bills. --Red King (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above on number of countries that have ratified the treaty
I originally stated, I am for keeping the number of 19 as the number of countries that have ratified the treaty. Now, with many "presidential assents" or "royal assents" inserted into the ratification table, I don't think that makes much sense any more. We should stick to the legal definition of ratification. As long as there is a legal step still missing in the ratification process, I don't think we should count a country as having ratified the treaty. This refers to
 * Germany, where a constitutional court decision is still outstanding as well as the President's assent.
 * Poland, where the President's assent is outstanding and as recently as today there have been articles calling into question whether Poland's president will ratify the treaty (realistically he will, but theoretically he can refuse to sign it).
 * As to Finland, as pointed out above, the Aland Parliament cannot overturn the Finish Parliament decision, only vote for their own territory.
 * As to the UK, I am uncertain whether to count them. The case pending at court is no formal approval step in the process. It is just merely a "courtesy" of the UK government not to deposit the treaty ratification documents in Rome. Ratification however at the moment is complete in the UK. That a court decision could overturn the ratification does not change that, especially considering that Constitutional courts in basically all other countries of the EU have the (theoretical) right to overrul ratification of the treaty under some circumstances.

To sum up, I count 17 countries that have ratified the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest two different versions of Green. One for "parliamentary ratification completed" and one for "ratification completed". -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My views: EuropeanElitist&#8482; 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In Germany the constitutional court decision is not necessarily a step towards ratification. The President could sign the law until the court tells him not to sign it. So far the court has not told him not to sign it, so the missing step in Germany is the signature of the President. And the law has to be published in Germany's Federal Law Gazette afterwards.
 * I think Poland's President only still has to sign the ratification bill for Rome, but he has signed something on April 10th. The media reported he had signed the national law on April 10th. I'm a little confused in this case.
 * What you said about Aaland is correct.
 * In the UK I'd call the national ratification process done. In case they have to hold a referendum in the UK, that is not a necessary national constitutional step towards ratification. The EU-treaties say what's necessary to ratify is what the constitution of the Member State says, and in the UK the referendum is not a requirement. So even if they had to hold a referendum it's not even clear whether the result would be binding. Apart from that the parliament voted on a referendum, and they said no, so I doubt the court could overturn this decision just because of a promise that was made by a party (member).
 * I guess Gibraltar is the same story as it is with Aaland.
 * Austria is not done yet, because their law only comes into force as soon as the treaty is ratified. After that they will publish the law in their Federal Law Gazette. Publishing it in the Gazette is a requirement to finish the national ratification process.


 * Meep, wrong on Austria -- the law can't come into effect in any of the countries which ratified the treaty until it comes into effect; the law will only be published in the national gazettes once the treaty comes into effect for all the member states. So Austria's defienitely finished.
 * Regarding Poland, the president has signed the bill, but he's refusing to forward the ratification to Italy, AFAIK. — Nightstallion 21:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then that means every country is not done with the ratification until the law is published in their Gazette, because the national necessary steps will not be done until everyone has put down their signature in Rome. EuropeanElitist&#8482; 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

AFSJ
The section on the European Court of Justice says that the Lisbon Treaty gives the Court "jurisdiction over certain AFSJ matters not concerning policing and criminal cooperation". "AFSJ" stands for "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", which sounds like a big European Gitmo, and is in fact ... but let's not get bogged down in the whats, whys and how-dare-yous of the AFSJ. What I'd like to know is which "AFSJ matters" the Treaty gives to the ECJ. Reading the relevant parts of the consolidated treaty was, of course, no help at all. Nor was consulting the five or six official AFSJ websites. One of them lets slip that the Constitutional Treaty (much of the current official EU presence is still a freeze-dried memento of that glorious moment of certainty-in-progress just before the "failures" of the earlier constitutional referendums) "extends the competences of the European Court of Justice with regard to certain domains", but that's as detailed as it gets. So - does anyone know what the Court's new non-policing, non-criminal cooperation (say what?) powers are? Or might be? Or are said to be? Or are officially descibed as but will mostly likely end up as? Or any info at all?Vinny Burgoo (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was me who put that in a while back, and I have to admit I had no clue whatsoever on the detail. The thing is we can't really be specific about the ECJ's new jurisdiction because of the ECJ's own stretched interpretation of its jurisdiction. I just put that bit in because it was about all that was clear from the proposed articles of the Lisbon Treaty. Being more of an EC law man myself I have to confess to knowing little about the second and third pillar so I really have no clue as to the specifics! And to be honest I think any attempt at being specific might be hampered by the fact that theres no guarantee that the ECJ won't just dance around these "limits" or parameters. --Simonski (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take a crack at answering part of this. Under the current structure AFSJ covers a wide range of policy areas with strange and complicated interrelations. It started as a "whole" under JHA in Maastricht. It was later split and parts remained (police/judicial coop in CRIMINAL matters) in the 3rd Pillar whilst others (immigration/co-op in civil matters) were transferred to the EC pillar where they were later joined by the Schengen agreement. Part of the current problem is that the role of the Court under the 3rd Pillar is limited. The national courts that wish to ask for preliminary references is limited both in the material that can be referred and who can refer (Articles 68 and 35 TEU).
 * Lisbon brings them back together under one title (V i think). As there is no overarching exception it is safe to assume (or the ECJ will at any rate) that any matter NOT provided for in a protocol or exception is now subject to judicial review by the Court. This means that it is no longer ONLY the highest court that refer. In a way it is a huge step and opens previously intergovernmental items to judicial review. There are still some important exceptions (hence why the ECJ provisions say "some") to the Court's extended jurisdiction (some aspects of Schengen), and the reference to police matters is clearly explained. Article 276 TFEU still holds that the Court cannot give judicial review on matters undertaken by law enforcement agencies of the Member States. So the answer would appear to be the Court has FULL jurisdiction over AFSJ except for those areas that have specific exceptions (like actions of law enforcement services). Bear in mind my interest is in EC and EU law, so this could not be 100% accurate. It seems to make sense to me however. Also uncertainty is added as any EXISTING measures under CFSP will not be actionable by the Commission (via 226) or the Court for 5 years after adoption. Lwxrm (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Belgium
It's true that the belgian federal state is a mess.But this article is over stating it.In the ratification section,only something like 5 assemblies must ratifie it.--88.82.47.48 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven/six according to the "Economist". The article just describes the whole process. This is more accurate than just "the Frenc speaking region ratified the Treaty". I like the table -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but the regional Government ratification need to be added Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In a way it's true that it's overstated. There is only one Walloon Parliament but they had to vote twice (with some members not having the right to take part in the second vote): We have to put the numbers somewhere!  The Brussels Regional Parliament and the United Assembly are the same people (different voting modalities), but they managed to vote differently the same day! Once again, the numbers have to be there. The COCOF Assembly are the French-speakers of the Brussels Parliament (the people in current footnote 30 who voted 56-5), but the vote is on a later day and they'll probably manage to vote yet in a different way...  As to the governments, I always was against the whole "Royal Assent" thing, but this is the only way to stay coherent. Sigur (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New ratification map proposal
The following map has a new category added (yellow: ratification complete but documents not deposited in Rome yet).



