Talk:Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ireland

Shouldn't we include another line for Ireland in the ratification table for the Dáil resolution that approves the treaty's conditions (see Talk:Treaty of Lisbon#Ireland)? --Berntie (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to... The table is a summary and not a fully accurate representation of the ratification. I imagine other member states have more complicated processes as well. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon #Ireland finishes abruptly with the second referendum. Could we have a little more on the remaining steps as shown in the table? Why are they still 'to be determined'? --Red King (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The steps themselves aren't to be determined, just the dates on which they will occur. Since they haven't yet, the description has to stop at the second referendum, or else we'd be edging in to WP:CRYSTAL territory.
It's not WP:CRYSTAL. Certainly not when the steps to be taken are widely known. It's like saying: If X is to happen, then Y will have to happen first. It's just a logical statement.
There was an article in the Irish Times today saying that the President would sign the "ratification instrument" for the Lisbon Treaty. I guess what they really meant was the Referendum Bill. She has to sign this first! I'm pretty sure I can find sources for the procedure to be gone through. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish President has signed the ratification document. [1] —Terrence and Phillip 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have official information about completed ratification in Ireland here http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/government-takes-final-step-in-ratifying-lisbon-431426.html but it does not speak about head of state signature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.131.237 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Ireland, the table states that deposit in Rome was on 23rd October, but final presidential assent given on 27th October. Can the treaty really be deposited in Rome before final presidential assent granted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.210.194 (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's apparently what happened. My guess is that the President of Ireland doesn't have veto power (Article 25 of the Constitution of Ireland doesn't seem to allow for discretion), and the bill had already been passed by the Oireachtas. But you could e-mail the Irish Government and ask. ;-) 85.158.43.194 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic

A piece of news from Portal:Current events:

Anna Lincoln 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reporting from "The Times." Klaus never said that. The article also doesn't provide any quote. The whole article is based on this quote "Asked during a walkabout on Sunday not to put his name to the treaty, Mr Klaus replied: “Don’t worry, I won’t.” " - it's just bad journalism. As it was the case with previous treaties Klaus refused to sign at first (ICC e.g.), he will do so this time around - at the latest when the government threatens him with a complaint of being inactive, which can lead to a disciplinary actions against Klaus. After all, the Czech Constitution reads very specifically on what Klaus' position is when it comes to signing laws into effect - he has to look whether they are formally constitutional. He doesn't have actual veto power like the US president. At the end he must sign the law, it is his duty. If he doesn't, things could go as far as having him removed from office for failing to do his duty as an officer of the Czech Republic. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


About Beneš's decrees: can anybody fix this sentence?: "the decree that confiscated, without giving compensation, the properties of Germans and Hungarians during WWII." 1. Confiscation of properties was carried out AFTER WWII, not during. 2. The only property confiscated was the property of THOSE among Germans and Hungarians who were proved to take part in the nazi movement, committed war crimes or helped the occupants in hunting resistance members etc. (J. Kozák) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.211 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish president signs

Ireland has fully completed the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The country's president signed the document, making it legally binding. [2] Please, correct the map. --Lumidek (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That AFP source is inaccurate. The president has approved the amendment to the Irish constitution allowing ratification. Next steps are the formal ratification by Parliament and President, then deposition of the documents in Rome. Then, the map can be updated.--Rye1967 (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And from Recent bills for Parliament we see that the bill for ratification of the Treaty has been published today, 16th October. Not sure if it will be passed today or not. --Rye1967 (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been formally ratified by the Dáil yesterday and will be passed by the Seanad (senate) today. The president will sign it by the weekend then it's off to Rome for deposition. After that there's just 1 man out of 500 million left to sign. 78.16.110.44 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus defeated?

Klaus has hinted defeat on his attempt to block the Lisbon treaty. While it is still unsure wether he is willing to sign, he does recognize his efforts may not work. Source 1, 2, 3, and 4. 'Resistance is futile.' :) —Terrence and Phillip 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus is now willing to sign treaty. Opt-out was granted. Source 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 —Terrence and Phillip 17:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia

Slovakia said it wants similar opt-outs as the Czech Republic. Should this be part of the ratification page? Can they reneogiate a document that they already ratified? Mark 9:10 AM UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.65.43 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If such an opt out were given it would be appended to the end of the treaty and later incorporated into the next treaty (Croatia and/or Iceland accession in all likelihood). For now, all that is needed is for the governing body of the EU to agree - not the member states individually. At least that is my understanding, I'm sure someone else can give more precise details (and corrections if needed). What confuses me is that I was under the impression that it had been determined long ago that actions from before the existence of the EU (or more properly, its predecessor organizations) were not subject to backwards review. It seems to me that the Czech president is making a false argument, the situation he seeks to prevent cannot occur.Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your impression is true enough, and Klaus must be well aware of that. His goal is not really to prevent Sudeten Germans from invalidating Beneš decrees or what not, the sole intention of his populist demand is to gain support for his anti-Lisbon obstructionist campaign from general Czech populace. — Emil J. 15:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map colours

Please see the discussion I have started at File_talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg#New_colours. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 15:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland deposited?

I don't know if this is a WP:RS, but according to this link, Ireland deposited today. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian foreign ministry confirmed here [3].

Ireland: Presidential Assent to European Union Bill 2009?

Can Presidential Assent to European Union Bill 2009 be given on 23 October 2009?

