Talk:Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

message: Why are so many uncritically accepting the EU's official line about the constitutional treaty being designed for 'to streamline decision-making' and all that. The real purpose is to undermine national sovereignty and eventually build a superstate. Jean Monnet has clearly stated that this was the idea behind socalled 'European Unity'.
 "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." The single currency was the most important of these steps: as Monnet said, "Via money Europe could become political in five years."  - Jean Monnet
We are being deceived at every step. The idea is to create a superstate run by the political elite, and democracy on European level will be all but eliminated.
Giuliano Amato, Vice-President of the Convention that drew up the EU Constitution, said,  "In Europe one needs to act 'as if' - as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if States were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty ... The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge." 
The constitution was not drawn up to streamline decision making or any of that, as I said, the idea was to hollow out national sovereigty. Which was Monnet's idea to begin with.
They are doing this by stealth, subterfuge, lies and deceit. And they have even said so themselves, as I quoted. 
Giscard d'Estaign has said about the constitution:  ""Our constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunces cap.. Our continent has seen successive attempts at unifying it: Caesar, Charlemange and Napoleon, among others. We, for our part, seek to unify it by the pen. Will the pen succeed where the sword has finally failed ?" 
They are deliberately trying to blur the distinction between the EU and Europe. The 2 terms are not in any way synonymous, as European cooperation could exist without the EU, and probably (but this is POV) for the better.
But I don't want to see such uncritical articles which basically present EU propaganda as fact. The truth is in the words of the people that founded the EU and now run it.
--82.156.49.1 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're advocating replacing a highly factual article with one that emphasises Eurosceptic propaganda. Might I remind you that the Treaty was not drawn up by the "European Union" or "Brussels Bureaucrats" hiding in an ivory tower somewhere, it was formulated and agreed by the national governments of the member states. The fact that Jean Monnet is seen as the father of the European Union does not result in his opinion speaking for the contemporary actors at the European level, Jean Monnet was a dogmatic federalist whose ideas have long been rejected by virtually everyone involved in the European Union today. I lose track of the most important point in trying to pick a fight with you however, namely that the article, as an encyclopedia article is inclined to do, states what the expressed intention of the Constitutional Treaty was. Eurosceptic interpretations about what you think it really was about have no place in an encyclopedia article outside of a general discussion of the criticisms, but as it happens what you want to present as a fact is highly contentious even among Eurosceptics. The general concensus amongst academics is that the aim of the constitution was on the one hand to synthesise the treaties and make EU law more accessible and on the other hand to answer some of the questions about the democratic deficit. The mistake of the treaty in my opinion was to put these answers to the democratic question under a banner which emphasised symbolic statelike qualities of the European Union (let's face it the debate never really got past it being called a "constitution" for most people). This allowed a stream of hysteric Eurosceptics to level the kind of criticisms at it which you've already mentioned. blankfrackis 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is pure propaganda 

message: The countries where referenda were/are to be held still have to ratify the treaty in parliament. Shouldn't we somehow include the figures for those votes in the table in some way? I'm not quite sure how, myself - either we just add the countries to the "parliament" section as well, or we add another row after each country in the "referenda" section to include the figures for parliamentary ratication results... Any ideas? Nightstallion 07:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliamentary ratification 

message: After I made an edit, I saw the diff also making a worsened edit to some interlanguage wikis, which I hadn't touched at all. After I restored them in a second edit, it now seems like I was the one introducing the improved interlanguage edit and the first diff now looks like it should have been in the first place. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wondered what was going on! I spotted that weird change - the German one in particular went very weird! Wombat 08:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch in the wiki? 

message: I've just reverted an edit by 213.41.141.172 to the previous version. The anonymous user's edits created this paragraph (under Union law and national law):
:Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. According to them, the proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for either existing or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate. Moreover, there were no such thing called EU laws before the European Constitution. Instead there were EU directives, that had to be transposed into national laws by national parliaments. The EU laws introduced by the European Constitution come into force without vote from national parliaments.
This is wrong in several respects:
* EU law already supersedes national law. The treaty changes nothing in this respect. That's not a point of view, but an established fact; where there is genuine debate between different POVs is over whether this is an acceptable state of affairs, and this is the debate which the article should summarise.
::Are you sure about this? Although all member states have agreed to implement European Law over their own (although not always - check out the French ban on British Beef), by the terms of the various treaties, as the EU does not have its own legal entity it cannot have sovereignty.
* It is not true to say that the EU's statutory instruments change with the constitution. There always have been two such instruments: 'directives' and 'regulations'. Directives are agreed by governments and Parliament at EU level, then implemented at national level. Regulations are agreed by governments and Parliament at EU level, but don't need national implementation as they are directly applicable. (Well, actually there are a couple of other types too.) The constitution does not change this arrangement. All it does is to rename 'directives' as 'European framework laws', and 'regulations' as 'European laws'.
* At present, EU directives aren't necessarily transposed by national parliaments. More often, they are transposed by other national statutory instruments, e.g. by regulations from government departments. (In the UK, this is what gives rise to the common accusation of 'gold-plating'.)
* Anyway, no EU laws are introduced by the constitution. They are introduced by Council and Parliament under the framework laid down by the constitution, if it's ratified. (OK, this one is a bit pedantic!)
(By the way, it's also a bit contentious to claim that EU laws introduced under the constitution come into force "without vote from national parliaments" - but that's a different story…)
Anyway, the reverted version of the paragraph looks like this:
:Defenders of the constitution point out that it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law, and that it has long been accepted in European nations that international law which a nation subscribed to overrides national law. The proposed Constitution does not change this arrangement for either existing or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate.
Wombat 09:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union law and national law 