I think (see discussion above) it gives a better and more precise overview of the ratification process in each country. Borderline cases are Germany (no presidential assent yet -> thus blue), Finland (Aland islands -> but the ratification process for "mainland" Finland is done), Poland (presidential assent given, but president refuses to give the required signatures for deposition), UK (only deposition as to formal ratification outstanding, even though the Wheeler case is still not decided and Gibraltar has yet to decide).

This is a png-file not a svg-file, as out of some odd reason the Inkscape program doesn't run smoothly on my computer.

I have not yet replaced the current image with this one, as I would like to have some comments first. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. This will end confusions caused by newspaper articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, yeah. — Nightstallion 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Map is acceptable, however, it will be excellent, if you add any mark (dot, question mark, etc) to countries you listed, where status of ratification is uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.34.129 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland in the table
I know this has been discussed before. The result was a separate table for the referendum, because those who didn't come to vote and/or those who spoilt votes can't be considered "abstention". Plus, when the six digit numbers get shoved into the table, the green bar of results is widened and looks worse IMO. The nature of a referendum needs to be taken care of; it's not yes/no/abstention. I think it's crucial that the article reflects the actual legal nuances. - SSJ ☎ 09:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While the first argument has some merit (referendum can be considered different). The second argument (large numbers confuse the table layout) is worth nothing to me. The content and following content based text organisation should be leading to all layout effort, never the other way around. Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest the following:


 * Ireland goes to the main table and not in a separate one.
 * The result is written as 47% pro and 53% against. No abstentions.
 * In a footnote we write the result in detail.

For me having six digit numbers in "at a glance" table is confusing (and I am a mathematician!). The term "abstentions" in a referendum is not correct. I agree with SSJ in that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or at least what I support is:
 * Remove the "ratification by parliament" title.
 * Put Ireland in the main table. I think it is very important that it takes its place among the others.  We should not let the desire to have a tidy table get in the way of clarity.
 * Show the actual votes in the Dáil and the Seanad as everywhere else.
 * Show the Referendum votes as percentages. The abstention column has "n/a".
 * Have an appendix to main table (not somewhere deep in the article references) giving a little more detail of the Irish vote - pretty much the info as is currently shown. Delete the "ratification by referendum" title.
 * Well that's my two cents worth. --Red King (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think it is very important that it takes its place among the others"? Are you afraid it might look like the Irish result is of less importance because it has its own table? Isn't it a cleaner and less 'forced' practice to treate the Irish process for what it is, and to grant it proper, separate columns for "spoilt" and "turnout"? Appendixes are messy, and certainly when they are anywhere but alongside all other notes in the bottom of the article. - SSJ ☎ 03:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Are you afraid it might look like the Irish result is of less importance because it has its own table?" -> Honestly, I would answer this question with yes. Putting the Irish results in a separte table after the parliamentary ratification table does exactly that. I would also favour giving the percentages (like it was done at the very beginning) in the table, show N/A for abstention and put an '*' to Irland with a one-line footnote marked with '*' at the very end of the table stating the total votes in the referendum, the spoilt ballots and the turn-out. We could then also get rid of the "not authorized" line for presidential assent in Ireland (we don't have that for any other country, and there isn't a legal procedure that would officially have the president "not authorizing" the treaty). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I agree with every line. One table, percentages, N/A for abstention, results in detail as a footnote, remove "not authorised" line". -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "not authorised" thing with ireland isn't the same as it is for other presidents, e.g. in Poland. While the polish twin can write his stupid signature any time he likes, the Irish prime minister is simply not allowed to assent or push ahead with the treaty. - SSJ ☎ 13:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no legal act that states the president's signature is "not authorized". For any country where the legislator hasn't approved the treaty, the presidential/royal assent (if necessary) is not authorized. Because a second referendum could be held the "not authorized" is also not final, so in any event, a blank is more correct. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I really personally don't see what the problem is with just putting Ireland in the normal, old table, with 53% no, 47% yes, Abstentions blank. All this putting the actual number of voters in, or putting the abstentions in, it just to me seems to be a case of trying to put the result across as weak in some form. This really shouldn't even be an issue of debate and I really can't believe it is! A little reference point could be added next to the figures and *click* oh there somebody can see the turnout! Or if they're not blind they can just read it in the accompanying text which will explain it anyway!