Please see Article 25 "Signing and Promulgation of Laws" of Constitution of Ireland: "2. 1° Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, every Bill so presented to the President for his signature and for promulgation by him as a law shall be signed by the President not earlier than the fifth and not later than the seventh day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.60.233 (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she can, but it depends The following subsection says that:
"At the request of the Government, with the prior concurrence of Seanad Éireann, the President may sign any Bill the subject of such request on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after such date as aforesaid."
I checked last friday and was pretty sure that such a motion had been passed, but I can't see it now. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wondered about that. I expect these two pages will reveal what happened if we wait long enough. 85.158.43.194 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, we've no source to back up the assertion that she signed on Friday. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she didn't sign doesn't that mean that the treaty instruments cannot be formally ratified.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she didn't sign, how could it have already been deposited? Khajidha (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EUROPEAN UNION ACT 2009 (ACT NO. 33 OF 2009) (Signed on: 27th October 2009) these —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.141.147 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could she have signed it on 27th and deposited it 4 days earlier? makes no sense at all
It can make sense, depending on Ireland's internal constitutional rules. Perhaps all that was needed for her to have the authority to issue Ireland's ratification was the approval of the Treaty via the Constitutional Amendment; and the "statute bill" served the purpose of completing the incorporation of the treaty into national law, but was not a pre-requisite for President McAleese's action of formalizing Ireland's commitment to the Treaty vis a vis the other parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.33.30.202 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Ratification Issues

If ratification issues relating to Ireland/Germany/Czech etc are planned to be kept up even after ratification has been completed then I think that there are several other issues that should be mentioned too (even if they were not as long running or prominent). They are interesting and add information on the ratification process. If you don't trust the info just do some searching and you can find articles to source these to.

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

Czech Republic: There were fears that the upper house would vote against as it as many in the senate come from the presidential party. Additionally there were threats to try and force the presidents signature through legal action but these were not carried out as they were also linked to the ICC treaty which he then signed.

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

Finland - Aland Islands: Referendum discussed in regional parliament but voted against.

The Netherlands: Originally held a referendum on Constitution. 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 was postponed at one point after fears opposition would not support it.

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

United Kingdom: The mini-referendum held in East Renfrewshire. The vote in parliament over whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The government election promise of a referendum on the Constitution which led to this vote. The legal challenge by Mr Stuart Wheeler. Strong public opposition. Conservative election promise threat to ratification.

Abstention in the UK Commons vote

The cited references for the UK Commons vote do not appear to give the number of abstentions. Unless a reliable source is given for this figure, it should be removed. Abstentions are not recorded. Abstention may imply deliberately refraining from voting, rather than being prevented by illness, for instance. To know the number of abstentions, we might need to know how many MPs were "paired" etc. etc. (and unless someone else has done the calculations that would probably be original research). Putting the figure in this column also implies comparison with other countries. If the figures for other countries only include recorded abstentions it would be misleading to use a calculated (or miscalculated) figure for the UK. I did find a source that gave a figure for abstentions, but it wasn't 81. --Boson (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source with specific numbers then please present the source to allow it to be discussed. if you fail to provide the source you are talking of then it will be assumed either rightly or wrongly that there is no source that you are talking of.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! Does anyone have a reliable source for the number 81? If I had thought it appropriate to give a figure for abstentions I would have cited my source. Since I had only one, unconfirmed source and had not formed an opinion that it was authoritative, I chose not to name it.
If it were a matter of simple arithmetic, policy might allow us to calculate the value. So we have
    • 646 total seats
    • -346 Ayes
    • -206 Noes
    • = 94 potential abstentions.
Now it gets problematic:
The speaker and 3 deputies do not "normally" vote. But does that mean they normally abstain? Or do we remove them from the count.
5 members cannot vote unless they first swear the required oath of allegiance and take their seats. So you could regard them as permanent abstentions. However, since (without first complying with the rules) they could not record an abstention even if that were possible, it might not be appropriate to count them as abstaining.
Then we have MPs who were sick.
Then we have MPs who intended to vote but got stuck in a traffic jam.
So what figure should we give?:--Boson (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A wider debate is needed because simply putting N/A is misleading as it implies that all of the members voted. Third opinions are needed as IAR may be applicable in this case as all of the other parliaments allow posative abstentions this is a form of passive abstention. A clarification on the type of abstention that is being talked of is needed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything other than "N/A", or something equivalent, would probably be misleading. I don't see how "N/A" is supposed to imply that all members voted. Blank might lead readers to infer that. I would say we should restore "N/A" and add a footnote explaining that it is not possible to explicitly record abstentions. To avoid misleading readers, any figures should only be included in a footnote, where the caveats will be seen. --Boson (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posative abstentions may not be possible in the HoC but that is not wat the table says. The table just says abstentions and not registered abstentions. N/A should not be used as abstentions can be registered in a round about way by votin twice but that is rarley done. The last person to do so was Boris Johnson if I remember correctly. Voting abstrain though is not possible.
A clarification is needed on the types of abstention possible which the table is recording, as the HoC has a convoluted way and a passive way but no simple posative way like other places, putiing N/A implies abstaining is some how tottally barred which it is not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that non-registered abstentions are possible in other countries, too; so for comparability, if we give total non-votes for the UK we should, arguably, do the same for the other countries. The main problem is that, as far as I can see, we have no reliable source for the figure of 81 that was given. We do have a source that should be reliable for a figure of 94, but we know that that is misleading, and definitely not comparable. Whatever figure we give in the table it will be misleading. I would propose an asterisk in the table with a table note "c" (we already have a and b). That note could then refer to an article footnote reference giving more details and sources. The footnote could include something like There is no way of explicitly registering abstentions in the House of Commons, so it is not possible to give a number of abstentions comparable with other countries'. The total difference between registered votes (ayes and noes) and the total number of seats is 94. However, this includes the speaker and his 3 deputies, who do not normally vote, 5 members who cannot vote because they have not taken their seats, and an unknown number of MPs who were unable to or chose not to attend the vote. References should be added for the figure of 94 and for the explanstion about MPs who normally cannot or do not vote.
If an MP votes 'yes' and 'no', one knows that the MP attended the vote and one can infer that he or she thereby intended to indicate abstention. Since this is rare, I don't think it could count as a general convention for registering an abstention (comparable with other countries). If it were, then we would have to assume that there were zero abstentions - or possibly revise the number of "yes" and "no" votes; we couldn't count such votes as "yes", "no", and "abstain".
We can explain the details but we cannot honestly name any one figure for abstentions without misleading the reader (and/or doing original research). --Boson (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing lines in ratification table