message: By Wikipedia naming policy, shouldn't this article be at European Constitution? ed g2s • talk 12:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Anyone else seeing the sections two or three times each, in seemingly random order? From the history it appears that people have been editing since this happened, which is going to make it a mess to spaghetti back together... 24.124.40.224 02:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This kept happening earlier, for reasons I couldn't quite fathom. We were up to three or four duplicates at one point. It seems to have been alright the last few hours, but if you're still seeing it there may be a cache problem. I 'flushed the tanks' as it were, but if you're still seeing it try a hard refresh to clear your own browser's cache (I think you hold down shift and click refresh). — Trilobite (Talk) 03:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if it helps the admins sort out the problem, but I looked at the pages for the first time today with my computer, and it looks fine in Firefox and is doubled and tripled up on Internet Explorer. When I go to "Edit this page" in IE, it shows source code corresponding to the doubling. ESkog 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That suggests a browser cache problem then. Internet Explorer is still showing you the old doubled version, while Firefox has realised the page has been changed. The moral of the story: use Firefox! — Trilobite (Talk) 11:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant doubling 

message: The European constitution is supposed to define the basic rights of all European citizens. Therefore it should not be written by politicians and law makers but by the European people themselves! The current events show that many Europeans are not willing to accept a constitution (whether percieved as good or bad), which has been drafted by others than themselves. Many people want to be directly involved in the process and share their ideas.
I would therefore like to suggest that we start a mediawiki with the goal to draft a New European Constitution from bottom up. I deeply believe that the result will be accepted by considerably more citizens than the draft we are/were currently asked (or not asked) to vote for. Please feel free to present your suggestions on the New European Constitution discussion board. Spitzl 13:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What for? EU does not need Constitution. EU does not need political integration. EU just needs free market and equal chaces, so the job places will go back to Poland, Hungary, Czech etc. Szopen 13:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right or wrong, I don't think this is the place for this discussion. An article's talk page is a place for discussing the content of the article. Wombat 14:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets build a new European Constitution! 

message: There was a flurry of rather wide-ranging edits yesterday by new editors. Until now the article has been mostly maintained by just a few of us - so some fresh blood is great!
However, I have made a few changes and reversions. Most of these are straightforward and clear from the edit history, but a couple might need explaining:
* The sub-sub-headings had been changed from bullet points (using *) to proper headers (using ====). I've reverted that change. Many months ago, we tried doing it properly in that way, but the table of contents got huge and unwieldy. After discussion on the talk page, we settled on bullets instead, since they're 'invisible' to the contents page.
* I've re-revised the section under 'controversy' on human rights. That section had been stable for a while, but recently was rewritten. The rewrite was authoritative, but it wasn't NPOV (i.e. it dismissed several anti-constitution arguments without equivocation - an approach with which I sympathise, but we still can't do that!), and it was also quite technical. I've simplified, and provided a link instead to a Law Society of England and Wales document which explains the same thing in more detail. My revisions are, of course, open to further edit if anyone disagrees.
* There was a reference to the current constitution of the EU consisting of 'overlapping treaties'. Wikidea removed that reference, adding the edit summary: "the current treaties do not 'overlap,' they deal with separate 'pillars'". The second part of that is true, but misses the point. The current treaties overlap not because of the pillar structure of the EU but because each one contains provisions that repeal or amend parts of the older treaties. I've restored the reference to 'overlapping', therefore.
Notwithstanding those minor points, the extra attention this page has been receiving is very welcome! If new editors could just remember to check the talk page before they make large-scale changes, that would be helpful in avoiding old arguments. Wombat 15:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what was wrong with the approach I took in this version, of removing most of the bullet headings that make the middle part of the article so hard to read, in favour of just lists with introductory phrases bolded? The couple of extra wiki headings (in one section) didn't harm the TOC either. Rd232 14:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with it, IMHO. Wombat 12:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I have heard there is a so-called "Emergency brake" clause in the Constitution.
This clause states that every member state can request European Council to reconsider a measure passed under the Qualified Majority Vote system.
The European Council then has to make it's decision unanimously.
This clause in fact gives veto power to every member state.
Is this true ?
--Siyac 16:49, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emergency brake" clause 