Can we stop trying to undermine the Irish vote on Wikipedia though, the national governments and the Commission are doing that enough already. We should be just putting the facts across like any other form of media would, with the percentage for, percentage against, the turnout percentage. None of this actual voters/abstention numbers malarky! Who's with me?? --Simonski (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't suggest (indeed I opposed) hiding the details of the Irish vote away in a footnote. I argued for it to be listed in the main table, having equal weight to all the others. Then, at the foot of the table (not of the page), add the detail. As presently laid out, the Irish decision is made to look like the weird kid in the playground that nobody wants to pick for their team. --Red King (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Poland - too many president acts
IMHO the column "deposition" fully dublicates the row "president ratification act" for Poland. I mean - Poland already has "Presidential assent", and as described in Poland-notes section below the table - the president is waiting for Irish ratification (or has other reasons to wait, this is not important here) for the DEPOSITION. This is the final act of the ratification (I think that this is stated in the treaty itself - the ratification is complete when each country finalizes with DESPOSITION in Rome). So, the additional "ratification act" row should be removed and instead the column "deposition" will remain empty. Alinor (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that seems to be correct to me. The small section on Poland, however, still refers to Article 90 of the Polish Constitution and a so called Presidential Ratification Act. I have read that article and as far as I understand it the Polish President is only waiting for deposition. I therefore suggest that the small section is edited i.e. please delete the first part of it or at least have someone with knowledge of the Polish ratification process look at it, because as a lawyer it doesn't make any sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.48 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany
The change regarding Germany that the German president Köhler has signed the Lisbon treaty is incorrect. The link of the Irish article from May 23, 2008 that is provided gives false information. Köhler is still waiting for the Constitutional Court's decision on the treaty. See here:. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But did he sign the law and not the treaty (just like his Polish counterpart) or did he decline to sign even the law? I think there's a big difference... --87.8.103.232 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there under German law there is only one signature that the president has to provide, the signature for the law to come into effect. The treaty has already been signed back in Portugal last year. In Poland the issue is, that while the president has given his signature he refuses to transmit the ratification documents to Rome. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks I think this is will help us all to understand better the process ongoing in Germany. I think that nobody here is surprised that each one of the 27 states has indeed a different constitutional procedure in order to agree to a treaty. Maybe we can, with the assistance of the various wiki, try to create an article regarding the exact constitutional procedure for all the states so to have a reference somewhere that might be helpful int he future? --Nick84 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany is not "green". The presidentil assent is still missing. See Wikipedia German article "Vertrag von Lissabon". I know it because I am German and here is a big discussion. We are waiting for a decission of the High Court "Verfassungsgericht". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.255.113 (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To user Andras szokolay, who keeps reverting the number of countries where ratification is pending vs. ratification complete. No, in Germany the presidential signtature is missing. Without this signature Germany has not ratified the treaty. In contrast in Poland the president actually signed the ratification law, however is refusing to deliver the documents for deposition in Rome. This has been discussed here several times, so please stopp changing the article. The map unfortunately is wrong. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To "Themanwithoutapast". Or change the map, or do not change the number of countries. Contradiction! So, do not do it my friend! --Andras szokolay (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will change the map then. The point is, Germany hasn't ratified the treaty - that's it, so there are still 5 countries pending: Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden and Italy. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have to change the map. The contradiction is bad, wrong.--Andras szokolay (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)--Andras szokolay (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it is OK. It was not a "vandalism" by me, je n'aime pas la contradiction, that's it. If the map is "wrong", you have to change the map. I don't know, that you are wright or not, but in the wikipedia, la contradiction est le pire. --Andras szokolay (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I would have changed the map earlier, however the program that can edit svg-pictures isn't working on my computer very well. So I had to change the png-picture, which very likely gets replaced again by the svg-adhering people... Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still at least 9 countries pending: - Belgium: Royal Assent missing - Germany: Presidential Assent missing - Ireland: for obvious reasons - Italy - Netherlands: Royal Assent missing - Sweden - Spain - Czech Republic - Cyprus: Presidential Assent missing --EuropeanElitist&#8482; 11:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, we should change the table and the map, EuropeanElitist. The map states Royal Assent in Belgium was given on June 19, for the Netherlands we haven't even a category for Royal Assent in the table, neither do we have a presidential assent row for Cyprus. I will try to verify that neither Netherlands nor Cyrpus have formally ratified the treaty. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Going through press releases, it is pretty clear to me that Demetris Christofias, president of Cyprus needs to sign the ratification law in Cyprus to complete ratification. I have not found a link that this has been done yet. As to the Netherlands, I have not see a statement that royal assent has been obtained, so I will change the table unless people know that those two assents have already been provided. As to Belgium, we would need a link that says, royal assent is still missing, as there currently is a link provided which states "Sanction et promulgation" has been provided on June 19th. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether this "Sanction et promulgation" part is really the Royal Assent in Belgium. I'd expect the law to be signed after all of the parliaments have voted on it. AFP said Albert still had to sign it. I've gone through many of the constitutions of the Member States today, and this is what I found out. This is currently my very own ratification table based on the information I collected. --EuropeanElitist&#8482; 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, "sanction et promulgation" is the royal assent, but this assent only applies to the federal law approving the Treaty of Lisbon. The decrees approving the Treaty of Lisbon passed by the parliaments of the regions and communities have to be "sanctioned and promulgated" by the governments of the regions and communities, and the Flemish Government wants to wait with the "sanction and promulgation" until a cooperation agreement between the various parliaments in Belgium (regarding their role in the European decision-making process) is signed.--Ganchelkas (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific national issues - Finland/Aland
Right, Solberg, forgive me if its not just you who's doing it but it always seems to be you - why do you always insist on removing these interesting/relevant bits on specific national issues re: national ratification? Ideally, lets say the Treaty eventually is ratified, isn't it better/more useful to have a section informing individuals of any problems/particular issues that came up on the way to ratification? I mean jeez, it'd only be like 6-7 Member States in total?

More specifically, on the Aland islands one. Yes, the guy who put it in originally didnt provide any citations, but the fact is its true, its relevant, and I had heard from EU law staff at my university last year that it could end up being a particularly thorny issue. For you to just disregard it like that and delete it as "Insignificant" and unsourced just again suggests to me further proof of your strange personal dislike for the specific national issues section. Give it a rest already and stop deleting content from that section please!! --Simonski (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * for anybody who's not heard about it by the way, its actually rather old news and I'm surprised its only been put in now. Or maybe it was put in before and somebody deleted it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/03/could_finland_snuff_out_the_li.html
 * http://jonjono.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/aland-lisbon-another-island-votes/ --Simonski (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A reference was placed in the table but was later deleted. It refers to this website: http://dokument.lagtinget.ax/sok/index.php?iVal=1 which unfortunately is only available in Swedish. Perhaps why it has not appeared on many news sites yet. It does not give a date but it does say this vote will take place in 2008. And yes, i do agree that you should leave these issues as they give more insight into the process of ratification. Also, I read a few news feeds that allured to a legal problem with ratification in the Netherlands. Does anyone know more about this? Besides short references to a 'legal problem/challenge' on websites like the BBC there has been nothing specifying the nature of these problems. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.234.196 (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the national issues that could/should be included as they are interesting and add information on the ratification process.

Austria: A petition of 100,000 signatures seeking a referendum.

Czech Republic: The referral to the Constitutional Court. The Presidents negative rhetoric. The majority in upper parliament may vote against the treaty.

Denmark: Originally had plans for a referendum on the Constitution. After pressure from public a Danish panel of legal experts at the justice ministry concludes there is no need for a referendum.

Finland - Aland Islands: Due to vote on the issue. Snus and loss of MEP issues likely to affect voting.

Germany: Legal Challenge. German president will not sign. Same case with Constitution.

Ireland: The vote.

The Netherlands: Originally held a referendum. A lot of pressure to hold a second. The governing parties decided it was not necessary as the treaty was no longer a constitution. 42,000 signatures were presented requesting a referendum.

Poland: Ratification postponed after fears opposition would not support it. The president currently refusing his act of ratification.

Slovakia: Delay due to opposition horse-trading over new media bill.