Three in all: the Presidential Assent for Bulgaria and Greece, and the Royal Assent for Sweden. Is this a simple oversight, or an inability to find reliable sources for the dates? Waltham, The Duke of 09:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bulgaria, I have changed the language of the link to English. However, there is no Presidential Assent for Bulgaria, since the procedure of ratification is through parliamentary vote as you can read here for example. Bulgaria is parliamentary republic. If you are talking about the date of submission in Rome, this link serves the purpose. BloodIce (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Sweden it is the government - and not the head of state (the king) - which formally ratifies international treaties. The government ratified the treaty of Lisbon on 27 November 2008. I think that it is the head of state (king, queen or president) that formally ratifies the treaty - after a parliamentary vote - in all other EU countries. So, we are missing some dates. --Glentamara (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I suppose I could have done my homework first, though Wikipedia itself is not very helpful regarding the President of Bulgaria. I have to note, BloodIce, that parliamentary republics normally have bills signed into law by the head of state, the president; that the process is in most cases ceremonial does not mean that it can be omitted, which is why I was surprised to hear about these admittedly rather unusual arrangements in Bulgaria. I expect others to be confused as well, so perhaps a note explaining this point would be useful. Sweden's case may be somewhat different, in that if a formal governmental ratification was needed, a line could very well be added to the table about it. Finally, Greece fits the usual model, so there should be a Presidential Assent... I haven't been able to find a source on the date, though. Waltham, The Duke of 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any official source or even marginal comment for Presidential Assent in Bulgaria, and I do speak the language. I wonder if that simply does not exist. I imagine this particular signature to be more bureaucratic than ceremonial and I am not sure if it is still presidential. With Sweden the case is quite the same - there was not anything like huge ceremony at the Royal palace as I remember. BloodIce (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty all heads of state, except for the Swedish king, are mentioned. Instead, the Swedish government is mentioned. So, you cannot compare Bulgaria with Sweden. Article 98 of the Bulgarian constitution says: "The President of the Republic shall (...) 3. conclude international treaties in the circumstances established by the law; 4. promulgate the laws; (...)". And as I said before, the Swedish king has no (political) power in Sweden, not even formally like the monarchs in Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom. --Glentamara (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the president of Bulgaria is mentioned in the preamble indeed. So good luck then. As for the King Carl XVI Gustaf, I just said that his signature has not been required, as far as I know. Regards, BloodIce (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

When the Czech president puts pen to paper some time within the next decade, the map in the lead section will become useless. Any thoughts about creating a replacement? I think an animated map highlighting the member-states by date of deposition would be excellent, if anyone would bother creating it. Waltham, The Duke of 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion was started here about that. Anna Lincoln 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries have a wrong colour on the ratification map

See [4]. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Compatible

Czech justice dictates that the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the Constitution. [5] [6] [7] [8] Anna Lincoln 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About time. If not happened yet should be put into the article. Pro66 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus signed

Sky News [9], Associated Press [10], Reuters [11] reporting Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed Lisbon 3pm Czech time, 3 November 2009. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. No sources speaking of deposition yet. One would guess they'd be quite eager to deposit it on the same or next day, like it was with Ireland. This site has been always late when it comes to updating depositions, so let's see. --Pudeo' 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article[12], the Prime Minister now has to formally countersign the treaty and deposit the instruments of ratification to Rome (him, not the President). This is expected to happen by tomorrow. — Emil J. 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now they updated the article: the Prime Minister has countersigned the treaty; it's not clear whether the instrument was already sent to Rome, but it should be there tomorrow at the latest. — Emil J. 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead-in is now wrong, as the instrument of ratification will not be deposited today (documents need to physically be sent from Poland to Italy and that takes a couple of hours). Why do people always love to jump the gun? 77.116.213.28 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because they want to get done, and no longer have to bother about it. It always feels good to tick something off the list, doesn't it?
In any case, the entire article subject will soon be entirely in the past tense, which will no doubt contribute to the stability of the article. Another little bit for the history books... Waltham, The Duke of 00:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of deposition of the Czech instrument of ratification

Will be deposited on Friday [13]. --Pudeo' 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friday next week, that is. — Emil J. 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The source is an article issued today, and it says that the deposition will take place "next Friday". That would be tomorrow, November 6, and not Friday next week, November 13. The source also mentions that the Czech Foreign Minister will be on a two day visit to the Vatican, and will use his stay in Rome as an opportunity to deliver the document in person to the Italian Foreign Ministry. So, this is an important clue to understand the meaning of "next Friday": when will this Vatican visit take place? I ask this because the simple reading of the source indicated above leads me to the conclusion that deposition is set to take place tomorrow, and not on the 13th.--201.33.30.202 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czech-pm-to-visit-vatican-in-mid-november/405122 he's going to the vatican on the 13th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.185.217 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animated map

