Talk:Treaty of Accession 2011

Presidential and Royal Assent

Do Greece, Malta, and Sweden require Presidential or Royal assent - even ceremonially - for this treaty to enter into force? For example, in Bulgaria's case, only the Parliament has been listed until March 20, 2012, but we now know that the Presidential assent also was granted on Feb 28, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.49.11 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the President of Greece will have to promulgate the ratification law/instruments. In Malta this competence has been fully transfered to the parliament/government in EU matters. In Sweden the Head of State has not this competence at all, in contrast to all other European Union member states. Instead the Government exerts this function. This is why "the Government of Sweden" is mentioned among all head of states in the beginning of all EU treaties, including this one. --Glentamara (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the President of Greece be added to the table then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.49.11 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The law on the ratification has been promulgated by the President of Greece in the Government Gazette (issued on 8 November 2012, Law Number 4090). I think it should be added to the table. Ntilev (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't object to that. However, the link provided is not a direct link to a sourced document, rather a keyed input is required (and yes, proper document exists). - Could you please provide a direct link verifying that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

All other EU Treaty pages do not include Greek Presidential Promulgation, but from what I've read in Gazette, I have no doubts it should be included as well. Seems this summary is the only direct link available, although the other possible link, a 100-pages long PDF document, includes the actual date of promulgation, which seems to be 5 November.

Summary Tomi566 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In this document the date of the promulgation isn't given. It is given on the page before the last here. Ntilev (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Latvian Ratification

Has Latvia indeed finished the parliamentary procedure? According to an article in The Baltic Course the second reading of the bill was approved on March 22, but the article also states that the third reading will be final.

Yes, it is. http://www.saeima.lv/lv/aktualitates/saeimas-zinas/19523-saeima-ratifice-ligumu-par-horvatijas-pievienosanos-eiropas-savienibai --93.136.159.100 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Results of Lithuanian Ratificaion

Current table states the results of Lithuanian parliament voting as

Lithuania 	26 April 2012 	Parliament 	84 	2 	6 		[17]

The numbers are different (87 2 6) on the parliament's web page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.49.11 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish Ratification

As of September 20, 2012, the main page lists Irish ratification as completed in the parliament and in the Senate. The only reference given is the following:

"Treaty of Croatia´s Accession to the European Union – Ratification Process" (in English). EU Delegation to Croatia.

This reference itself does not cite any sources. I could not find any other reference to the completion of Irish parliamentary ratification. Furthermore, the entries for all completed ratifications list the numerical voting results, but the Irish entry does not. Has the parliamentary procedure indeed been completed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.49.11 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has been completed. You can take a look at the link below, there are other sources as well.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2012/3612/document1.htm

Tomi566 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added links to the Irish parliament ratification info to the article. TDL (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Grand duke of Luxembourg says after a constitutional change in December 2008 ... laws now take effect without the grand duke's approval. That means the column "royal assent" is useless, isn't it? --134.176.204.218 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The situation is as follows: Royal assent was indeed abolished (source 1, source 2), but the Grand Duke is still required to promulgate (instead of sanction) parliamentary bills before they become laws (i.e. cause them to be published in an official paper of the country and be observed) per Article 34 of the Constitution of Luxembourg (source 3). Perhaps it would be fitting to replace "royal assent" with "promulgation" instead.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a general point. Promulgation seems to be the general action of a head of state to cause a law to go into effect. Also in Dutch, Royal Assent is not fully correct: (s)he "bekrachtigd" (affirms) it and the constitution does not give him the possibility not to... L.tak (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The only way the Grand Duke can "promulgate" this is by depositing the ratification, which all EU countries need to do. I wonder if promulgation even needs to be included -? I will leave this to Luxemburgers to decide.24.108.61.172 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The act of promulgation is indeed a separate document, published in Legilux, the official gazette of the country. The promulgation itself also entails publication of the act of ratification in the Legilux, and the act becomes legally binding once it is published in the Legilux, therefore, yes it is necessary to include it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Map - Finland

I have added Finland to the Parliamentary Approval category. I am just learning how to handle svg graphics, I hope someone will check my work.Arrecifazo (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Nice catch with Cyprus. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Arrecifazo, thanks for taking the initiative. The map should be updated, rather than replaced with a new one, but thanks pitching in anyway. If you need any advice, please do not hesitate to drop me a line.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Belgium Chamber

It looks as if the Belgian Chamber - lower house- has approved, but it is difficult to understand- [1]

can some Belgian please explain?24.108.61.172 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Belgian, but here we go: That's agenda for a plenary session of the Chamber on 24 January - when the ratification is scheduled to be debated and possibly voted on.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? dekammer.be reads IN BESPREKING/EN DISCUSSION 08/01/2013 START VERGADERING/EN REUNION 08/01/2013 AANGENOMEN/ADOPTE 08/01/2013 A L'UNANIMITE / EENPARIG. Sounds to me like the bill passed the chamber on January, 8th. --134.176.204.239 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. That was the foreign relations committee of the Chamber accepting the bill, not the Chamber itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP, I AM INTERESTED IN THE EXPANSION OF THE EU. DO YOU KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND UP-TO-DATE INFO ON MONTENEGRO'S PROGRESS IN THE ACQUIS PROCESS? WIKIPEDIA SEEMS OUT OF DATE.!24.108.61.172 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We have great info about that at Future enlargement of the European Union, and I don't have the impression wikipedia is out of date... The EU's site is here... L.tak (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but neither site has been updated since Dec. 18 - I would like to know how talks are progressing.24.108.61.172 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can check out our page dedicated to Montenegro's accession to the union: Accession of Montenegro to the European Union. It will be the most up to date source wikipedia has. TDL (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Belgium related question

I stumbled upon this and the source seems to clearly say that the Belgian ratification requires votes of the Senate, the Chamber and five regional parliaments: Flanders region/Flemish community (single parliament), Wallonia, capital (Brussels), French community and German community. (Flemish community and Flanders have a single parliament)