United Kingdom: The mini-referendum held in East Renfrewshire. The vote in parliament over whether there should be a referendum. The government election promise of a referendum on the Constitution. The legal challenge by Mr Stuart Wheeler. Public opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.241.65 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Belgium II
The picture has to updated, because in Belgium the treaty is not longer pending, but has only to be deposited!Olliyeah (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please give a source? —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I need one, because according to the steps on your ratification section everything except the deposition has already been done! But I think Belgium, like most of the other countries too, needs the approval of the president/king too, so you should add it to the section!Olliyeah (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood what you said. I thought you had said it was already deposited. Above we discussed the necessary approval by the king already, it's also listed in the table, and I agree now - Belgium is not pending any longer. The graphic is already updated as far as I can see. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain today
Spain's Senate will vote on the Treaty today. Afterwards there'll still be the Royal Assent by king Juan Carlos necessary to finalize the national ratification. Please someone add this information to the table when updating it later. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Thx for the advice!Olliyeah (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Asset is also required in Tschechien. Not in the table right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done tooOlliyeah (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

UK has deposited 16. July!!! Please update! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you post a link?!!Olliyeah (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find any source to confirm this, and surely it would be reported quite widely. From where did you get the news, Rhh64? Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Scratch that, it's been officially confirmed now. Wikipedia scoops the world again! Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can check the web page that we already link in footnote n. 16. Here you'll find that the UK indeed deposited yesterday. --Nick84 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic
This article, which was updated on 14th July states that the lower house of the Czech Republic has already approved the treaty! http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/ratifying-treaty-lisbon/article-170245 Could you add it to the Czech Republic Field?!Olliyeah (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Confirmed by the economist here . --Nick84 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looked at the parliament web site. I used Czech wikipedia in order to understand terms and google translator. I found a document dated 24 june that says that the Foreign Affairs Committee interrupted the analysis of the treaty until the consitutional judgment is given. (If we -me and google- understood everything correctly). I wasn't able however to understand if the document was a just proposal or was approved, however I guess that, if the Committee is still debating this issue, the treaty hasn't been approved yet. Unluckly the Czech wiki doesn't show a table showing the status of ratification. But maybe we can ask them directly using the embassy? --Nick84 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I understood, the lower house has already approved it, it's the senate, which suspended the vote. So I would say we should update the "Ratification statuses at a glance" section!Olliyeah (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So how do you explain that the house (it's the house I doublechecked) committee is still debating the issue? --Nick84 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but where have you read this?! I looked at the sites you posted here and both say that it was already approved in the lower house and afterwards it was sent to the court! I can't see the problem!Olliyeah (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's the second document I've posted: as I explained above it says that the committee interrupted the analysis of the treaty untill the judgment is given. Or at least this is what the tranlated document says. --Nick84 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeesss, it interrupted the analysis in the senate, and not in the lower house! =) I read your article in Czech too and "lower house" has never been mentioned!Olliyeah (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * POSLANECKÁ SNĚMOVNA is the name of the lower house ;) --Nick84 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...probably you're right now- that was the only word the page didn't translate =)!! I give up, but it doesn't make any sense to me though! xD Olliyeah (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the upper house stop the process at the beginning of april. I think that the lower house wasn't binded to do the same but they decided to wait and see. It would have been puzzling that two parliamentary assemblies controlled by the same party had decided to take different procedural steps, wouldn't it? --Nick84 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * naaa..xD once you approve a law, it's approved- finish! I really don't understand what's goin' on! If the senate would have blocked it, everything would make sense to me! Probably it's different in Italy, but it seems just strange! xD Olliyeah (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if the translation is correct I think that we must conclude that the original article is flawed. I did another search in google and here's what I found: . Eubusiness says that the law was approved in first reading. Well here it is the problem: the rules of procedure of the lower house of Czech parliament say that first reading is just a procedural step. If the bill is approved in first reading it's referred to a committee, but we are very far from the final vote. Don't be surprised it's just the same in many other parliaments. In Italy there's no first reading. The bills are atuhomatically referred to a commitee by the president of the house. --Nick84 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ah ok! Now it's clear- sorry, but it needed some time xDOlliyeah (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * no problem ;) --Nick84 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweden
Concerning the "Royal Assent" being necessary in Sweden, could anybody please confirm this? As far as I know the constitution only says the Prime Minister needs to sign. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite convinced that the king of Sweden does not need to sign the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other type of act. Apparently, this is why the "Government of Sweden" is mentioned instead of "His Majesty the King of Sweden" in the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty. --Glentamara (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ratification map revisited
I suggest that we split "Pending" (right now 7 countries) in two sections: in the first the countries that the parliamentary process is finished (Cyprus, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, Spain) and in the second the rest (Sweden, Italy, Czech). (I count them as 8 not 7, Why?). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * agree to the splitting! You're right, Poland is wrong on the picture- it's still pendingOlliyeah (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Poland is not wrong on the picture, see Ratification in Poland above. --Nick84 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the map? I am not good in these things. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a fifth colour. Legally speaking parliamentary approval doesn't do anything, if a particular country requires formal approval by the head of state. As to Poland, unfortunately, someone altered the table again, showing that presidential assent is still missing. This is not correct, as the formal approval process in Poland is completed. What is missing is the deposition, which requires another signature by the president. This is not uncommon, there are other countries where the head of state is responsible for submitting the approval documents for deposition in Rome. This is normally just a formal act. It would be interesting if Poland's president is actually acting unconstitutional by withholding his signature for submission of the documents, as this would be his duty as a government official. I am not a Polish lawyer, so I can't answer that point, however that Poland is covered "yellow" in the map is correct. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Poland should be "blue". Polish president is not obligated to sign the treaty. The ratification is not completed yet. The president have not sign the treaty yet - he only signed the bill in which the procedure for granting consent to ratification is chosen. This is well described in the official comment to that bill, in the part 13 (however in Polish): http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/Druki6ka.nsf/0/1679A0C875D5077EC12573FE002D51AB/$file/280-uzas.doc. --194.228.235.230 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute- Finlands president hasn't signed the treaty yet, has she?! If yes, when?Olliyeah (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If Finnland is still pending (because presidential asset is missing) then we have got 8 (not 7) countries pending - the map is wrong!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhh64 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't disagree that "Legally speaking parliamentary approval doesn't do anything" but in all cases but Poland this is the most significant step for the final ratification. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this map. In 23 countries the treaty has been approved, in 3 countries ratification is still in progress and 1 country (Ireland) voted against the Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This map in ridiculously inaccurate. Wikipedia's map is more accurate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's from the Lisbon Treaty's official site. I think it weights more than something hand-made on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.161 (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. We decided to be more accurate than just reproducing official site's inaccuracies. Wikipedia's article gives more details on the real status in each country. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legally speaking parliamentary approval doesn't do anything", this is legal fiction.Queen of england can "legally" veto a legislation,this didn't happen for well more then 100 years. People don't care about procedures,the real approval is in parliaments,not ceremonial accents.The map from europa.eu is beater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.224 (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Queen is one thing, presidents are another issue. Most countries where the president has to approve legislation, the president can refuse his assent due to constitutional reasons or even other reasons. Look at Germany for instance. If the constitutional court rules the treaty not compatible to the Basic Law, Köhler won't ratify the treaty. This is not just a 100-year to one shot but a possibility, even if slim, is real. If we want to switch to a table and map that just shows parliamentary ratification, such as the one on europe.eu, we can do that, but we would specifically need to say that we don't care about formal ratification or deposition. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, however, the map as it stands make it seem like nothing happened in many countries where, in fact, parliamentary ratifications took place -- those being in many cases the most important/blocking step in the process. Some presidents only really have the power to delay, not veto, and this is different from the cases of countries where there is a real blocking power. So perhaps a new shade would be in order to better reflect advancement of the ratification process, as in: passed parliament/passed referendum/passed presidential veto/deposited. CyrilleDunant (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think adding a new shade it's a good compromise and describes better the truth. As an answer to legal fiction accusation I have to say that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must be more accurate than the official site. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I already said and I'll repeat it: Finland is wrong on the picture! It still needs the presidential signature, so please change the graphic! ThxxOlliyeah (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. And next to Finland, also Poland should be in light blue. (The presidental assent is still missing.) - By the way, the new map is nice. --Horaljan (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can please someone change both of them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As to Poland, it has been discussed to death above and up to now, it still is the question of which signature of the Polish president constitutes ratification and which is merely necessary for deposition. Regarding Finland, it is correct that Tarja Halonen still needs to sign the treaty. Under Finnish law, she has up to September 11 to do so . Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you can change the map too, because the Italian president has signed the papers!Olliyeah (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ratification in Greece II
In Greece another Presidential Assent is necessary. Could anybody please add it to the table? —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to an article that writes that Papoulias has to assent the Treaty? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not base my information on the process on media articles. It's written down in the Constitution of Greece, you can look up the constitution. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything about that. Please give me a link.84.134.55.159 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Constitution of Greece, Art. 42 I. If you need it in English, maybe you find it in Google. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But is that proof enough for the article?84.134.118.159 (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the damn constitution of Greece. How much more proof do you need?! —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