I added this, hope it's alright with everyone. If it needs changing do say. Urpunkt (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice of you to take the initiative. The map is quite OK, but I wonder, remembering the case of Germany, isn't deposition date that actually matters. That is the final step and there were many political obstacles for several states to finish the procedure. It might be separate map though. BloodIce (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be for basing it on the deposition dates, mostly on the grounds that it captures the delays in Germany and Poland. But apart from that, I quite like it. 82.229.246.219 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The animated map is an excellent idea. But I too think that it should be based on the deposition dates, because that is when the ratification by each country actually ends. Only the use of the dates of deposition captures the delays that happened in Germany and in Poland.--189.4.208.67 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map is well executed, but I agree that it ought to be based on the deposition dates, which is a much better and more objective criterion by which to judge the end of the ratification process for each country. (It could indeed be a separate map, although if we do end up with two maps I don't see much use for the old one.) I'd add to the two examples already mentioned that of Belgium, which had a fairly complex process, and the position of which in the existing animation is together with the UK and Estonia by virtue of the date of Royal Assent (19 June), despite the fact that four other votes postdate it. Perhaps they were just consultative.
I have taken the liberty to compile the new order, which differs from the old one in several places:
  • 6 February 2008 – Hungary and Malta
  • 14 February 2008 – France
  • 11 March 2008 – Romania
  • 24 April 2008 – Slovenia
  • 28 April 2008 – Bulgaria
  • 13 May 2008 – Austria
  • 29 May 2008 – Denmark
  • 16 June 2008 – Latvia
  • 17 June 2008 – Portugal
  • 24 June 2008 – Slovakia
  • 16 July 2008 – United Kingdom
  • 21 July 2008 – Luxembourg
  • 8 August 2008 – Italy
  • 12 August 2008 – Greece
  • 26 August 2008 – Cyprus and Lithuania
  • 11 September 2008 – Netherlands
  • 23 September 2008 – Estonia
  • 30 September 2008 – Finland
  • 8 October 2008 – Spain
  • 15 October 2008 – Belgium
  • 10 December 2008 – Sweden
  • 25 September 2009 – Germany
  • 12 October 2009 – Poland
  • 23 October 2009 – Ireland
  • 13 November 2009 – Czech Republic
I've double-checked it, although I'm sure someone who doesn't know me well will repeat the trouble, "just in case". Waltham, The Duke of 04:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I really can't see the point the this image. This isn't like enlargement, it doesn't matter who are first and who was last. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A case can be made that this image is too current-events oriented, or that it was created so that we would not be left without an image in the article. However, even if the animation might not necessarily be very useful in Treaty of Lisbon, I think that it is of some interest here, or, at the very least, harmless.
I am inspired, however, perhaps to the exasperation of any map-makers watching this page, to propose something else... Would it be a terrible departure from the current state of optimum simplicity if we include more colours and stages in the map? I am thinking that we might opt for a multi-level animation, where would be shown not only the final ratification (deposition of the signed document in Rome, as most people here are suggesting) but intermediate stages, resulting in a more general view of the progress of ratification in Europe. For example, light blue might be used for parliamentary approval, yellow for approval by the head of state or head of government (depending on the arrangements), red for a referendum with a negative result and dark green for one with a positive result; a country would change colours as the Treaty there would move through the various votes and signings.
Such a map may be tougher to follow (and much more work to create), but it will have a greater encyclopaedic value in terms of information included and comparisons made that are not easily found in the article. Indeed, a well-made specimen might be a good FP candidate. In any case, I don't think people are supposed to memorise any orders of countries. It is my impression that in such cases it is the general impression that matters the most, and perhaps some individual cases upon which the viewer may focus due to personal interest or exceptional circumstances. I think that's the case with most such animations—provided we are talking about viewers not endowed with photographic memory.
(A small timeline in one of the upper corners would help the reader understand the passage of time even better with regards to the complicated ratification processes of some of the EU member-states, but I'll not push it. Actually, I'd love to make the map myself and not have to ask anyone to dedicate so many hours to an idea of mine, but I have no clue as to how to do that. Any pointers?) Waltham, The Duke of 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally planned to do different colours for parliamentary approval, assent/ratification, and deposition which would be 79 (?) frames of animation. I was noobishly working with layers as frames of animation so that also could have made my imaging software hang. Also, I was working with the colours as given on the previous maps on this page, which weren't actually appropriate for four new stages as I'd need two colours signifying intermediateness between the somewhat-desaturated blue and the bright green...

I tried something different this time working more closely with the vector image. The borders should be clearer now. If people would prefer a multi-stage map could they help me specify two colours? Starting from black, we can go black-yellow-green, but national assent and then deposition is pretty boring. It doesn't show much. Red looks like a rejection so it can't really be part of the sequence. I could do Yellow (parliamentary support)->Turquoise (national assent->Green (deposited). It's a bit of a weird progression but trouble is blue means sad and green means go, not the reverse. I could deface the yellow with red or turquoise stripes for Ireland's referenda, but Ireland's quite small and peripheral (geographically) so it might be better to mark it with a different coloured star or something. Or someone else could do it :p Urpunkt (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC) fffff missed out Ireland, I'll fix it now. Urpunkt (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Urpunkt, I guess this is the discussion you wanted to point me. Good. Found it.
I would like to make the case that the map should be based on the dates when the final signature (by the head of states) was delivered. For two reasons. this is what is referred to as the date of ratification in the international press (e.g., Czechia ratified on 3 November). My second point is that this is the last date where a decision is taken. True the documents still need to be deposited somewhere, but nobody has the authority to stop this. Deposition will, in any case, follow.
I have to say that I love the proposal to use 79 frames and acknowledge each step, but viewing this discussion, I have little hope that this can become consensus. Tomeasy T C 09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the deposition date is the only meaningful date. It is the date on which each country is internationally recognised as having ratified the treaty, and provides a consistent standard across all member states. As such, it also takes into account all political obstacles, legal challenges, horse-trading, chair-warming, and other delays incurred in each country.
In the case of Germany, the provisions of the treaty were approved / implemented by parliamentary vote, to which the German President gave his assent in 2008. However, the instrument of ratification was not sent to Rome until 2009, after a constitutional court decision and another parliamentary vote. The deposition date reflects this.
In the case of the United Kingdom, the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 was passed by Parliament and given royal assent in June 2008, but the instrument of ratification wasn't deposited until July 2008, largely as a result of a legal challenge in the High Court. Again, the deposition date reflects this.
It should be pointed out that many journalists gloss over the subtleties of treaty ratification, and use grossly simplified, misleading phrases such as "The Czech president has signed the Treaty of Lisbon" to mean that he has approved a law implementing the treaty's provisions (the treaty was signed in December 2007 in, er, Lisbon); and "The Czech Republic has ratified the treaty" which would be more accurately phrased as "There's no longer a significant political obstacle to the Czech Republic ratifying the treaty before the end of the month." 85.158.43.194 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am fine with using the deposition date as the basis for our map, due to your arguments.
However, the German president did not sign in 2008, this happend on 23 September 2009. Tomeasy T C 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you got your wrong information from. It was in this article under the section "At a glance". I corrected the mistake. Tomeasy T C 07:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