As of 30 Jan the article specifies seven parliaments besides the Senate and the Chamber (Brussels United Assembly and COCOF in addition to those identified by the above source). Is there any source regarding role of the BUA and COCOF in the ratification process (i.e. are they required to complete the process or not?) that could be used?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On a further note, this source says that "the federal authorities and all competent federated entities" must approve treaties in the process. Since there are three regions ([2]) Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels, and four additional linguistic regions: Dutch, French, German-speaking regions and billingual region of Brussels there should be a total of seven approvals. So far so good, but since the Dutch-speaking region and the Flanders are represented by the single parliament, that takes us to six approvals. The first (EU delegation) source above and this one indicate five, and I cannot explain the difference, except possibly that there is a single parliamentary approval for the Brussels Region and the billingual region of Brussels - but so far I found no referenced explanation on that. Moreover, none of the sources identify COCOF Assembly as a body required to vote on the ratification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This source seems to confirm that the COCOF Assembly vote is not a part of the ratification process - claiming that the Lisbon Treaty was ratified before the COCOF Assembly voted on the issue. This is provided that the corresponding wiki article on ratification of the treaty reports the dates correctly (unfortunately the corresponding ref is a dead link).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add a little help. Here is the correct source for their Lisbon Treaty vote. And perhaps last three pages of this pdf could shed some light. Tomi566 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the wiki article carries the date correctly, and I'm afraid I'm no wiser on the matter. It is obvious that the COCOF Assembly voted on the matter, but it is also evident from the all other sources specified here that they are somehow ignored. Here is an attempt at explanation of the COCOF role, but it only adds VGC and COCOM to the mix as a corresponding Flemish and joint bodies. Do they need to be added to the table? Or COCOF removed? Or nothing need be changed?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My impression after reading p. 70 and the footnote is they acknowledge (between the lines) they could be ignored, but vote nonetheless. But I too really don't know what should be done about their table entry. Tomi566 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The p70 indeed gives that impression, but one should do nothing based on that alone, that would be WP:SYNTH as the source does not say explicitly "BUA and COCOF are not necessary for ratification" or something to that effect. The first source cited in this discussion (Delegation of the EU to Croatia) does though. You might justify removal of whatever is not mentioned in that article provided there is some note, explanation or something like that in the article of what is needed to ratify the treaty in Belgium and cite the source at the end of the explanation. If someone disagrees they are welcome to revert the change and offer a source to contrary. If you proceed with such an action, mention that the removal is made "per talk" (and do cite the source as already mentioned).--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BUA is quite uncertain - I'd rather leave it in, Brussels is a region and a bilingual linguistic region and the constitution of Belgium requires both to vote - but the COCOF seems quite dubious in light of everything said so far.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is also an interesting debate on p. 16, seems the Belgian MFA doesn't find their approval necessary, but they themselves do. I would wait some time before deciding on removing COCOF from the table. Tomi566 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As a Belgian who studies law, I am quite sure that the table as it is know is correct. The Senate, Chamber, Walloon/Brussels/Flemish Parliaments, Parliaments of the French & German-speaking Communities as well as the Brussels United Assembly and COCOF need to vote. The reason why COCOF needs to vote while its Flemish counterpart (VGC) doesn't is because the French Community delegated legislative power to COCOF while Flanders didn't to VGC. COCOM refers to the Brussels United Assembly (full name: United Assembly of the Common Community Commission). I wouldn't really rely on the articles as to the number of Parliaments, it depends on how you count. By that I mean that the BUA is in fact identical to the Brussels Parliament and COCOF is made up of the majority of the same Parliament. So you can count those as either one, two, or three Parliaments voting. It's just a formality, but I do think they are legally required to have voted. I hope this clears things up, feel free to ask if still not clear :) SPQRobin (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't we have access to the decision of the "comité gemengde verdragen" that decides competence on a case by case basis? That would end all the speculation... L.tak (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

SPQRobin, could you perhaps add a short subsection, like that one on Slovene ratification, that would explain the Belgian ratification process and add a reference if there is any? I'm sure that would add quality to the article and answer questions of many readers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I have to apologize because I have mentioned p. 16, but forgot to provide a link. There is the debate. From what SPQRobin said, I'm okay with leaving COCOF, but would appreciate if he could comment on Belgian MFA position outlined in the debate. Tomi566 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@L.tak: I fear not, it seems to be something very "behind the scenes", they don't have any website or so where we could look it up.
@Tomobe03: I will maybe create an article or add info to an existing article about the ratification of treaties in Belgium, then we can reference that from this page and also other treaties (so we don't have to copy such a section each time).
@Tomi566: the mention of MFA Karel De Gucht is very short, there's no reference to anywhere, but they mention that the Council of State confirmed COCOF to be competent. If so, then that obviously has a higher legal authority than mere statements by a minister. SPQRobin (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, a passage in the Politics of Belgium or another appropriate place would do. Has the Walloon Parliament completed the procedure (bills 710 and 711 here)?

They did vote yesterday, but it appears the online documents still have to be updated (and it only takes legal effect once published in the Belgian Official Journal). SPQRobin (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I was puzzled by absence of vote results in the texts. At least I missed them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SPQRobin for helping us settle this issue, and Tomobe03 for raising the valid concern. I believe this discussion is important for all other and future Treaties' pages as well. It's not that one sees every day a Minister of FA questioning necessity of Parliament approval :) Tomi566 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Brussels United Assembly seems to have scheduled to vote on 22 February ([3]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're very much following up on all the votes and you're good at finding such files :) It's not like they will block the Treaty or so :P SPQRobin (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I know. It's just a matter of timely updating the article - and the notice here is just a heads-up to others who might check on that if I'm away from wiki.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And to see this through, the Flemish Parliament appears to vote on the matter ([4]) on 27 February. I'm still at total loss on any COCOF activity in this respect though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To add to my rant of the day, does page 11 of this document shed any light on the COCOF and the ratification process? Perhaps it would be useful in the proposed passage in the Politics of Belgium? SPQRobin?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally, the mystery is solved! Your source says "La COCOM : certaines matières communautaires sont communes aux francophones et aux néerlandophones, les 89 députés siègent pour celles-ci à la Commission communautaire commune". The COCOF deputies sit jointly with their Flemish counterparts to decide matters (like this) which concern both groups; the joint body is the Brussels United Assembly (which has already voted overwhelmingly in favour). The COCOF entry is thus unnecessary - I will remove it later, unless someone can refute my argument.24.108.58.1 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely a false conclusion. COCOF votes on separate matters as the COCOM. What is true is that COCOF and VGC together form COCOM (which is in turn identical to the Brussels Regional Parliament) but each of those four (even though ultimately composed of the same members) have completely different powers so have to vote separately. SPQRobin (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mention anything new for me (they do indeed mention that they have to ratify international treaties), but it's a nice overview specifically for the COCOF Assembly. I haven't found any activity either with regards to the treaty ratification though... SPQRobin (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