Plase don't get angry with me. I only want to be sure. There should be nothing wrong in the article.84.134.71.98 (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know something more? 84.134.125.2 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Map and Poland
Hi guys! Sorry Yesterday when I uploaded the new version of the map on wikicommons i forgot to update Finland. I'm going to do it as soon as I finish this post.

I've noticed that Poland status on the table has changed and that presidential signature has been removed. May I ask why, before implementing the change on the map?

We reached a consensus above that the Polish President according to the constitution of that country has to sign the law that allows him to raitify the treaty (that is to deposit the documents in Rome) and that before the documents can be deposited another signature of the president is mandatory. As far as i remember well, someone even put on the table a new row (residential ratification act) but we decided that it had the same meaning as the deposition date so we decided to cancel it.

May I assume that we all agree that the Polish president has indeed signed the law (as referenced many times above) but, at the moment, is refusing to sign the documents that should be deposited in Rome?

If we all agree that the first signature (Bill) has been already given (on 9 April 2008) then why deleting it from the table? And if anyone disagree about this signature I think that he or she should give the references before changing the table and reverting the consensus we have reached.

But the real question is if we all still agree that a raw called "presidential ratification act" is useless, as it only will state when the documents are going to be sent to Rome.

I've noticed that is Magioladitis that changed the table in spite of the consensus reached above. So I think he should give his reasons here and that, if necessary, we can introduce (again) the "presidential ratification act" row. In the meantime I'll revert the table to the discussed and accepted version. This is beacause the table now is clearly wrong, as it states that even the bill hasn't been signed. --Nick84 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything should be ok right now. By the way does anyone have any news about the missing signatures? --Nick84 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand from the text in the article and the articles in the newspapers, the Polish president signed a law that allows him to sign the Lisbon Treaty and then submitted to the Italian government. This doesn't mean he signed the Lisbon Treaty. If I am wrong please go ahead and change the article. I don't insist but then please make the section about Poland more clear. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's my proposal. Feel free to add/correct anything. I'm not going to have a chanche to check again this page for (at least) half a day. So if you want, and there's consensus, feel free to change the article. Firendly, --Nick84 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Forr a treaty to be ratified in Poland two precedural steps are needed. The first one is the approval of a bill that allow the ratification to procede and the second is the formal signature of the documents to be transmitted to the depositary of the treaty (in this case the government of the Italian Repubblic). As of July 2008 the first step of this procedure is already completed as the bill that allows the ratification to procede further has already been approved by both houses of the parliament and signed into law by the polish president[102] (In that bill the procedure for granting consent to ratification was chosen according to Article 90.4 of the Polish constitution. [103]) . The second step is currently stalled as the Polish President has jet to sign the documents. As far as the ratification procedure isn't fully completed untll those documents are filled with the depositary, Poland has still to ratify the treaty [104]. It's important to notice that the President is not obligated to complete the process.


 * Lech Kaczyński, the Polish president, has said that it would be pointless to do so before a solution to the Irish no vote is found.[105] This situation is generally attributed to a domestic dispute between the two major political parties PO (the current government) and PiS (the presidential party). The PiS want the PO to enact a new law which would oblige the government to consider the opinion of the president and parliament before every summit of the European Council. The president has stated that he will not ratify (and could even consider vetoing) the treaty unless such a law is passed.[citation needed]


 * The president has come under increasing pressure from the French Presidency to ratify the treaty with President Sarkozy reminding him that he originally negotiated the treaty.