I don't think Gibraltar has to ratify the treaty: http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/gibraltar-lisbon-treaty.html The UK ratifies treaties for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.65.43 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what the Gibraltar section actually says.
However, the sentence "With respect to these territories a rejection could result in the treaty not applying to the territories in question, although this depends on the domestic laws applicable to the territories in question." is possibly misleading as regards Gibraltar, as it does not distinguish between applicability under European or international law and applicability according to domestic law. It might be understood as meaning that the incorporation into domestic law is not obligatory. It might also imply that a court of appeal would not regard the treaty as having direct effect (which, like the opposite statement, would probably be original research). Basically, any statement on the matter is probably original research (synthesis) unless we can find a reliable source,--Boson (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see also here Talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon#Gibraltar. Alinor (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German presidential assent

I corrected the article where it was stated that German presidential assent was given in 2008. The refs supposed to back this statement were from 2009. The true date of the president's signature is in 2009.

Now, I was reverted by Nick pointing at this talk page. I did not find a discussion resulting in the true date being 2008. So, I reinstalled again my statement which is backed up by all the references.

In case, I am completely misunderstanding something that I do not think of at the moment, please let me know here. Tomeasy T C 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 2#Germany? (Green suggest false fact: some countries aren't there yet!), Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 3#Poland, Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 3#Treaty of Lisbon not ratified in Poland, Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 3#A little help with the map, Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 3#Germany again, and several other threads in archives 2 and 3. — Emil J. 15:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a complete section devoted to the German ratification process. I cite a paragraph where all dates refer to 2009:
The Bundestag held an extraordinary session on 26 August to examine a draft law on strengthening parliamentary oversight.[109] On 8 September, the bill was passed by 446 votes to 46 with 2 abstentions.[110] After the Bundesrat gave its unanimous approval on 18 September,[111] the law was signed into force by the German President on 23 September and published in the official gazette on 24 September.[112] The president signed the German instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon on 25 September, after which it was deposited in Rome by the German Ambassador.[43][113]
The whole section does not mention the date 8 October 2008. Yet, you want to say that this is the date that we shall report in the section At a glance. This is more than weird, when at the same time we write, the law was signed into force by the German President on 23 September [2009], and I do not think anyone doubts the truth of it.
The absurdness of the current content culminates in the table under At a glance, where we see the following:
Germany 8 October 2008 Presidential Assent Granted [42][43]
Yet, when you read the refs [42][43] they are referring to 23 September 2009. Please, take a deep breath and think before you revert. I will not re-install my version. I hope that the weight of evidences is heavy enough, so that one of the two who reverted me will do that. Tomeasy T C 16:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The law that was signed on 23 September was not the Lisbon Treaty, but the extra law on "strengthening parliamentary oversight", which is not actually part of ratification of the Treaty. On 25 September, the president did not sign the treaty, he signed the German instrument of ratification, i.e., he authorized the deposition of the document. Do read the archives to understand the difference between the internal ratification process and deposition. Both require the signature of the president, and the two steps are usually confused in news reports. The refs were apparently messed up earlier. — Emil J. 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the input. I agree with your arguments.
I read through the archives and I think I understand more now than before, but do you want me to post my criticism in the achieves?
My criticism prevails in so far that the references seem to apply to the presidential assent (because they are in the same row), while they refer to his signing of the instrument, which is not mentioned in the table. This is also a technical/layout problem. In the refs column we have as many rows as in the Conclusion date column, and as far as I can see they ought to be associated. Therefore, it is not clear where references ought to be placed to prove the date of the Deposited column. And at last, we should not place references to a date that it not mentioned in the table at all (23 September 2009). Perhaps we should just drop the Refs column and put the references next to the dates they support.
Another criticism relates to section Germany, where the very clear story of your post above is just absent. I will try to improve this. Tomeasy T C 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, partially it was my fault, I should have indicated more clearly which talk page I was referring to. --Nick84 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I accept that my changes were wrong.
Let's move on and remove the inconsistencies that prevail. I mentioned them above. I assume you agree with the two criticisms I raised (i.e., wrong refs, lack of info in Germany section). Tomeasy T C 10:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your first input, I think that the problem is that someone, in order to avoid reverts, included in the last column references stating that the documents had been deposited in Rome while in principle only the official European Council reference (placed near the heading of deposition column) is needed. I think that we can safely remove those extra refs. Coming to your second point I'd say that adding a sentence explaining the meaning of "stalled fifteen months earlier" wouldn't hurt anyone. Something like "While the German parliament approved a bill authorizing the ratification of the Treaty before the end of May 2008, a group of lawmakers filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. The German president at first decided not to sign the bill into law but at the end, to show his support for the treaty according to some sources, decided to enact the bill and to wait for the Court sentence before signing the documents to be deposited in Rome."--Nick84 (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the first issue, but I think we can get the second one down. Let me give it a shot based on your proposition:
After the bicameral German parliament approved a bill authorizing the ratification of the treaty by 24 April and 23 May 2008, a group of parliamentarians filed a complaint with the constitutional court. To show his support for the treaty, the German President enacted the bill on 8 October 2008, but waited for the court sentence before signing the documents on 23 September 2009 to be deposited in Rome.
It would be great if we had refs for these dates. Unfortunately, none of the refs currently in the article really does this job despite the ones I proposed to support 23 September 2009. Tomeasy T C 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here it is [14] (for the signing since the parliament approval dates are already correctly referenced). I'm going to correct wrong references in the table as soon as I finish this post. --Nick84 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the only proof to make your case, I am afraid that my initial objections withstand. I cite from your source:
However, he [Horst Koehler] had not formally signed off on it, Kothe said of the act that would finalize German ratification. Koehler said he would wait for German Federal Court rulings on cases brought by Germans who oppose the treaty. The verdicts are not expected until next year.
So, I stand arguing that German presidential assent was given on 23 September 2009, because this is the only date where we have references that he signed. Or, are you saying that presidential assent should refer to verbal statements rather than signatures? Tomeasy T C 08:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that the Deutsche Welle article quoted by Nick84 doesn't contain any useful information. In fact, it's a classic example of journalists not really understanding the mechanics of treaty ratification, trying to simplify it for their readers, and ending up printing a completely meaningless article. I vaguely recall someone producing a German language reference for what actually happened back in 2008, but I could be imagining it. Is there not some official website that shows presidential promulgation of federal laws, like the Irish one? After all, that's what the date in the table represents (along with all the other presidential and royal assent dates). The signature on 23rd September 2009 was, as far as I can tell, that on the instrument of ratification. 82.229.246.219 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whoops, no, the instrument of ratification was signed on 25th September. The signature on 23rd September was to approve a law related to the ratification law (I should know, I wrote some of the text in the article about that. :-/) Currently the table only shows the Bundestag, Bundesrat, and presidential assent dates for the ratification law. 82.229.246.219 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Indeed, I am not really contesting that all what you and Nick are saying is wrong. We juast have a problem of finding appropriate references, while we have references that claim something else. However, these references might be incorrect, I agree. Perhaps, I can dig something up when I find some time to do research. Tomeasy T C 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just found that the reference in place actually holds links to pdf-files which contain all the information (i.e., the dates) that I was asking for. Consider this section closed, from my side. Tomeasy T C 11:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for Czech deposition