When you look at the Treaty of Accession 2005, there is no COCOF Voting included LSE85 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be no website or record where you can find the COCOF agenda or minutes. Does anyone know how we're supposed to know what COCOF is up to?24.108.58.1 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The assembly site is here. Presumably the info will pop up there at some point.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@SPQRobin, the PDF does mention that they ratify international treaties in the field of their competences, which is a neat way of saying little and explaining nothing. I really would like to see something specific backing on that - the COCOF role seems odd, and left unexplained and unreferenced in this and similar articles (as is the case of Gibraltar and Aland - an explanation exists there, but it is likewise completely unreferenced). I'm starting to consider placing a citation needed tag there or in a note attached to COCOF (note saying that the French Community delegated some powers to the COCOF, including them in the ratification process) and possibly removing all three if no references can be found per WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a vote in 2006 regarding the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. Worth mentioning is the vote took place on 20 October 2006, while Belgium officially ratified (i.e. deposited) on 19 October 2006. Tomi566 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Romania/Bulgaria case is such, is it possible that COCOF case is somehow similar to Gibraltar in the UK? (referenced Gibraltar today, incidentally). If so, it could stay in, with an explanatory note and a reference. Only snag is I have no clue on how to explain that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I made a preliminary section at User:SPQRobin/Sandbox (I want to get to know as much as possible before adding a section on e.g. foreign relations of Belgium). Gibraltar and Aland are different: they are special cases within a non-federal state (federacy). Within Belgium, the federal State, the Regions and Communities are all equal in their respective competences (indeed, that doesn't say much but that is basically how the federal system is designed). Making use of art. 138 of the Constitution, the French Community devolved parts of their power to COCOF and the Walloon Region, which means those have full power on some community matters. That makes them have to ratify treaties concerning those powers. Anyway, this is a really stupid system and I still haven't even found anything talking about the German-speaking Parliament since they too have a few regional powers, I'm assuming these powers are considered to be irrelevant to international treaties. In short, nobody really knows, I guess even politicians don't quite, so please don't care too much :) SPQRobin (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be addressed somehow, right now it's misleading because it is implied their vote has the same weight like Belgian Senate or Flemish Parliament vote. Because if Belgium again deposits before they vote, it would be contradicting (without solid refence). Also, the map should be updated. Perhaps to remove the entry until some solid reference is found, or until they do vote. Tomi566 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, COCOF Assembly's vote has de jure the same weight as all the other parliaments, but de facto they are not important and it doesn't block deposition if they haven't voted. Makes me wonder though if one could go to court for a treaty ratification by Belgium if e.g. COCOF didn't vote yet... SPQRobin (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. That would be an excellent explanation in a note. Can you please provide a reference for that, so that the note could be properly backed up?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two possibilites now: either COCOF indeed has the same weight but Belgian King and MFA violate their own constitution when they deposit before COCOF votes, which (regarding the international law, not Belgian law) again makes their vote irrelevant. I have found another case of such situation, this was deposited by Belgium in December 2011, but COCOF didn't vote until June 2012 (and at that time the Protocol was already in force). Other possibility is their vote is not necessary according to Belgian law, because of their limited competences. Both cases justify the removal of their entry, until a solid reference for either possibility is found. Tomi566 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely the first one. Either a Belgian parliament does not have to vote, or it has to with (de jure) equal weight as the other parliaments. But as your example proves again, de facto they don't really care. I found this question to the MFA back in 1996: it confirms that COCOF is "une entité fédérée à part entière", complaining that they don't get equal representation in the Interministerial Conference of Foreign Affairs (which decides over treaties and the delegation). The key questions there remained unanswered; he literally asked "What legal value do you give to "mixed" international treaties, for which a necessary parliamentary approval lacks?". SPQRobin (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may add to the confusion about COCOF: It is not true that the Lisbon Treaty ratification page would indicate that COCOF can be ignored. The "Royal Assent" was indeed earlier (19-06-2008) than the vote in the COCOF Assembly (11-07-2008). But the deposit of the instrument of ratification was on 15-10-2008. Here is the point: That table has in fact a flaw, because there is a "Royal Assent" recorded which is merely the assent to the federal Act of Parliament giving the green light to the treaty[5]. Legally, the King could do as much once Chamber and Senate had said yes, without waiting for anyone else. For each other parliamentary assent, there was an equivalent "Assent" by the relevant regional/community government. To be consistent, these should have been recorded as well, because they have the same status as the Royal Assent at the federal level. I in fact suggested that back in 2008, but then, okay, what would that have done to the length of the table... As an example, see the assent of the COCOF executive body (called "Collège") here, it's from 17-07-2008, perfectly in time to authorise the deposit of the instrument of ratification. That being said, I do know that in the past, some treaties that would need COCOF assent have been ratified without them; they have then generally given assent later. And that assent is indeed necessary for the relevant treaty to have legal effect in Belgium (more exactly in the Brussels-Capital area) in the area of COCOF competencies. Can you imagine the clash if there were a Belgian court (rightly!) refusing to apply a provision of the Accession Treaty in the area of COCOF competencies, but the European Court of Justice (also rightly!) insisting that it must have direct effect? That is why COCOF cannot be said to be irrelevant, even if I have a suspicion that Belgium would ratify even without COCOF assent. So here is my suggestion: We leave COCOF out for the moment, but once they do assent (I'm sure they will one day, but not necessarily in time), we add them, because the information that they have indeed assented is very relevant. Sigur (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions weren't drawn from the Lisbon Treaty vote, as that time they did vote before deposition. As you can see in previous comments, conclusions were drawn from Bulgarian & Romanian Accession Treaty and the Protocol on European Parliament seats. For the latter, I have stumbled upon a short article with similar conclusions. So, in both cases COCOF voted after deposition. We do not know would a Belgian court refuse to apply a provision of the Accession Treaty or not, but we do know Treaties have entered force without their vote. This table is more inclined towards international law perspective than Belgian law perspective. And after Belgium deposits and Treaty enters force, well does COCOF's (presumably late) vote really matter in international context? What would happen if they forget to vote or vote against? Clearly Croatia wouldn't be thrown out of the EU. That being said, I'm not against having them in the table (after vote), preferably with a reference or explanatory note. Because as you can see in my previous comment, last time they voted some 7 months after Belgium deposited. So what if they now vote in January 2014. That could be confusing for readers. Or, perhaps, the whole issue could be swept under the carpet if they vote before deposition. Tomi566 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. For the Accession Treaty 2005 you're technically right, although it was a question of days: deposition on 19 Oct 2006, parliamentary assent on 20 Oct 2006, assent of the Collège on 26 Oct 2006 and publication on 10 Nov 2006[6]. On the other hand, it looks almost like a hostile act of the MFA towards COCOF to deposit the day before parliamentary assent there, as they could have waited even for publication without a problem (France deposited only on 6 Dec 2006). In relation to the Protocol on EP seats it's even worse than you say, though, because what you linked to is the assent BILL and I have not been able to find any trace of parliamentary approval (only the committee report on the bill) or the bill actually being signed into law by the Collège (at least the official publication of the Assent Decree should have been straightforward to find). So the conclusion on that one is that there still is no assent today! They might not be stressing out on that protocol, because to create a real legal problem you would need EU legislation in the (small) area of COCOF competence so narrowly adopted in the EP that the difference made by the Protocol matters plus non-transposition by COCOF plus a lawsuit - which seems pretty improbable before they finally assent. But it still looks messy...(EDIT and CORRECTION: On the EP seats Protocol, I have now discovered a very strange text in the Moniteur belge of 25.09.2012, p. 58928, the title indicates it's the Assent Decree, but then what follows is the Collège order to present the bill to the Assembly, followed again by a text saying the decree receives assent and promulgation of the Collège. Irregular as this may seem, it can be considered a valid assent. Sigur (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)) Anyhow, we agree on the practical position that we should consider this once there is a COCOF assent. Sigur (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that possible legal problem: in a judgment given on 27 May 1971 the Court of Cassation held that all international and supranational instruments ranked higher in the hierarchy than any internal instruments and thus higher than the Constitution. If a European Regulation were in conflict with the Constitution, the Regulation would prevail. source. And regarding the relevance of possible situation without COCOF vote, Belgium is a party to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in which Articles 27 and 46 in my view do explain why the vote issue becomes irrelevant after deposition. Tomi566 (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about the famous S.A. Fromageries Franco-Suisse Le Ski judgment. There the Court of Cassation based its reasoning on the constitutional difference between a "normal" act of parliament and a treaty assent. In other words: without that assent forget about direct effect, forget about primacy. It is true that the judgment also says somewhere that primacy flows from the very nature of international conventional law. However it does refer to the constitutional "requirement" of assent. And think about it: If that assent were irrelevant after deposition, that would mean that the executive branch could get away with ratifying a treaty without the "required" parliamentary assent and impose its rules regardless. There is no way the courts would accept that! I can thus only repeat what I said: Without COCOF assent there is no direct effect and no primacy in areas of COCOF competence. Sigur (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