 * Despite of this, 52% of the Poles wants President Lech Kaczynski to complete the ratification process immediately[106]


 * I cannot fully agree with the proposed first paragraph. As I understand the procedure of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Poland, two steps are necessary:
 * 1. According to the Article 90 of the Constitution (already done by Sejm and Senat through the bill; this step was completed by the president's sign of this bill, according to the Article 122 of the Constitution).
 * 2. According to the Article 133 of the Constitution, where is written: "The President of the Republic, as representative of the State in foreign affairs, shall ratify and renounce international agreements". This step is called "ratification act" and it is not ready yet.
 * This "ratification act" is more than only formal signature - it is the necessary part of the ratification. --Horaljan (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I am right to believe that "Presidential assent" is not given yet? There are two steps for this part and the second is not complete. Some days after the second step is done, Poland sends the papers to the Italian government and as a third step the Lisbon Treaty is deposited by the Italian Government. We can split the presidential assent in two rows if you like: Article 90, Article 133, or something like that. I won't do any chances to the Polish part. Someone who feels more comfortable to the subject can work with it. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relating the table – there are two possibilities, I think: Either to split the presidential assent into two rows (e.g. “Presidential sign of bill” and “Presidential ratification act”), or to leave the row “Presidential assent” unfilled.--Horaljan (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose to leave unfilled the "Presidential assent" row. It simply would be wrong. And regarding the splitting I mantain that this is useless as it would be a duplicate of the deposition date. --Nick84 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, to write "Granted" in the case of "Presidential Assent" is much worse than to leave this row unfilled. The assent as a whole still have not been given yet. The deposition is another thing. The presidential ratification act is an important part of the ratification itself.--Horaljan (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I splited the row "Presidential assent". From this is clearly seen which part of the ratification is still missing. --Horaljan (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well. But now the table is not complete. In every single country "someone" must sign the so called instrument of ratification to be sent in Rome and to be notified to every other country. So please add a row for each single state, appart from Poland (you've already added it), regarding the signing of the ratification instrument for that country. --Nick84 (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am convinced the situation is different in other countries. Is in the constitution of another country mention the necessity of such sign you speak about? In Poland the presidential ratification according the Article 133 of the Polish Constitution is not done yet, as is stated at the web page of Polish president . – In all the countries, after the ratification is complete, anybody sends the documents for deposition in Rome. In Poland it will be the same: After the ratification will be ready, anybody will send the documents for deposition. (It means: If another row in the table, then not only for other countries, but for Poland as well.) Best regards. --Horaljan (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the wording of the Polish Constitution I think that, for example, the French and the Italian one are quite similar. But the real problem here is that the last step of ratification is just the signing of the documents that should be sent to Rome, and in this case all the countries are prefectly in the same situation. Someone must sign those documents in each country. --Nick84 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that (according to the Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty ) the Treaty shall be ratified by the countries in accordance with their constitutional requirements; then the instruments of the ratification shall be deposited in Rome. Only when the ratification is ready (according to the respective constitution), the documents can be sent to Rome. - If we find in another constitution any missing part of ratification, we should add the row. (The sending can be done by some official, whose sign is totally unimportant. Important are the requirements given by the relevant constitution.) --Horaljan (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC


 * The exchange of the instruments of ratification is the latest part of the ratification process (take a look to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). So what do you think that the President will sign if not the documents to be sent in Rome? In other countries this last procedural step may be accomplished by some state official while in Poland is done by the President. Anyway someone must do it. So either you add the row for each state or I'll remove the row for Poland (and the no ratification act version, by the way, was the one on which we had a consensus before someone started to change the table according to his personal beliefs and without any a priori discussion). --Nick84 (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the situation in Poland is just the same in this moment as in Germany: After the president's sign anybody will send the documents. The row "Presidential Assent" needn't be splitted in the case of Poland; but in this moment the presidential assent as a whole has not been given yet (so if the row would not be splitted, it would have to remain blank). --Horaljan (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the situation is NOT the same. In Poland the law (bill) was signed, in Germany it wasn't. What you guys want to add in Poland now is the date on which he signs the Lisbon Treaty and finalizes the international treaty which EVERY country has to do anyway. But this is not part of the national process any longer, it is the international process. Every country has one person that signs the treaty for the country. In Poland it's the President. In Germany you'd e.g. have to add another line, too, if you really want to write down every date on which someone signs the international treaty. In Germany the President signs the bill and the international treaty as well. But you're really going too far if you write down each date of each signature. It's enough to put down the date of the deposition, because that's what matters. If you want to put down the date on which the ratification bill was submitted to the post office and received by someone in Rome maybe as well, okay, but I doubt you want to be that nitpicking. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. In Germany Art. 82 I Grundgesetz says all about the national process: the President needs to sign the law. This has not happened yet. Art. 59 I Grundgesetz says all about the international process: the President signs the international treaty - meaning the instrument of ratification -, which has not happened as well. So you are proven wrong, and what Nick84 has said is completely correct. In Poland the President has signed the law, but he has not signed the instrument of ratification - which means Poland has already at least walked a step further than Germany. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, and the table is incomplete for every other country if you really want to add the date for Poland now on which the President signs the "instrument of ratification" in Rome. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As per discussion above I'll delete the cited row from the table. --Nick84 (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Italy need to deposite?
Since deposition is done by Italian government, does Italy have to deposit with itself? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. — Nightstallion 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link?84.134.98.51 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask that myself. When they do deposit, how will we know? Could it have done it by now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We will know it as soon as we can see it on this page. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

The link seems to be down.84.134.102.36 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * In Germany probably late Autumn!Olliyeah (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I've heard, the Czech court is expected to rule in September or October. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * I'm waiting for that, too. Sadly I know don't know it.84.134.121.2 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does it get a vote? And if it does, does the result make any difference? --Red King (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It has a vote, but it only makes a difference on a national level if at all. It has no effect on the EU. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)


 * The UK has officially ratified the Treaty of Lisbon; though the UK parliament only has limited jurisdiction over the territory of Gibraltar. This requires the treaty to be separately debated and voted on by the Gibraltar parliament. If the parliament fails to pass the treaty then the treaty will not take effect in Gibraltar. This though has no effect on anywhere else in the EU. The UK government could theoretically force its passage by withholding funds and taking back powers etc. This though is unlikely as the parliament is generally rubber stamps EU treaties if they are passed by the UK parliament, even if controversial e.g. the Maastricht treaty, which was highly controversial at the time was easily passed by the then Gibraltar assembly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I think the deadline is the 16th September. The constitution of Finland says: "The president shall decide on the confimation within three months of the submission of the act." According to this source, the act was submitted to the government (and the president?) on 16 June.--Glentamara (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * She signed it today. — Emil J. 09:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Poland
Poland has not yet signed: in the map it should be cyan, not yellow. In fact the President has signed the law that allows him to sign the treaty, which has not been done yet. Could somebody fix the map? Ciao, Sinigagl (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, go to the archive and read a long discussion about that subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the archive??? Sinigagl (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here or check at the top of this page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the fact is that the Polish President has ratified but he is waiting to deposit it to our goverment? This is not what it was written by all the newspapers: we need more sources apart from the polish paper linked in the table. Sinigagl (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netherlands - Estonia - Spain
84.134.111.14 (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They have deposited on 11th September.