We need a citation for the deposition of the Czech instrument of ratification (it has been added to the map) what we have now is a reference to the ceremony being scheduled, three days prior to the event. Does the date on the map for Germany need to be changed again? Urpunkt (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the reference. — Emil J. 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph

"Hungary was the first member state where the treaty was approved by a national parliament on 17 December 2007. The President of the Czech Republic was the last to sign the Treaty's ratification, on 3 November 2009."

Is this section really necessary? Why is who ratified it first and last important enough to be included in the opening paragraph? It might seem relevant now but in 10 years time I don't see why these facts would be that crucial to readers understanding of the rest of the article. --Hippoattack (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By mentioning the first and last decision with date, we also give a temporal frame for the ratification process, apart from mentioning which country acted first and where the process took longest.
In any case, if we were to remove the statement about Czechia, I think, we should also remove that concerning Hungary. I would prefer to keep both. Tomeasy T C 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but as it is it doesn't even make sense does it? "was the last to sign the Treaty's ratification" that seems like a quite a basic issue that should be fixed. --Hippoattack (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just give it a shot. Tomeasy T C 12:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I deleted the statement you objected, after it could be stated that on 13 November the whole process was accomplished by Czechia depositing the instruments. This way, everything I wanted to convey is conveyed. The statement about the Czech president became superflous. Tomeasy T C 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish ratification

I have to strongly disagree with what is written about signature of Polish President on ratification document. It's NOT true that he signed the ratification on April 9th 2008. The correct date is October 10th 2009. On April 9th he had signed the act which allowed him to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the archived discussions referred in German presidential assent section above. --Nick84 (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the reverted edits on this one, I was thinking that it might be the same situation as for Germany, which has been discussed before. However, I do not think it is sufficient to point at details outlined in that discussion assuming that the Polish case is the same. We have to assess the Polish case and find out whether the assumption is true, and if not, there are still many possibilities. Te devil is in the details, and with the exceptional cases we are dealing here, those details are always differing somehow. Tomeasy T C 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In those archives there were a lot of discussions that focused specifically on the Polish ratification (Of course I assume that you could understand how many I-Hate-Lisbon-Treaty people come up contesting that date). You're right: the devil is in the details and unfortunately it seems that the devil is very good at fooling press. The Polish president actually signed that law in the day we correctly report and signed the documents to be sent in Rome this fall. --Nick84 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What You writte here is a complete irrelevant becouse the Polish law is clear. Ratification took place on October 10th 2009 and that is a fact. Facts does not come under the discussion. I'm Pole and I know the law of my country. If the date of April 9th 2008 is the date of ratification, there woulden't be such an emotional discussion in Polish media refering to when ther will be a Presidential sign (whitch took place - I repeat - on October 10th 2009, after Klaus' signature). There was an official cerremony in witch Jose Manuel Barroso, Sweedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and the President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek participated. It's in Polish [15]. —Preceding unsigned contribs) 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that facts are to hard for you to understand [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get emotional and personal on this.
One correction: Klaus signed on 3 November 2009, which is after both of the dates that you are discussing with Nick. Tomeasy T C 07:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake about Klaus. Kaczynski sign it after Irish YES. But the rest is obviously correct, and what the Wikipedia gives us now is not true. Consider this as a help and good advise. I'm not geting personal - it's matter of fundamental knowlidge of one's country law and not giving to people corrupted and false information. Think about it, pleas.
Please sign your statements.
I do not really know about the Polish situation but, as you can see from the section above, I have a similar problem with the German ratification. In my case as well, almost all German would say that the information here is incorrect, and that is how I started that section. People explained me - and they are probably not so wrong - that things are more complicated than news reports reveal. So, on that section, we are left with the problem that we do not find appropriate sources, which is a huge problem, because I think references weight heavier than our believes. In case I should not find anything that backs up the reasonable things I was told, I will try to revert to the obviously correct statement.
Perhaps, the Polish case is different. Anyway, it would help if you provided references in English, so we can all assess the case. Your opponents are of course charged with backing up their claims with references as well, which may be difficult - but please in English. Tomeasy T C 08:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Here You go. I hope Presidential website is enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) And I want to say that I'm not writing what I think is true - I write facts.[18]Another one - Swedish Presidency website[reply]

