Talk:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

message: Please add more to the Notable provisions section. -- Kaihsu 15:26, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that the Charter is legally binding in all countries (except UK and PL)? It may be more correct to say that the Treaty of Lisbon will make it binding only once the Treaty has been ratified (currently the Czech and the Irish have not done so).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.2.68 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prologue

message: I don't quite understand what the first paragraph "origin" is trying to say. OK, to summarise:
ECJ decided that treaties establishing EC do not empower it to accede to the ECHR, (ok I'm with it so far) the above/afore mentioned 3 institutions of EU (should this be "of the EU"? I think I'll edit it in anyway feel free to edit it out if that's not what is meant) (which 3 institutions? I think you might mean European Parliament, Council, and Commission mentioned in the introductory paragraph, but at first it seemed to mean the 3 institutions mentioned in the "Origin" paragraph, i.e. ECJ, EC and ECHR. Being a typical European, I don't know very much about which things are EU institutions, European institutions, treaties, conventions, etc.) decided that this (what this, probably the CFREU?) is the appropriate format..of presenting (to whom?) the fundamental principles...for the Union (presenting principles for the Union just doesn't seem to make sense to me) 
OK maybe I understand it a bit better now but hat is after reading it 100 times. Sorry, I must be a real thicko!--Orelstrigo 00:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some clarifications. – Kaihsu 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: 2nd section, "status", again makes little sense. To summarise:
The origin of charter's power is unlikely to be beyond that of the proclaiming institutions (...) are going to contradict the charter. (errm, who exactly are going to contradict it, the origin of the power? the institutions?)
Sorry to be picky here, I could change it grammatically, but I don't know what the meaning is. Is there a conflict between the Charter's provisions and the institutions' rights, or not?--Orelstrigo 00:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why I was being so dense when I wrote this!  I have clarified.  Thanks again for pointing this out. – Kaihsu 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: I removed the section on "Outlook" since it was based on the passage of the European Constitution, which will now not happen. Given that there has yet to emerge any clear idea within the EU institutions of what to do next I don't feel that anything concrete regarding the passage of the Charter into law can be stated at this time.
(To be clear I was not logged in at the time so the edit is logged under 83.67.46.222)
--Daduzi 10:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored and rephrased the section to make it up-to-date.  Thanks for pointing this out. – Kaihsu 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope you don't mind but I made a few minor changes to the new version, just to make it a little clearer. I think it works fine now. Daduzi 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "As part of the proposed Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe"

message: You damn skippy. This isn't informative, it's nearly slanderous. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it slanderous, so much so to justify your strong language?  Please explain.  For now, I have removed the POV notice.  Cheers.  – Kaihsu 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is something about the language, but I can't put my finger on what exactly. Stuff like 'ambiguous status' could be a POV statement, as it would reduce the document's relevance, whereas there are arguments that would say that it doesn't matter whether it is or not, so long as the document exists. Thoughts?
Wikinterpreter
I have removed the "original research" banner, added without justification. Please enter a comment in Talk page when adding such a banner. --Josce 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed ‘ambiguous’ to ‘sui generis’, to make it more neutral. – Kaihsu (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute? 

message: Why exactly did the UK and Poland not adopt the Rights charter? And why was there not an subsequent outcry in these two countries? 129.215.48.99 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wait, got it. Poland don't want equality for homosexuals, and the UK doesn't want more union strikes; the Charter may lead to both being forced upon them. 129.215.48.99 (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Poland it was a different reason: not equality for homosexuals. It was the topic Abortion. GLGermann (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: The wording of this section is not clear to me.  Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights not apply at all in the UK? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opt-outs 

message: I think that the lead section needs some work.  WP:PCR
'It is a document that enshrines basic rights' could apply to almost any bill of rights or constitution. It seems to me from context that it is a proposed 'bill of rights' type document for the EU, but it ought to say so.
I would change it myself, but I haven't any knowledge about the document.
TachyonJack (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section could use some more detail. 

message: Rewrite the following in English please - I have no idea what it is trying to say: "The Charter is not the first outing for human jurisprudence in the EU. In interpreting the general principles of EU law described above, the European Court of Justice has already dealt the issue of whether those general principles applied to member states."  (The second sentence here makes some sense, but has nothing to do with the first sentence.)  Thanks. 169.253.194.1 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I swore it seemed to make sense when I wrote it, but you're right it was gibberish. I hope it's better now. Some feedback would be appreciated. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Plain English

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 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  tag to http://www.law.muni.cz/edicni/sborniky/cofola2008/files/pdf/evropa/jirasek_jan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219180606/http://praguemonitor.com/2012/04/26/senate-unanimously-nods-croatias-eu-accession to http://praguemonitor.com/2012/04/26/senate-unanimously-nods-croatias-eu-accession
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225085442/http://www.cieel.gr/en/eeed/index.jsp to http://www.cieel.gr/en/eeed/index.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 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/20140325192108/http://praguemonitor.com/2014/01/27/dienstbier-minister-wants-scrapping-eu-pacts-czech-opt-out to http://praguemonitor.com/2014/01/27/dienstbier-minister-wants-scrapping-eu-pacts-czech-opt-out
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified