Talk:Treaties of the European Union

message: This page mentions a "Greenland Treaty". Anyone got anything on it?- J Logan t: 14:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing special. Allowed Greenland, which entered the EU as part of Denmark, to leave. I'll added a line to the table on it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenland

message: I've put the full current treaties (minus protocols so far) on WikiSource, so now the present treaties can be cited/linked directly to the article;
*Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union
*Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- J.Logan`t: 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could do with that. There is :Template:Sourcetext, not sure how it works so no clue how to get to work for us. With the all the subpages though, how do we get it to recognise where all the articles are?- J.Logan`t: 23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaties on Wikisource 

message: In the TEU preambule a 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers is mentioned, but it isn't present in the template of this article that has the Charter of Fundamental Rights and other similar documents. Alinor (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 

message: There is no direct link to Treaties of the European Union to the German wiki. An article named “Verträge der Europäischen Union” does not exist. But there is
:for Treaty on European Union  Vertrag über die Europäische Union (EU-Vertrag)
:and for Treaty on the functioning of the European Union  Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEU-Vertrag)
--Haigst-Mann (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Languages
* Català  * Česky  * Dansk
* Español * Français  * 한국어  * Italiano  * Magyar  * Македонски  
* Nederlands  * 日本語  * Polski  * Português  * Русский  * Suomi  * Svenska  * 中文
--Haigst-Mann (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: German Wikipedia doesn't have an article which corresponds to this one for we can't link to it. On English Wikiepdia we draw a distinction between the original treaties (Treaties of Rome, Maastricht Treaty) and the treaties as they are post-Lisbon (this article). As far as I can see (using Google translate unfortunately), German Wikipedia doesn't follow this convention. And this edit has hardly helped matters. I'd suggest reverting it. Even if the articles don't correspond exactly, they're close enough. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About those treaties in German 

message: I thought that these documents might be of interest for this article. The Irish and the Czech Governments want the protocols to be ratified at the same time as the Accession Treaty of Croatia (not Iceland as the article states now). The protocols include the provisions that the European Council has decided about earlier. The European Parliament has called on the European Council to not examine the proposed Czech amendment. Proposed Czech Protocol and proposed Irish Protocol. --Glentamara (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the treaty (e.g. here) and the protocols have evidently not found their way into this accession treaty. Thus it will not happen with croatia. The original (and outdated) text this morning stated: that it would happen in a next accession treaty (croatia or iceland) and because in croatia it didn't happen, I removed that... I do wonder what the present status is! L.tak (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather the plan is to ratify the protocols at the same time as the Croatian accession treaty instead of as part of that treaty. This page on the website of the European Parliament shows that the consent of the EP not to convene a treaty convention is pending. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that this is going on (so probably should be added to the planned treaties page), but I have problems with the "at the same time"-assumption, as the accession treaty was already signed in 2011 and this one is still in 1st reading at the Europarliament and ratification is already ongoing (at least in NL, the advice of the council of state is already in; and the proposed law is at the parliament committee). Shall we just add that two more changes to "Lisbon" are in procedure (Czech and Irish?) (PS this non-RS blog/site helped a bit: http://www.politics.ie/forum/european-treaty-2012/180074-two-other-european-treaties-2012-a.html) L.tak (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated to the best of my knowledge, but invite others to see if I have depicted the situation correctly and feel free to adapt/remove! L.tak (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocols on Ireland and the Czech Republic 

message: I added the European Fiscal Compact to the treaties (I think it can be considered as an amending treaty, if you don't agree, please change it), also placed the Croatian Accession Treaty to the top (since the current ESM treaty was signed later). However, I think there are two more necessary changes, but I don't want to make them unilaterally. First, the content about the EP Protocol should be scrapped as no other treaty in force has a text, and the informations should be included in the chart. Second, as it seems, the ESM 2011 treaty will never enter into force, so it should be erased from the "Future treaties" section and placed into the "Abandoned treaties" one. Also, the ESM 2012 treaty should be called simply ESM treaty. What do you think? Beleszólok (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done; I'd say; and a few comments on your suggestions:
**I think the European Fiscal Compact can not be called/considered an amending treaty; as it is made fully outside the structure of the three main conventions (Euratom, TEU, TFEU) and doesn't amend them. However, the way it is implemented now seems ok to me, so no reason to change...
**what do you mean by EP protocol? This section "Protocol amending the Protocol on Transitional Provisions"? In that case I agree that it gives a bit too much weight. However, we could also keep it as its the last amendment that is in force (until a new one comes into force). 
**ESM 2011 to abandoned; and ESM 2012 to ESM; ok to me
L.tak (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the support! I was talking about the protocol regarding EP seats. I think it should be clear for readers what it is about, but it can be explained in the chart by using the button to expand the content. In my opinion, the current place does not really fit in the article, it simply remained there after it was ratified. Beleszólok  (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Good job! I think some additional changes can be discussed - should we change "European Fiscal Compact" to the actual treaty name (and move EFU link to the other column, like on the ESM row)? Also, currently the art.136 amendment (that enables the ESM) entry into force date of January 2013 is after the July 2012 ESM date - this seems odd, but I don't know if we have a source for earlier date on this one. Japinderum (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the fiscal treaty was discussed on its talk page, I just wanted the name to be common with the original source. However, I think that it is adequate (the Treaty of Lisbon article would be "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community" with the original name). As for the dates, you're right, the situation is odd, but the information in the article is correct (http://eutopialaw.com/2012/02/21/responding-to-the-economic-crisis-public-law-in-a-post-lisbon-age/). Beleszólok (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird and inconsistent indeed (those dates). But the date of 1 Jan 2013 is named explicitly in the treaty proposing the change to the TFEU. I suppose (my personal OR) that something will be done regarding "provisional application"... L.tak (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we have the ESM entering into force even before all Art.136 notifications. What a mess. It's good that we'll get answers to the date question from the ECJ - Irish court has similar concerns to ours. Japinderum (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes seem necessary now 