Good. That places the ball in your opponents court - I would say. Tomeasy T C 07:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand the difference between the law authorizing the ratification and the instrument of ratification. We have already debated such a question and we reached a well established consensus. As it's impossibile to have a reliable source that state in which date the instruments of ratification have been signed for all the countries but for Poland and Germany (due to the high media attention) we decided by consensus quite a long time ago that only authorization is going to be shown in the table while the deposition is good enough to give an idea of when the instrument of ratification for each country has been signed by the respective head of state / government (since between the signing of the ratification instrument and the deposition there are no intermediate step apart from taking the instrument to Rome). --82.240.232.170 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PS: In short left column covers the internal part of the ratification process (i.e. the constitutional required steps needed to become party of a treaty) while last column covers the international part of the ratification process (i.e. the two steps required for the acceptance of the treaty to be communicated to the other high contracting parties)... --82.240.232.170 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I understand the difference between the law authorizing the ratification and the instrument of ratification. In this case first one is an act passed by Polish Parliament and the second one is Presidential signature. That's clear for my but obviously you don't know much about Polish law if You claim that Kaczynski gave his assent in April 2008. Now I want You to understand that what he did then was signing the act and that is quite normal in Polish law tha the President signs Parliament's acts. He can sign it, not sign it or veto it. Reference no 61 referce to this act passed by PP and signed by Polish President but HIS SIGNATURE HAD NO connection and nothing in common with ratification or assent or any other approval of Traety of Lisbon. 'The law authorizing the ratification' is Polish Parliament Act not Presidential(!); 'the instrument of ratification' is the signature of Kaczynski on October 10th 2009. In April 2008 Kaczynski signed act that gave him approval to ratificate the Treaty of Lisbon. Is it so difficult? The table is wrong and the Polish law is clear. I assume that You're not Polish so You are not capable to read the reference no 61 but thats not my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated pointing to consensus elaborated in the past does not help this case, because obviously this has changed and consensus can change.
I understand all the arguments: There are two instances when the president has signed something and we just have one column, and we had decided to report the first instance and not the second. There is really no need to explain this anz more.
The problems are that (1) the rule about the first instance is very unintuitive to our readers, (2) the rule is hidden in a talk page archive, and (3) we do not have sources to proof the dates of the first instance in this case here.
While the first two problems can be solved by some effort explaining our self-made rule in the section At a glance, the last problem is the crucial one. If we do not find references for the first instance, but the whole world holds references about the second instance, which read just like what we are stating in the table, then we make ourselves ridiculous and we give a blow to more fundamental Wikipedia project rules (WP:CITE#CHALLENGED,WP:OR,WP:V).
I have only one thing to say. What kinde of consensus assumes telling people things that are NOT TRUE?
Call the people who agreed on the previous consensus to defend their case, if you like. Or, dig up references that support that support the dates pertaining to the rule of the first instance. However, do not defend status quo any more. Status quo stinks, and I hope I could make this clear. Tomeasy T C 07:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


@Beegees: ... what he did then was signing the act ... He can sign it, not sign it or veto it: yes, and that's exactly what "presidential assent" in the left column means. ... 'the instrument of ratification' is the signature of Kaczynski on October 10th 2009: yes, and that's exactly what the right column means, except that the table does not give the date of signature, but the date it was received in Rome. So, you just confirmed that the table is correct. — Emil J. 11:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emil, I think by now we all understand the problem. My post goes beyond that. Do you agree? What do you say about it? Tomeasy T C 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what goes beyond what? And what does "what you use say" mean? I'm puzzled. — Emil J. 12:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I corrected the last question. Tomeasy T C 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and where did you get the idea that we do not have sources to proof the dates of the first instance in this case here? The source is pretty clear, if you can read Polish. Even Beegees above agreed that Kaczyński signed something in April 2008, there is no question about the dates. The only question is which of the two signatures should be given where. — Emil J. 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaczynski signs somethig probably every day, is that mean that we should refer to everithing he signs? If You can read Polish read the reference no 61 and quote it in this discution, pleas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emil, the level of - with all do respect - ignorance You present quoting me is unbelievable. Why didn't You quote this: ...HIS SIGNATURE (of the act) HAD NO connection and nothing in common with ratification or assent or any other approval of Traety of Lisbon...? You haven't notice it? Did You check links that I have put there? [19], [20] Aren't those obvious enough? The date of deposition is October 12th 2009 and signing the ratifaction took place on October 10th 2009 which You can read in those two external links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted only those points which I was responding to so that it was clear what I'm talking about, it's beyond my understanding why on earth I should quote anything else. Your links do not tell anything we don't already know. The date of deposition is not in question, and the date of the final Kaczyński's signature which completed the ratification is also not in question. What you don't understand is that the "presidential assent" entry in the table is not supposed to give the final signature of the instrument of ratification. Maybe it will help your comprehension if you notice that there are plenty other examples in the table of "the President signing Parliament's act", as you put it: see Ireland, for example. — Emil J. 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In links that i've put here there is nothing about deposition. You're confused. They are about ratification, priod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Beegees, please calm down. If we want to solve this thing, and I think you want, it will not help to insult others and shout around. Tomeasy T C 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Emil, you a right, I cannot read Polish, but I can read numbers, and from that I assume that this pdf-reference No 61 does not contain any proof for the date 9 April 2008. Tomeasy T C 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Emil, I appologize.
@Tomeasy, I can tell You what is wrong with the date. The date on this pdf is April 1st 2008 and that's the date Plish Parliament passed this document (becouse it's Parliamentare document) but it has been signed by Kaczynski on April 9th, just as many other acts that day. And that was only a permiton given to Kaczynski and he agreed for this permision given to him not for ratification.