COCOF Ratification - COCOF started ratification procedure <http://www.pfb.irisnet.be/documents/projet-024412-du-2013-05-07-a-15-38-22></ref> and Commission for international relations is scheduled on 24 May 2013. So I think it is time to return COCOF row in the table. Lamantin (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was agreed to consider returning COCOF after the vote takes place, and seems that won't take long. Just to add something to the debate. On 11 April, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Croatia and declared Belgian ratification process as concluded. Video of his statement can be found here(first one). Tomi566 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In his statement Minister said that ratification was approved in 9 different assemblies. But we have 8 assemblies in the table?Lamantin (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was likely more important for him to politically state that Belgium completed the ratification than to be correct about it. Either he didn't know Cocof didn't vote yet, or he pushed Cocof to finally vote on it. It's not uncommon for politicians to be wrong. By the way, I recently found http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/53/2575/53K2575002.pdf where (on page 5) an MP refers to the Council of State who confirmed that Cocof does need to vote on it and recommended to mention Cocof as well when signing the treaty. SPQRobin (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether that document about ratification completion "to be signed later that day and sent to the King", has been sent or was just another political statement.

This opinion is a very nice find! Are those opinions legally binding? I believe here is the full version. Well, since the opinion is from 24 September 2012, well after other Treaties mentioned in this talk section have entered force before COCOF vote, should the COCOF now vote prior to the deposition, this opinion justifies their table entry, especially because it mentiones the formula and is given connected to this particular Treaty. If COCOF votes after the deposition, their table entry could (again) be a tougher call due to collision with international law. Tomi566 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the full version. The advice of the Council of State is just that - an advice, so it's not binding, but it does have "de facto authority" on the legal/judicial aspect of proposed laws. In fact, that (2012) advice references to their 2008 advice on the Lisbon Treaty ratification law. It's interesting to see that treaty signatures are still not adapted to the Council of State advice. Next time they'll just repeat their advice again ;-) SPQRobin (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Council of State says that the existing formula can be interpreted in a way that is sufficient, but would have preferred a clearer formulation. Anyhow, the important things are that Belgium is bound on the international level (which it will be via the instrument of ratification) and that there is an Assent Decree of COCOF to guarantee direct effect; all the rest is just for the beauty. They have scheduled the commission stage for 24 May 8:30 and the plenary stage for the same day at 9:00. I take that as a strong indication that they are determined to adopt the Assent Decree before the planned date of accession. So, I suppose we can hope that we can re-introduce the COCOF line on 24 May and avoid any apparent inconsistency of dates. Sigur (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Brussels United Assembly, I have added votes by language group in the footnote (numbers taken from the linked document). The difference between the Brussels Regional Parliament and the Brussels United Assembly (made up of the same people) is the voting conditions: In the United Assembly the initial vote requires a majority in each language group for a bill to be adopted (Article 72 here:[7]). If that fails, a second vote can take place where an overall majority is needed and at least a third of the members of each language group is also required. Therefore, the votes in each language group is an essential part of adopting a bill. However, as the table is complicated enough for Belgium, I have only put it in the footnote.Sigur (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the linked Article 72, I did wonder why exactly the separate vote back when edit was made. I believe it wouldn't be that much more complicated if you included the separation of votes, actually since the vote requires double-majority, then it would be more precise to make that separation visible. Hopefully if really today COCOF votes like you mentioned, there will be 11 different votes, so a difference between 11 and 12 isn't that great. Now just to quick comment your recent edits, this (irregular) Assent in Moniteur Belge from 25.9.2012., that date is Assent date? Because the EP Protocol was in force since 1.12.2011. And the reason why executive branch couldn't just ratify a treaty without parliamentary approval is found in article 46 of the Vienna convention, as that would surely be a "manifest violation". The overall complexity and implications of a late assent are perhaps beyond this talk-page, and perhaps it's not that much important because we have agreed we would still include a late COCOF vote, but with some kind of explanatory note. The only problem was about the content and sources of that note, to explain the inconsistency. Since there will most probably be no inconsistency, and there is also this Conseil d'Etat opinion if anyone wonders why COCOF in this treaty article and not in some other ones, I believe those issues with this particular treaty can be viewed as resolved. Tomi566 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On BUA, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to enter it into the table, if you see a nice way of doing it (all the data is there), but personally I'm not sure how to do it. On the EP seats protocol, the parliamentary assent must have been on 13 July 2012 (based on agenda), then the Collège gave "sanction and promulgation" on 19 July and it was published on 25 September. Way too late anyhow, obviously. The general problem with COCOF is that AFAIK they don't participate in the comité gemengde verdragen, because they got their legislative competence only later (transferred from the French Community, it's the same transfer as for the Walloon Region voting on "community matters"). But with the Council of State now having a clear line, it will become increasingly difficult to ignore them. In the best case, those late assents may thus be a thing of the past. And I think indeed, if COCOF votes today we can just ignore the question. The legislative competence of COCOF is pretty limited and any treaty that does not touch on that limited competence would anyhow NOT need COCOF assent; incoherence with other treaties therefore isn't really a big deal IMHO. Sigur (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the minutes of the COCOF Assembly plenary session of today will take some time to be published, I sent an e-mail to the Assembly's secretariat and they replied that the Assent Bill had been adopted "unanimously by the members present". I have added that information to the table. Once the minutes will be available, we can give them as reference (and hopefully the exact number of members that were present), but I thougt as I had the information it was good to already give it (I realise this might technically qualify as "original research", but then that will only be temporary). Sigur (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice move, although it indeed is original research, at least the issue is solved. Perhaps this "Unanimous" designation could be used for votes in France as well, instead of "Passed". I really like those more accurate descriptions in 2005 Treaty table (btw. I've left you a message there). Regarding BUA votes, perhaps making 2 votes like (fr) / (nl language group), would not mess the whole table. Any longer descriptions would look horrible. Tomi566 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, would any of you be interested to help with the Belgian ratification of this, European Fiscal Compact, too, as it slowly proceeds? Heracletus (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to update: the COCOF "Collège" sanctioned and promulgated on 30.05.2013 and the assent decree was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 06.06.2013[8]. Now, the MFA says "On 6 June 2013, Belgium concluded its ratification procedure for the Croatian European Union Accession Treaty."[9] In other words: They now do consider COCOF part of the ratification procedure. Sigur (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As to BUA language groups, you wanted to get them from the footnotes into the table. How about something like this:

Signatory	Conclusion date	Institution			AB	Deposited	Ref.
Belgium	13 December 2012	Senate	60	0	0	10 June 2013
	24 January 2013	Chamber of Representatives	121	0	1
	17 February 2013	Royal Assent	Granted
	30 January 2013	Walloon Parliament (regional) (community)	66	0	0
			64	0	0
	22 October 2012	German-speaking Community	19	2	0
	23 January 2013	French Community	76	0	0
	22 December 2012	Brussels Regional Parliament	76	2	1
	22 February 2013	Brussels United vote by language group: Assembly (French:F - Dutch:D)	81	0	2
			F: 68 D:13	F:0 D:0	F:0 D:2
	27 February 2013	Flemish Parliament (regional) (community)	107	0	0
			112	0	0
	24 May 2013	COCOF Assembly	51	0	0

There must be better coding than mine to do this, but that would be the general idea. Sigur (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for Belgium:

Signatory	Conclusion date	Institution			AB	Deposited	Ref.
Belgium	13 December 2012	Senate	60	0	0	10 June 2013
	24 January 2013	Chamber of Representatives	121	0	1
	17 February 2013	Royal Assent	Granted
	30 January 2013	Walloon Parliament (regional) (community)	66	0	0
			64	0	0
	22 October 2012	German-speaking Community	19	2	0
	23 January 2013	French Community	76	0	0
	22 December 2012	Brussels Regional Parliament	76	2	1
	22 February 2013	Brussels United Assembly votes by language group:	81	0	2
			French Dutch 68 13	French Dutch 0 0	French Dutch 0 2
	27 February 2013	Flemish Parliament (regional) (community)	107	0	0
			112	0	0
	24 May 2013	COCOF Assembly	51	0	0

Heracletus (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, back then I was trying to code something like this, but didn't manage to do it. Now I saw in your proposals how to code that part correctly. I would prefer a simple solution which doesn't mess a lot with the spacing of the rest of the table. Since they made a separate count of votes in the source, I think we could count them separate as well.

Signatory	Conclusion date	Institution			AB	Deposited	Ref.
Belgium	13 December 2012	Senate	60	0	0	10 June 2013
	24 January 2013	Chamber of Representatives	121	0	1
	17 February 2013	Royal Assent	Granted
	30 January 2013	Walloon Parliament (regional) (community)	66	0	0
			64	0	0
	22 October 2012	German-speaking Community	19	2	0
	23 January 2013	French Community	76	0	0
	22 December 2012	Brussels Regional Parliament	76	2	1
	22 February 2013	Brussels United Assembly (FR language group) (NL language group)	68	0	0
			13	0	2
	27 February 2013	Flemish Parliament (regional) (community)	107	0	0
			112	0	0
	24 May 2013	COCOF Assembly	51	0	0

Tomi566 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of content, I prefer Heracletus' table, but I do agree that it messes a bit too much with the spacing of the whole table, so overall I have a slight preference for this last table. But what about a note explaining the reasons for showing it this way? There is a nice one (with a good, user-friendly source) in the "European Fiscal Compact" article. We don't have a "majority needed" column here, and I don't think one is warranted, but in this particular case of the BUA, it would seem odd to split the votes like this without any explanation. Sigur (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the note would surely give a proper (and needed) explanation. I've updated it with the note. It seems the note doesn't show up here, I hope that wouldn't be the case in article as well. Tomi566 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Use, refn|group="Note"| instead of efn| and it will appear in the notes section that already exists, or use efn| and

;Notes

{{notelist|close}}

after the table and it will appear after the table. Heracletus (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Heracletus, especially for instructions on how to add to existing notes section. I've tried to make an edit which doesn't impact the rest of the table at all, as the note gives all the relevant info.