message: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:325:0004:0005:EN:PDF
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:091:0001:0002:EN:PDF
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:204:0131:0131:EN:PDF – Kaihsu (talk)
:Please sign your posts. One of those is the Art136 amendment, already covered in the article. The other two are St.Barts and Mayotte amendments - these should be mentioned somehow - ideas? Japinderum (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this list exhaustive? No other missing European Council OCT/OMR changes to the treaties, inter-government conferences, simplified changes, passarelle clauses utilized? Japinderum (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know whether this is an exhaustive list, but these are the ones I know about. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to mentioning them somewhere, but since they aren't treaties they shouldn't be listed under "Ratified treaties".  TDL (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Japinderum (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments by the European Council 

message: Conditions for entry into force for ESM and TSCG are such so that can enter into force before all parties have ratified them. That's why I propose keeping the progress bars below their "effective" date (and using first-final date like currently for the signing of the Irish protocol). Japinderum (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry into force for ratifiers only 

message: The agreement has been added here under eu treaties, while u would argue it should be under "relates" treatues. 1 of the orincipke point of the patent deal was that the court should not be an eu jurisdiction, thus the compromise/workaround was a 'court of the individual countries' partly interpreting eu law (as all courts do in the eu) that is set up by treaty. I therefore propose to move the section to the related treaties section... --L.tak (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with you, but I added it there because at the moment it's just a "signed" treaty and not yet in force.  My plan was that like the fiscal compact, we would move it to the "related treaties" as soon as it entered into force.  But I'm not opposed to moving it there immediately if you prefer.  We might have to either create a second table or play around with the table headings though.  TDL (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the "signed"-header it's ok indeed.. Especially after moving around the sections as you did that makes sense indeed... L.tak (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  unified patent court agreement 

message: ESM was moved out of "EU" into the "Related" table, because initially it operated outside of the EU framework - but now, after the implementing Amendment of Article 136 TFEU entered into force ESM should be restored in the EU table. A slight redaction of the footnote after 27 September 2012 can be made to explain that "participants are the 17 Eurozone members". Japinderum (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still not an EU treaty; but a treaty outside the EU; to which the EU has mandated some of its members (but not "in its name" (as with the Hague convention 1996) nor integrating the agreement of institution in the Union...; in legal role maybe not much different from the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the Rome Convention.... L.tak (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with L.tak.  The TFEU amendment intentionally did not incorporate the ESM treaty itself into the EU treaties, it merely authorized member states to establish the ESM between themselves outside of the EU framework.  This approach was taken so that the simplified treaty revision procedure could be utilized.  If the ESM had of been incorporated into the EU treaties, this would have increased the competence of the EU, and thus the simplified revision procedure would not have been able to be utilized.  The ammendment was necessary because there was an argument that the existing EU treaties forbid bailouts, so the amendment was designed simply to exempt the ESM from these anti-bailout provisions.  TDL (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He is an excellent resource explaining the legal rational for the TFEU ammendment:   TDL (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESM to be restored back into the EU ratified/signed treaties 

message: Agreement on the transfer and mutualisation of contributions to the Single Resolution fund: ratification status, announcement and link to text. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So this isn't formally an EU treaty, but it looks to me like this is worth including as a "related treaty".  It has very similar provisions to the fiscal compact declaring that it is open to any EU member state (A13) and incorporating the provisions into the EU treaties in the future (A16).  Any other thoughts?  TDL (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one objected, I went ahead and added it.  If anyone is interested, I've started European Union banking union as an overview of all the new banking union initiatives.  TDL (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New treaty - SRF