message: Is it worth including a column on presidential signature and whether the document has been signed off by the president? If so, Slovakia, Germany and Austria have not had their approval of the constitution finalised by presidential signature.
:To the best of my knowledge (and I'm Austrian and interested in politics), Bundespräsident Fischer has already signed the law. Confer this link (in German). It's true, however, that the German president hasn't, and that there's a challenge to the constitutional challenge in the works in Slovakia. Feel free to include that, dear anonymous. ;) —  ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 19:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can. Read the link I gave you (sorry it's in German, couldn't find anything English quickly), or just believe me. AFAIK, there's also a constitutional challenge in Slovakia, but I'm not sure about it. Oh, and BTW: Fischer's first name is Heinz, not Wolfgang. Wolfgang is Schüssel's first name. ;p —  ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 19:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on a minute. All this information about president (or, rather, head of state) signatures is useful, but I don't think it's accurate to put "No" in the column for either Germany or Slovakia. To an outside observer, this looks like ratification has failed, just as it failed in France and the Netherlands. But the actual situation is that the head of state hasn't signed it yet, pending a legal challenge, so ratification is uncertain. Instead of saying "No" in that column, we ought to say "Pending" or just leave it blank until the issue is resolved. We should only use "No" when a final decision has been taken. (I made changes to that effect, but the anonymous user above reverted them.) Wombat 10:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, of course. —  ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 10:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, good stuff. By the way, did you know, you can sign your posts here by typing ~~~~ at the end? That inserts your username, date and time, and means you are no longer just another anonymous voice in the ether... Like this: Wombat 18:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Signature

message: I was thinking that instead of putting upper or lower we could put the actual names of the parliaments. For example...Senate, or Bundesrat etc. 
What do people think of that?
: Advantages: it gives more information and gives readers a clearer starting point for their own research. Disadvantages: it makes the different countries less easily comparable, and would make it difficult for non-experts to assess the importance of a particular vote (if I didn't know what the Bundesrat was, I wouldn't know whether this was Germany's highest parliament or merely a regional assembly voting in favour).
: By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. Cheers. Wombat 09:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper, Lower

message: You editors have done a fine job in conveying so much so clearly about so complex a subject - thanks and well done.  However, the article as a whole comes across as skewed in favour of TCE throughout.  For example, every criticism is refuted so that the conclusion appears to be against the criticism.  Since the subject is so controversial, I somehow doubt that the pro-Constitution thrust of the article can fairly represent a Neutral Point of View.Chelseaboy 22:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: Should be mentioned. See: 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sijo Ripa 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revival Proposals and reactions

message: The BBC reports that Angela Merkel is now indicating that she wants to restart discussion on the Constitution, probably due to Estonia's recent ratification. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4761473.stm
It seems that this paragraph at least should be altered:
"Debate about future possibilities for the Constitution
Four options present themselves. One is to do nothing for the time being in order to allow the dust to settle: this seems to be the position favoured by the United Kingdom and Germany."
This doesn't seem to be the case any more, at least for Germany. I imagine that this is a sign of more action to come, with other leaders probably making comments and altering/reaffirming their positions, etc
Packersh 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German reappraisal 

message: Realy ratified already, or only "first vote"?
See Treaty of Accession 2005 and its discussion page... 212.36.8.100 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to newspaper reports in Austria the Finnish parliament approved the treaty. If it was just the first vote (what the reports didn't mention), feel free to revert my edits. Gugganij 20:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been reading the newspapers wrong (I've read the same papers =]). It was only the first vote; now the government has to recommend ratification, then the parliament will ratify it in a second vote. —Nightstallion (?) 21:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my fault. Gugganij 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done, no problem. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland ??? 

message: Slovakia has already signed off the constitution by head of state, hence why it WAS changed from Pending. The German legal challenge is over! The reason it is still Pending is because Germany wants to wait and see what happens in the future before finishing the process. Belgium is also still Pending. nightstallion (?)
:The two comments above were not made by me. —Nightstallion (?) 08:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Slovak President has *not* signed the treaty yet.  —Nightstallion (?) 09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Belgium and Estonia parliaments have adopted the treaty. Only ratification by head of states is pending. For links about parliamentary votes see in the history of the page - the description of the edits, when the "Yes-mark" was added... 199.64.72.252 12:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending

message: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/international/news/20060613p2g00m0in030000c.html Should we include this somehow? —Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Done. --Rye1967 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. —Nightstallion (?) 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodi: Significant changes to the draft treaty? 

message: The article reads:
President of the Commission - the candidate for President of the European Commission would be proposed by the European Council, after consultation with MEPs, and would be elected by the European Parliament. Parliament would have the final say. 
Is this not how things are already though?
Also:
Budget - the final say over the EU's annual budget would be given to the European Parliament. Agricultural spending would no longer be ring-fenced, and would be brought under the Parliament's control.
Does the EP not already have 'the final say' even if some bits are not covered?
thanks Sjjb 20:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions

message: Hi, extracting and making a list of all the concepts in this draft is a huge work, commenting all parts also. Therefore I suggested removing all comments of details the draft into other and new articles (like "Annexes to the European Constitution" and so on...). Thus this article would only concern what regards the whole constitution, for instance the procedures it underwent.
For the same motive of readability, I suggest removing from this discussion page the part on the US constitution.--82.245.180.233 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying this article 

message: Would is not be nice to have some question marks for the states where ratification of the contract is still pending? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Question_mark.svg --89.50.239.82 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question marks for the table?

message: A new ratification table was added. It includes all the details of the ratification process as far as parliaments and referenda are concerned, including references to relevant primary sources. 
I have tried to make as complete and uncomplicated as possible. Let me know if you have any suggestions or any problems occur.
In addition I would like to know if you think the tables for acceding countries and ratification by referenda need to remain.
Herzog Tryn 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratification table

message: After reading it I couldnt get a clear idea yet of what is the problem. Could someone explain to a foreigner with are the main factors of being rejected in France,Netherlands,...  thks --Jor70 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I do not understand this article

message: Can anyone tell me why the EU has issued a ban on testing cosmetics on animals? I saw somewhere that it had something to do with the seventh amendment of their constitution, but (maybe because there's a lot of text here and I can't quite find the right place) I can't find anything here. Any help would be appreciated. -- Maethon (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't have been to do with the Constitution, since it hasn't been ratified. 82.19.8.137 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmetics ban? 

message: :Image:Consttreat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Consttreat.jpg

message: *http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8MqBt8Cs9pK2cgyiSKqhcoZwWLA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 Prozent Zustimmung Vergleich 2005 Bundesregierung Schröder

message: The article Codecision procedure gives reference to the European constitution as though it is still a future possibility.  The exact wording is:
"The new Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, if it enters into force, will extend codecision to virtually all areas of EU policy."
Should this be changed to reflect similar wording in this article Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe? mdkarazim (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in [[Codecision procedure]] 

message: The treaty has been abandoned in 2007. Still, some of the entries in the ratification table claim that it is "pending". How is that possible? — Emil J. 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pending ratification? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060228005127/http://www.europarl.es:80/constitucion_2004/resultados_electorales/default.html to http://www.europarl.es/constitucion_2004/resultados_electorales/default.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070615134413/http://www.parliament.gr/ergasies/praktika/pdf/es19042005.pdf to http://www.parliament.gr/ergasies/praktika/pdf/es19042005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070615134414/http://www.parliament.cy/parliamentgr/008_01/praktiko2005-06-30.doc to http://www.parliament.cy/parliamentgr/008_01/praktiko2005-06-30.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061010083723/http://www.lagtinget.aland.fi/eng/eu.html to http://www.lagtinget.aland.fi/eng/eu.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070610012805/http://www.kiesraad.nl/uk/collectie_homepage/electoral_council to http://www.kiesraad.nl/uk/collectie_homepage/electoral_council
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061215060130/http://www.dz-rs.si:80/index.php?id=97 to http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=97&cs=1&o=40&sb=3&sd=0&unid=SZA|3C016AB288C3FDCBC1256FA100348841&showdoc=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070307204956/http://www.eduskunta.fi:80/faktatmp/utatmp/akxtmp/ptk_127_2006_p.shtml to http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/utatmp/akxtmp/ptk_127_2006_p.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125041723/http://european-convention.eu.int/Static.asp?lang=EN&Content=Composition to http://european-convention.eu.int/Static.asp?lang=EN&Content=Composition
*Added  tag to http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_szav.szav_lap_egy?p_szavdatum=2004.12.20.16:03:39&p_szavkepv=I&p_szavkpvcsop=I&p_ckl=37
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325034559/http://www.parliament.gov.mt/HorIndex/Leg10_2003/Debates/20050706_288d_par.doc to http://www.parliament.gov.mt/HorIndex/Leg10_2003/Debates/20050706_288d_par.doc
*Added  tag to http://www.dgparlament.be/PortalData/4/Resources/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am extremly confused as to the difference between both of these events. It seems to be the same thing but I am unsure because of the locations. Could someone please explain? Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between this article and [[Treaty of Nice]]