And Sigur thanks for the link to COCOF Assent Decree, I was wondering about that mentioning of 6 June. Nice, that MFA press release means they are now really counting COCOF and waiting for the whole procedure to take place (compared to previous treaties and that Karel De Gucht statement). Tomi566 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bilge - as if all this confusion wasn't enough, Belgium claims it has deposited notification of ratification, although the EU website knows nothing about it. [10] What a mixed-up country! I thought our federalism was weird, but this is real Alice-in-wonderland stuff! 24.108.58.1 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it was decided to change table concerning Belgium ratification documents deposition. Only relevant source is from EC web pages, and I think we should only concern them. Have you forgotten that their MFA said in Zagreb that they have finished ratification procedure on 11 April 2013. Lamantin (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The EU has finally registered Belgium's deposition - thus ends a long and complex story. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Germany

As a heads-up, Bundestag starts the ratification procedure tomorrow ([11]).--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The link is dead. How is the Bundestag vote doing?24.108.58.1 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It was the first reading of that law. Therefore there was no voting. The voting ends up the third reading usually. For the next "Sitzungswoche" on March 13-15 it is not planned to hold the second reading. --134.176.204.56 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Update on this issue: There will be no second reading at least before end of April. --Edroeh (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Second and third readings are set to take place May 16th. --134.176.204.180 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

More information about the second and the third reading can be found at http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/tagesordnungen/240.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.70.244 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So much for the Bundestag, has anyone any idea when the Bundesrat will vote? 24.108.58.1 (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is already written and referenced in the article, they will vote on 7 June. Tomi566 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nethederlands

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013-01/30/content_16186755.htm Dutch Parliament ratified Treaty of Accession 2011, about Accession of Croatia to EU.

I'm italian, then please excuse me my mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Buttini (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Finland

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2013/20130221

The Finnish President signed the act ratifying the Treaty on 15 March 2013.136.173.162.129 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Isle of Man?

On the ratification map Isle of Man is green but they aren't part of the EU: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Isle_of_Man#European_Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.153.100 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The ratification map depicts countries which are expected or have already ratified the treaty.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

But when exactly did the Tynwald (the parliament of the Isle of Man) ratify the Treaty? 89.74.153.100 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

They haven't done so and they need not do so if they're not a part of the EU. The ratification map does not depict the EU, but European countries. Borders of the UK are such that it includes the Isle of Man and since the Westminster Parliament ratified the treaty, the UK is indicated in a specific shade of green. That does not imply that the Isle of Man is a part of the EU, but that it is a part of a particular country which has ratified the treaty at one point. Aland is currently marked green as well, even though its parliament will vote on the treaty (but has not done so yet) since the Finnish parliament has approved the treaty. Your concerns have merit, but I think the map is not the place to address them. I'd rather see a short passage in the article prose detailing where the treaty applies (or will apply) and where it will not apply - the Isle of Man being one such territory.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is right indeed. The -very very faint- coloring of the Isle of Man should be grey as it's outside the EU; only Gibraltar should be marked with the EU…. Who is capable of changing that? Adding much text to the article is complicated as many zones that are OCT are outside the EU, but still covered by this accession in some of their relations…. L.tak (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I could agree, since Isle of Man isn't part of either UK or EU. Tomi566 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree re adding text to the article being complicated. The article as it is now is nearly bare-bones, hence its low quality rating (Start). Proper contents are needed if we are to produce anything besides pretty table and a colorful map. On the Isle of Man issue, the map is not really depicting the EU is it? The Isle of Man is a part of the UK, isn't it? The map provides a reference on which country ratified the treaty, not whether the Isle of Man is a part of the EU or if the acquis applies in the Norther Cyprus, doesn't it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not part of the UK, The_Isle_Of_Man#External_relations_and_security, you can also open the main UK article and zoom in the map provided there. Start-rating of the article, well I don't recall it was ever assessed, but I too believe it could be expanded a bit, although one can't really do miracles with article about international treaty. I won't oppose adding stuff about the Isle of Man, but believe it isn't really enormously crucial to this topic, to put it that way. Tomi566 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deposition of ratification documents

Hi, I don't know where to ask. I wonder why in some countries is so long period from ratification to deposition. For example in Poland more then 4 months. In Finland there is no deposition of documents from 18 December 2012 (in 2006 the documents were deposit in less then 2 months). In UK from 31 January 2013. In Finland President granted document after 3 months, in Poland after 2 months. I don't understand what are they waiting for if they have parliamentary and presidential approval? Is this deposition formality or for some reason they are waiting? Lamantin (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the issue is that there is a legal challenge to the ratification process, and the government can't complete ratification until a court has ruled on the case. TDL (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's up to any specific country, but in this case I think Finland and UK were waiting for link the Final Monitoring Report, which was published on 26 March. And regarding Finland, there are some issues regarding Aland Islands as well. In some countries it takes two separate Head of State Assents, one for the law itself and other for the deposition. In this table, they are sometimes mixed. For instance, Croatian president granted law assent (more precisely, promulgation) on the same day when it was passed, and Polish president did the same thing well before those 2 months you mentioned. I did provide correct dates, but they were edited and changed to "deposition assent" dates, which were later. I didn't contest those edits, as there are no clear guidelines. So, technically speaking there could be 2 separate entries for some countries, but no other treaty article has that. Tomi566 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Slovenia and Finland have been delaying deposition, having completed the rest of the procedure. (Finland doesn't have to wait for the Aaland Islands, they already ratified). Have these countries formed a consortium to delay notification? Do they have some issue not reported? Or are they just slow? 24.108.58.1 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag…. e.g. The Netherlands decided to wait (following a motion of parliament) until it had the "appreciation" of the cabinet of the last progress report of the European Commission in order to monitor if progress was ok. I am not sure if they formed a "consortium", but I am sure they keep each other (and other countries) informed… L.tak (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rationality issues

Can someone explain to me how it is rational not to include the COCOF row on the ratification table, since:

• it has been established that COCOF needs to ratify this treaty so as to be legally ratified by Belgium (even though Belgium has ignored them for some time in the past)

AND

• it has been introduced in COCOF and will be voted at some point by it?

Why should we wait until they actually vote? Is there some agenda behind it? Will it appear bad in Croatia if two parliaments and two countries are pending and not just one? Is there real consensus on doing this? How is it justified to not show on the page a parliament that legally needs to approve the treaty for it to come into force, until it actually votes?

The COCOF entry was there in the first place until it was decided to be removed until it is clarified whether it needs to be there. Well, guess what? It has now been fully established it can be legitimately included, but, let's not just add it back up there, let's wait until they actually vote. Under the same rationale why include the table at all? Let's just wait until everyone has ratified the treaty and only then include the ratification table in the article.

And, about the German parliament, Bundestag, I kept adding the date (16 May) when it was scheduled (initially as second reading and third reading and afterwards as second reading and final vote) for it to vote on the treaty and I kept getting reverted. There was a clear primary source included in the article (and perhaps even secondary sources may exist) reading exactly that this treaty would be voted in the Bundestag at that exact date, but, no, why don't we wait until they actually vote? With the same rationale, why don't we just remove any date for the Eurovision final\Champions' League final\whatever thing scheduled and wait until it actually takes place?

Why not indeed?

Perhaps, because by including these dates, Wikipedia does not become an oracle, but just reports on facts verifiable by reliable sources?