 * Please, correct the map colours. Estonia deposited on 23th September. 85.66.224.202 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Spain deposited the 8th October. 83.249.129.53 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


 * http://www.n-tv.de/Keine_Unterschrift_Koehler_billigt_EUVertrag/081020083117/1035062.html

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

The news yesterday clearly said he hasn't signed, only given his approval.Max Mux (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It explicitly states that the treaty hasn't been signed yet. — Nightstallion 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Siegel writes it a bit different. My German is not that good to verify it but I think the new link is better than this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The German law which introduces the Treaty in Germany was signed - and that finanlizes the national ratification process in Germany. What's missing is him depositing the Treaty in Rome, that's all - but that is part of the international ratification process. You need to differ between what's necessary on nation level and international level. Germany has ratified as much as Belgium, Spain and Poland have so far. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 10:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)


 * That's all? Köhler is happy to sign the treaty if the Constitutional Court agrees, and yes, it's ratified (ie. parliamentary and senatorial majority), but it's NOT signed! The table says that all countries but Czechnia and Sweden agreed to the treaty in all necessary steps, and that's, by all means, misinformation. The presidents in question will not sign a treaty that is constitutionally questionable, and they say so in the very quotes given here. Sorry, but it's a long way to go before all remaining countries agreed!--FlammingoHey 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, how many of these are actually showing "green lights" correctly??? Is there more wishful thinking like the described in the rest of the table? (Sorry, don't mean to be blunt) --FlammingoHey 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where you disagree. Green indicates which part of the procedure is done. Check here at the top of this page where we established a consensus about Poland. The Polish president has signed the treaty. He just refuses to send the papers. The German president signed as well. He is not sending the papers for the same reason above. So, in both countries we are at the last stage of ratification. At least, you had to use the talk page in order to change something that it's there for so long. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. What both have signed are the national laws that implement the treaty in Poland and Germany. That is a necessary national step - the last necessary national step before deposition in Rome. People need to differ between the Lisbon Treaty itself and the laws that the parliaments voted for. There needs to be a law in both countries that introduces the Treaty as binding within the borders of the country. Without signing the law on a national level there will be no treaty within the country, implementation of the law is necessary for the ratification. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 10:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


 * The debate was rather confusing but what I got from it was that he had signed a law that allowed him to sign the treaty but not the treaty. The three news links all stated that he hadn't signed. Am I right in thinking that the same day he signs will be the deposition date? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer if someone more expert answers that question. As you may see from the discussion above, I got confused myself. I think what's missing is to sign the final documents submitted to Italy, but this has nothing to do with the national procedure which it's finished when he signed the law. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What Therequiembellishere is saying is exactly what I was saying at the end of septemper as you can see up here! Poland should be Light Blue, because the president hasn't signed the treaty yet, but only the bill that allows him to sign the treaty (whenever he will like). Sinigagl (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I have read, the page should not consider that the Polish president has signed the bill. Here is the article from just this week where he reiterated his decision not to sign the treaty until Ireland has. I've changed the map to correspond with this. I also used a different base SVG for the map, one with an accurate map of Kosovo.--Patrick «» 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the addition of Kosovo. It's not a country recognized by all the countries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain are the only member states who don't. Croatia and Turkey are the candidate states who don't and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are the only potential candidate states who don't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I didn't add Kosovo, it's been in the map since the beginning. I just corrected the borders, which were crudely drawn in the SVG file.--Patrick «» 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I already even quoted the German constitution to explain the situation. Same thing applies to Poland. I could quote the Polish constitution, too, but I think it's become useless to me too fight over this, because people to not understand the ratification process anyway. You need to differ between the national necessary steps and the international necessary steps. People act as if signing the law within the country was just an optional part of the process and worthless, when in fact there will NEVER be a treaty if that law is not signed. Signing the law is the final and absolutely necessary step within the national process. It concludes the national process. Without the signature the process on the national level is incomplete. Signing the papers and depositing is a whole different step and belongs in the deposition table column, nowhere else. I do not know what other sort of Presidential Assent people are waiting for than the one in which the President signs the law and therefore explains that this law is constitutional and the country is allowed to sign the treaty. If you want it this way - actually there are two "Presidential Assents" necessary - the one in which the law is signed (national assent), and second the one when he signs the deposition papers (international assent). I do not know why people do not want to understand this simple information. But it's probably all about the confusion the media has caused. But whatever the media says is pointless. What counts is what the law says. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC) And BTW just FYI: I'm a Law student majoring in European and International Law. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 07:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)
 * Somebody changed the table and the map again. So it's once more wrong. Well, that's a pity, but we probably aren't going to convince people that only the deposition is missing in Poland, despite it being the fact. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to EuropeanElitist for the clarification from the lawyer’s point of view. The clear message is: “There are two ‘Presidential Assents’ necessary - the one in which the law is signed (national assent), and second the one when he signs the deposition papers (international assent)“. I would add that in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic) “international assent” only takes the place (not the sign of the law). However, this assent is very important.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that the row „presidential assent“ can be understood as his assent as a whole, i.e. including both the national assent – if any – and the international assent. (The other option would be to divide the row „presidential assent“ in some countries into two parts.) It means: My opinion is that both Poland and Germany should be in light blue.--Horaljan (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Presidential Assents in Germany and Poland are about the same as all of the Royal Assents in other countries, like Spain. They also FIRST sign the law, which is what we marked as Royal Assent so far, and SECOND the King/Queen or someone else - not necessarily the King/Queen in every country (depends on what their constitution says) - signs the papers for the deposition in Rome after signing the law. We so far have NEVER put down the date of when the deposition papers were signed. We do not have the dates of the signatures on those papers, we only have the dates of when the papers were received in Rome. The signature dates do not matter really anyway, because for the deposition only the date of the arrival of the papers in Rome matters.
 * „presidential assent“ can be understood as his assent as a whole - I would disagree on that, because if you check out the German constitution there are two very different sections that regulate how the President has to sign the law first and later has to sign the international contract, meaning: the Lisbon Treaty. It's not ONE process, but it's two completely different steps. In Poland it's not any different. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 16:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)


 * Here's my issue, this map seems like a nice way to summarize the status in each country. However, I find it misleading to summarize Lech Kaczynski's decision to not sign the document as merely "Not yet deposited", which puts Poland in the same category as Germany, where Horst Köhler does approve. The two situations are not the same, as the map would lead viewers to believe. Secondly, the map should not be in conflict with the table on this page, where the Polish presidential assent is still empty.--Patrick «» 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now the table has been restored to its correct form. Regarding the comparison made between Poland and Germany I should say that they are indeed in the same legal situation. The map (and the table too) isn't supposed to give you info on the reasons that stand behind the status of the process but only on the status of the process itself. And Germany and Poland are, whithout any doubt, at the same stage of the process even if there's a huge difference in the political situation. So please don't mix legal and political things. We have a correct place where to insert info regarding the political debate and another place where we put legal infos. Messing it up wouldn't help an accurate representation of the facts. And by the way stop removing the presidential signature date for Poland unless you can prove that the law hasn't been signed. --Nick84 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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

I have read it in this book:

Max Mux (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2009: Zahlen Daten Fakten


 * I think that was just the first reading. Read more about the ratification process in the Czech Republic here.--Glentamara (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. The chamber of deputies most definitely did not yet ratify the treaty, it only passed the first reading (which basically just means that the chamber agreed to take a vote on the treaty). — Emil J. 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * Well, i can't find it. Under what section is that discussion? (and which archive page?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.209.207 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion at Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 2. I think there is a general view here that criticism is best mentioned where it is appropriate rather than in special "Criticism" sections (which tend to become troll magnets). Perhaps you would like to suggest textual additions to the relevant sections here. If assessments of the treaty are felt to be appropriate to this article, all major views (positive and negative) should be described from a neutral point of view and citing reliable sources. This may be more difficult and time-consuming than just presenting objective facts. --Boson (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Council section
The Council section starts "The remaining part of the Council of the European Union will still be an organised platform of meetings between national ministers of specific departments (e.g. finance- or foreign ministers)." without first explaining any sort of division. I surmise that this section once followed the European Council section, which states "'The European Council of national heads of government or heads of state (either the prime minister or the president), will officially be separated from the Council of the European Union (national ministers for specific areas of policy).'" Not having followed previous changes, I am not sure how best to fix this. --Boson (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Czech senate election 2008
Just a heads up: the latest election to the Senate of the Czech Republic resulted in a dramatic drop for anti-Treaty parties: although they still have a plurality, they no longer have a majority. Presumably this has implications for Czech ratification. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Åland - Gibraltar
Has something happened when it comes to the ratification in this dependency ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.236.114 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. Åland is supposed to vote on the treaty in autumn this year though. —EuropeanElitist&#8482; 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanElitist (talk • contribs)

What date would the parliament be likely to vote on the treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.111.171 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Going back through the edit history, I don't think anyone has actually tackled the question of what Gibraltar is doing about the treaty. Are they even debating discussion on the Treaty? What is the progress? --Paploo (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The real question you should be asking is why there should be any reference to Gibraltar at all. Britain can, and in fact has, ratified the treaty without needing Gibraltar's consent. Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the same reason we include the voting of the Europarliament. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but the treaties do at least require the European Parliament to be consulted. What applies to Gibraltar could also apply to the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Neither of these count as part of the EU, but all three will/would have to pass legislation recognising the Treaty's coming into force. In comparison I'm reasonably sure all of Belgium's regions actually have to approve the treaty before the government can formally ratify the treaty. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

History and Ratification
Things shouldn't be listed as history until they have actually happened. Ratification is current and deserves its own section. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Once (and if) every member state ratify the treaty is can enter into force. Every vote which is legally required counts as part of the ratification process, everything else is only consultation. Other than "National ratifications" what other kinds are there? Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Medianews "US sabotaged Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland
In european media journalists report that USA sabotaged the referendum in Ireland and that US gave financial help to the groups who worked against the treaty. GLGermann (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ftd:USA sollen EU-Vertrag sabotiert haben
 * I think we should add it.85.66.224.202 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Add it, but remember that it is based on speculation and not hard facts.86.42.204.140 (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a reference to the anti Lisbon treaty group Libertas (lobby group) whose founder Declan Ganley works for a company that has extensive contracts with the US military. Libertas spent a lot of money on the campaign, but under Irish law they were not obliged to divulge the source of that funding. There are suspicions that there were US sources for the money, but that would be breaking the law in Ireland (funding must be from Irish citizens), which Libertas insist they have not done. Ganley and Libertas are extremely tight-lipped about where the money did come from. These suspicions remain unproven, and as things stand Libertas are in compliance with Irish law, unless further evidence comes to light. Neelmack (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rather a long shot to extrapolate and blame what one US company might have done, to blaming the whole USA. There is a left-wing anti-USA lobby in the EU, but no anti-EU lobby in the USA that I have seen. Ultimately the problem was that most of us here in Ireland could not read the treaty and understand it in terms of plain ordinary language.86.42.215.131 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Future of the treaty?
I think there should be a part which deals with the future of the treaty, i.e. what will happen to it now that Ireland rejected it, can it be ratified at all, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.204.147 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It says clearly that all 27 EU memberstates need to ratify the treaty. If Ireland doesn't ratify it can't take effect. Any speculation beyond how the treaty may be implemented with or without Ireland is moot. There are endless possibilties that all involve new treaties. Other than drafting a new treaty or start the process again from stratch, the only possibilites are that Ireland may have another referendum or Ireland may size to be a memberstate (unlikely). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, if the treaty is ratified before June 1 2009 its rules would apply for the EP election, otherwise the rules from the Nice treaty. Is this correct?--Ambi Valent (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. It is one of the reasons why the Irish government is under pressure to clarify its strategy. However, it is now very unlikely that Ireland will hold a referendum before June, so the elections will have to be fought under Nice rules. The most likely date for a referendum (assuming there is one!) is October 2009. Any later than that and under the existing Nice Treaty, the number of commissioners will be automatically cut to fewer than the number of member states. This incidentally, is an 'own goal' for the anti Lisbon campaigners who objected to the cut in numbers under Lisbon, insisting that each state should have its own commissioner. Lisbon actually allows for each state to have a commissioner if all states agree, while Nice doesn't .Neelmack (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As Barak Obama was elected last month with 52.9% of the vote, and the Irish rejected the treaty with 53.1% of the vote, will any EU leader say to him in 2009: "52.9% is just not enough - you should hold a second election"? I don't think so. Regarding the next vote, it is not likely to pass during a recession. And, until it does pass, the whole EU must be run by the pre-Lisbon arrangements.86.42.215.131 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)