"that was only a permiton given to Kaczynski and he agreed for this permision given to him" and this is the only thing that the first column is meant to represent, is the same for all the other countries like France or Italy or even UK, for example. --147.122.21.40 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--Beegees (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What You say is that the first column is meant to represent NOT the act of formal and legal approval for the Treaty (which all this we call RATIFICATION) but only symbolic action wich has no meaning (becouse that's what this signature was). Then tell me what, in Your opinion, would it cause if he didn't sign this act? The one from April 9th 2008. --Beegees (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... this is true for all the other first coulm president/head of state related entries. It's the second column that deals with the ratification, the first one deals with approvals of the ratification. --82.240.232.170 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All I am asking for is a reference proofing that the Polish president signed on 9 April 2008 the law concerning the Treaty of Lisbon passed earlier by the Polish parliament. The reference we show, does not do the job. Tomeasy T C 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell that we can play hide and seek like this for a long time. I believe that it is not the problem when he signd this act. What is important is what did he sign? Becouse what he signed that day - and I am not argueing that he didn't sign this act - is not ratification. Please tell me what are we discussing in here? Whether Kaczynski sign the ratification or an act that allowes him to sign it? Put Your answer in one sentence, please.Oh, and - to make it clear - the first column are the member states, the second is conclusion date(ending ratification procedure(sic!)), third referes to institution thet ended this procedure, fourth is irrelevent in our problem, fifth - the date when ratification docs had been deposited and sixth are the references to dates of particular institution assent? Tell if I'm wrong,please --Beegees (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that all of You decline that there is a problem even though I've pointed out some inaccuracies. Ok, good luck with other editions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) --Beegees (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the best to you! Tomeasy T C 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see You haven't change a thing in this article...though I gave You a strong - as I thought - evidens, that the article mislead at some point. Now I see why some people say with irony: "It must be true, it's on Wikipedia!" You need a quotation for this one, too?--Beegees (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another popular phrase, stated with conviction, on the internet is "Google it!". I spent about five minutes, and found something. This link indicates a signature of non-ratifactory nature occurred sometime prior to April 11, 2008. Coupled with the document already on record here showing that the signature must have happened after April 1, we can at least satisfactorilay delcare that "ballpark" range as the date belonging in the table. I'm sure we all know personally that April 9 is the correct date, and the issue here is providing evidence of what we all know, and now we have it (though I'm not sure the above link is permissible, can anyone verify?). 63.88.67.230 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request to all of You. Start listen to a people that know more then You know, people that have a master in what they say and stop trying to be smarter then You are in matters You have no idea about. I believe that You've read all the webs about what we are concerned here but Yoy didn't read Polish law becouse You can't! And I do! belive me - it's something that is not simple but it's clear in our case. learn Polish first, please!--Beegees (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're not going to address the references provided above? Is the implication that the media fabricated reports of Presidential signatures in April of 2008? And then you suggest people learn Polish (in moderately indecipherable English, no less) before they participate in the discussion? This is an English-language Wikipeida, for the record.Dangerdan97 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Witch part is indecipherable 'Mister Englishman'? There is nothing to refere to. I see that You didn't read what's written out there: 'Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski has approved a law ratifying the EU treaty(...)'. Is here anything about he ratifies the trraty? No! Learn to read! He approved a law wich gave him authority to ratify. I'm showing You links to the President's website and what are You showing me? Web from Qatar? Are You serious?! Becouse this is ridiculous. Is this not enough for You to stop picking holes in what I'm writing? I assume it it never will be...Sorry if my english offended You--Beegees (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, now it is getting embarrassing. Your English, indeed, is an absolute mess. I mean, I get what you are trying to say, but probably it helps me a lot that I am not a native speaker myself and as such am less sensitive to errors. I could show you a dozen phrases you used in the present thread that were so poorly written that the meaning was left to the fantasy of the reader. Is it really necessary to show? As long as you do not even bother to use a spell checker, you better relax and use a less aggressive tone. Tomeasy T C 06:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me, please Mr. 88...--Beegees (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You won. I am incapable to communicate in English. But the date of ratification is still incorrect. And what’s the moral of it? You care more about how I write then what I write...--Beegees (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, all told I'm a little confused. The table presently lists the Ratification deposition date as October 12th, 2009. In the special notes section below the table, it states that Kazynski signed said deposition on the 10th, two days before. Then there's the third date which indicates the Presidential approval of ratification on April 9 of 2008. What I can decipher from Beegees' above comments is that he is upset with the third date, that it should actually be one of the first two dates, even though it is a third, distinct event in the ratification process. Since Beegees has apparently taken his ball and gone home, I guess we'll never be clear on exactly why this is so. It'd be unfortunate if he got so worked up over an issue actually borne from a misunderstanding, especially as a result of a garbled grasp of English. Dangerdan97 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check Polish Wikipedia article on Lisbon Treaty. Since someone cites polish website, one must know what date of ratification is there .--Beegees (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, blast from the past. I went ahead and checked the Polish wiki entry, and the article it references confirms that the President ratified the Treaty on October 10th, as I stated above. I can't speak for the Polish version of this article, so I'm not sure what events their table is intended to account for. I can say that the English language table has no entry for Presidential Treaty ratification, only Presidential (or other Head of State) assent, which was and still is a compeletely different event. Dangerdan97 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map and Malta

where is Malta? i know it is small but still it should be depicted - the map as it is shows 26 members and not 27 so it is not correct!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melitikus (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, it is in the first frame referring to 6 February 2008. Tomeasy T C 08:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page and file history, Malta was added/clarified several hours after this post was made. The poster's failure to sign makes it hard to tell though.Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also it helps to report at the talk page section, when an issue has been resolved. Tomeasy T C 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon"