Talk:Treaty of Nice

Untitled
Removed line claiming that the Nice Treaty amendment to the Irish Constitution would enable future Treaties to be passed without the need for a referendum. Such a claim was made during the Nice II referendum and denied by the Irish Government. If it had included that, the referendum would have been voted down by 80%+ of the electorate. Even if it got through with such a provision, public anger at not holding a referendum on any future occasion would have been such that no political party would dare to vote through a new Treaty merely by putting it through parliament, for they would be committing political suicide. (And Europe would have guaranteed that Ireland would block every subsequent Treaty without exception in anger.) It would have been a very very very stupid clause to have included. JTD 01:31 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC) - Suggest that this page could do with re-structuring. Content is good and generally NPOV, but the current structure intermingles straightforward factual descriptions of the treaty's provisions with various criticisms. Suggest three headings: (1) Treaty provisions [purely factual]; (2) Discussion of Treaty [or similar] [with criticisms etc]; (3) Ratification [pretty much as it stands]. If I get a chance, I might look at some of these reworks, but time is pressing at the mo. Toby W 10:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Irish ratification
When I added the note on the Irish ratification of the European Constitution (now moved to Irish referendum on the European Constitution), I said that there was a second referendum held on the Treaty of Nice with no modifications, yet someone subsequently modified it to say that there WERE changes to it. I just accepted that I was wrong, but yet here it once again says that no changes were made. The page (On the european constitution) continues to say that there were changes made so please see it, to understand exactly what I mean.

So were there or weren't there changes made?

Title
The article is disambiguated as Treaty of Nice (2001), yet there's no disambiguity notice at the header and the basic Treaty of Nice redirects here. If there's another such Treaty, it should be noted in this article's header, or the basic title should be made into a full diambig page. If not, why the parenthesis? Radagast 03:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page back to just Treaty of Nice. I have also started the other article (the 1892 article). People typing Treaty of Nice will, in 99.99 % (or even more) of cases be looking for this article, so they should be taken here directly, not to some ambiguation page. Those should be used when a reasonably large minority of people will be looking for non-majority articles. The few people (I'm guessing one or two a year, excluding the ones clicking the link out of curiosity) looking for the 1892 treaty can then just click the dablink. Lilac Soul 09:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not true
"In response to the failed sanctions against Austria following coalition including Jörg Haider's party having come to power, and fears about possible future threats to the stability of the new member states to be admitted in enlargement, the Treaty of Nice for the first time adopted formal rules for the application of sanctions against a Member State."

These rules were adopted by the Amsterdam Treaty (ref.: Fiala, Pitrová - Evropská Unie, 2004, page 149) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.171.149 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice
This is nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.162.177 (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)