It was a fact that the Bundestag was scheduled to vote on this treaty on 16 May, it was verifiable, and surprise, surprise, it happened. It was not a guess or an estimate, it was something reported by the Bundestag itself, and which probably has been reported in some secondary sources, too. Much alike this, it is a fact that COCOF will vote on this treaty and it has also been proven in this very talk page that they are legally entitled and obliged to vote on it for it to be legally ratified by Belgium. However, including these two facts in the article has been denied to me, or any other editor. Go figure... Heracletus (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, given the frequency with which you criticise me for arguing over minor issues, it's rather hypocritical of you to edit war over whether a date should be listed in the table a couple hours before the vote or after the vote. That belongs on the WP:LAME hall of fame. If you want to include dates before the event occurs, then put them in italics or something so that it's clear that it's only a planned date. If others object, just wait a couple of hours. It really isn't the end of the world as there's WP:NODEADLINE. All that matters is that it's right eventually.

Likewise, as far as I read the discussion above it's not 100% clear that the COCOF's ratification is necessary for Belgium's ratification to be completed. Including them with blanks cells could give the impression that it is necessary. I don't particularly care whether we list them now (with say a footnote to explain that it may or may not be necessary prior to Croatia's entry into force as for Gibraltar), or later, but is it really worth arguing about? TDL (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL, you obviously make this personal and try to counter my "criticism" to you by pointing I may have done the same thing here. Try adding it on LAME, see if it stands. I argued over including facts verifiable by reliable sources. Why don't you go and make the same points on this article for including a future date? I can see in the infobox "Final date 18 May 2013" and no italics, no references next to it. Why indeed don't you go hit them with your WikiPolicy hammer? Moreover, why don't you go and delete everything that concerns ratification here, as no country has ratified it yet? I can see a table there and it includes empty columns. Also, why not just blank this article and just re-write it on 30 February 2034, as the present doesn't matter, as long as it will eventually be ok?

Moreover, why don't you stop stalking people? The things I complain about did not concern you immediately, you didn't revert me on those and you have not taken part in any relevant discussion. I will accept your general relevant comments on what I wrote, but, not the personal comments which clearly show why you are here. Heracletus (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

When you repeatedly stalk and personally attack editors (not just me) you shouldn't be surprised if they take it personally. As for the rest of your WP:POINTY reply, there's really not much worth responding to except to point out that I've been editing this article for over a year while you only showed up a couple weeks ago. So who is stalking who? I didn't revert your addition of the date not because it didn't concern me, but because I thought it was entirely lame to get in an edit war over. TDL (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL, I hope you can understand that you yourself only chose to get involved here, and no one is chasing after you. On the other hand, you are chasing after me and seem to acknowledge this. So, keep your bitterness for yourself. Last time I checked I didn't drop out of the blue to announce I believed you were stalking me and therefore I was there to do the same; which is exactly what you did here. You were not involved in this argument. You chose to involve yourself now and, while you're at it, you even accuse ME of stalking YOU. You made the first reply here. So, I guess this answers who is stalking who.

My reply to you was making a point, it's called arguing\debating\whatever. I didn't go ahead and disrupt wikipedia to make this point, did i? So, please, keep your WikiPolicies for where they are relevant. Heracletus (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I chose to get involved here, over a year ago. I'm not chasing after anyone. As the evidence clearly indicates, I've been editing here since long before you. In fact, you can see s response from me in the thread directly above this one as well. Go edit your eurovision article and you can be sure I won't show up. You started a silly edit war, personally attacked the other editor in your edit summaries, then started a quite condescending thread on the talk page attacking them (Rationality issues? Surely you can understand why suggesting someone who disagrees with your preferred layout is irrational isn't helpful to the discussion). I'm the second editor involved in this thread (and I only didn't become involve in your edit war simply because it was over before I noticed it had started).

I would suggest that you follow your own advice though, as it really is more appropriate for you. TDL (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL, you're trying very hard to make this personal between me and you. If at least you were one of the editors I may have offended by my initial post here, I could accept it. But, obviously, you're dragging a whole different agenda with you, so I will stop here. I will also keep editing articles about Eurovision and sports, as well as about the EU. However, please, stop stalking me and my contributions page. Heracletus (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No it's quite the opposite. I'm trying to make this not personal. I didn't see the point of your edit war so I told you that. You've been trying to paint this as some sort of personal dispute between you and I ever since. And you do know how WP:Watchlists work right? As far as I can recall, I've never once even looked at your contributions page. Please stop making such personal attacks. TDL (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

@Heracletus: Regarding COCOF, it is not so simple as you potray it, as there is evidence of treaties that have entered force after of without COCOF vote. And even Belgian sources are contradicting at times. For example, how would you color COCOF entry if Belgium deposits before the vote? Or, would you be able to write and source an explanatory note as why the vote is included although it took place after the deposition? Because, regarding International law, their vote would then become obsolete. To put it simply, for the purpose of this table: International law > Belgian law. The advisory opinion SPQRobin found could be satisfactory in case they do vote before, although it was not being respected in the past.

I don't get your point about how would this page appear in Croatia with pending parliaments, actually it is a very amusing remark. Like politicians read this page. You can visit EU delegation to Croatia website, where you'll see they designated Belgian ratification process as complete. The same was said by Belgian MFA.

Regarding future dates, they have a tendency to change, and it has happened in some previous occasions. We simply haven't included them so far. I would not object only if different coloring is used together with some sort of explanation that they are subject to change. Tomi566 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomi566, it is indeed simple. It has been proven to you over and over again that legally it is needed to be ratified by COCOF for the Belgian ratification to be legally consistent with the Belgian law. This has at least once been violated, but, it is not up to me (or you, I guess) to pass judgement on this.

IF this happens again (and, now, this is a scenario, whereas, that the treaty will be considered by COCOF is a fact and it has already been introduced to it), I will not change the colour of COCOF cells (until they vote for or against the treaty) and will colour the rest of Belgium's cells into light green. In this case, yes, I could write a note about what happened, using the sources that others have provided to you already here about the constitutional status of COCOF inside Belgium. I would however refrain from passing judgement as to why this happened, unless I had a source on it (otherwise, it would be original research).

For the purpose of wikipedia, verifiable FACT > anything. I want to state the facts here, and you try to prevent this until some point you chose on your own (COCOF voting). To counter your example, even if no other parliaments other than the central Senate and Chamber of Representatives voted and the King gave his assent and the treaty's ratification was deposited, it would still be as valid as it would be if deposited before COCOF approves it. It is quite debatable to what extent it would stand, even by international law, if for example, one parliament rejected it after the ratification had been deposited.

Thank you for choosing the most unreliable source on this issue ever, the EU's delegation to Croatia website, to defend your argument. Here: http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/?lang=hr&content=3935, enjoy looking at how Germany has finished ratifying the treaty in its parliament. I will actually use this as a source, delete the Bundesrat and Presidential Assent entries on Germany and replace Bundestag with "Njemački parlament" and colour it all green, just for you. Where is the 9th parliament the Belgian MFA is talking about? And, is "the ratification over"? I thought the ratification can only be completed and over AFTER he and the King have signed it AND it has been deposited. Perhaps, he's not talking exactly literally? Anyway... all these have already been addressed further above, apart from the EU's delegation to Croatia website... The thing is the treaty is now before the COCOF, so, the COCOF should be included in the table, as it is a legitimate body that can have (and will have) a say on the treaty, like it or not.

When a law is scheduled for final voting, especially a ratification, this will extremely rarely change. It's a different thing to just be on the agenda from it having been scheduled for its final vote. Again, this was not just a guess or an estimate, this was clearly seen on the source. If it changed, then, I would change it here. But, until it ever changed, it should stand as it was clearly sourced and could be verified. The same thing goes for football games, contests, Olympic Games and all sorts of events, even concerts. There was absolutely no good reason to just be reverted over and over again. On the contrary, the Bundesrat date is quite speculative, based on the fact it's the next Bundesrat meeting after the Bundestag ratification and that it's before the target date of 1 July 2013.

If the world is not watching, or reading, why there's such an opposition against including another relevant parliamentary body which will consider this treaty? Will suddenly anything change? Heracletus (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to repeat the whole COCOF debate here. Especially because all you have provided is nothing except your opinion only. Although you declare "I thought the ratification can only be completed and over AFTER he and the King have signed it AND it has been deposited", you would color Belgium light-green if the deposition takes place before COCOF vote?? So in your opinion, the Protocol on European Parliament seats is invalid or what? Belgium still hasn't ratified it? Because COCOF still hasn't voted. But you do say ratification is over after it has been deposited?? And this opinion of Conseil d'Etat which supposedly has "proven me" is technically just a non-binding opinion, which hasn't been respected in the past, but treaties have entered force nonetheless. But I did accept it as a justification to include COCOF, on the grounds they respect it this time. That's why I believe it is important to first wait for the vote, which still hasn't been scheduled. Because if they vote after the deposition, then we would surely need a sourced explanatory note about the relevance of a late vote, or the date could be confusing to readers.

And to answer some points on which you have implied what I supposedly think. First of all, I haven't ever said COCOF isn't a legitimate body, and second, I do know EU Delegation's map is wrong regarding to Germany, as you can see yesterday I have reverted the same coloring on this article. And regarding the Bundesrat vote, other source is a statement of German Ambassador, and there have been many other statements from various officials these days, which I didn't include because the expression used is "EXPECTED to take place". This is not the same as when you put a definite date in the table, with no caveat.

Finally, my reasoning behind COCOF was only to be consistent and precise. It's really not my fault their vote hasn't been respected in the past and thus made irrelevant in some cases. Tomi566 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomi566, I would colour the ratification deposit cell of Belgium light green when the deposit happens. And I wouldn't colour the COCOF's cells with any colour until they voted. I don't think it's a personal opinion that for the ratification to be complete, both the minister and the King have to sign and it also has to be deposited. I think this is a fact.

In the case you are referring to, while internationally Belgium is bound by its ratification, in Belgium this ratification can be legally challenged, if COCOF has competence over this issue. In our case, however, COCOF does indeed have competence on the issue and has taken up on it, so, I don't see any reason for not including this.

Not wishing to repeat the debate further above, you had been presented with arguments and sources other than the Conseil d'Etat's opinion and again were not convinced by them.

As to what you think, I didn't argue or know your actual thoughts, I merely argued against your arguments, by using the example you provided, the EU's delegation website, to prove your argument was not valid. I also don't think I wrote on your thoughts about COCOF's legitimacy, but, I may be wrong on this one.

Regarding the Bundesrat, I used it as a counter-example. The Bundestag vote had a clear date which was provided in a verifiable (and, pretty trustworthy) source. The Bundesrat vote date is indeed just a speculation. This is why I put a definite date for the Bundestag vote on the table and did not at the same time do the same thing for the Bundesrat. You missed my point there.

I will argue that we are talking about this specific case. I don't think I also implied you were to blame for Belgium disregarding COCOF or for their vote not being included in other articles. Heracletus (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding future dates, I have said twice I don't object to them if they are different font or colour or with a note. Regarding COCOF and possible coloring and deposition and possible legal challenges, I refer you to my recent edit. It's not about me being or not being convinced, because my sole opinion is irrelevant, it's about law and sources. And I have acknowledged this Conseil opinion as good enough source, although one really has to derive their opinion. Because all they mention is that COCOF is bound and the formula should be changed. Well, of course COCOF is also bound with a signature on an international treaty, and the formula itself can be changed for future treaties only. But, even this opinion in conjunction what others have said I have found satisfactory for COCOF's inclusion related to this Treaty. But that opinion has sense only if it has been respected, because things change once Belgium deposits. And will the COCOF give its assent in time, its hard to tell, because on 24 May they have it on a Commission, after that it is required to have a vote in the Plenary, and after that COCOF Executive Body has to give its assent. There is also a publication, but I don't know if that's legally needed for their assent to be valid. I think Sigur and SPQRobin know that detail. And will they make all these steps before the deposition, well I hope so, because then it would be much more consistent and referenced. If they don't, and you still want to include COCOF, then a explanatory note has to be included and sourced, such as the one Gibraltar has. Because from what I've read, the UK will deposit before Gibraltar votes. For all of the reasons mentioned above and in the debate, I still believe its best to wait for the vote first. But since this can happen within the next few days, I don't see a point of immediate change. Tomi566 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I read this discussion, I realise that the COCOF issue is even more complicated. The Council of State opinion was in fact on a different issue than the need for parliamentary approval. It was about the question whether COCOF had the ability to conclude international treaties. Belgian federative entities have that, but the relevant texts talk about a "gouvernement/regering" and the MFA reasoning goes that as COCOF doesn't have a "gouvernement" but a "collège", it can't. Fact is, COCOF does conclude treaties of its own (not only mixed ones with the federal level) and the Council of State has always approved of this. Interestingly, the Council of State does not say that COCOM (the entity of which BUA is the parliamentary assembly) would need to be mentioned under the signature; indeed, COCOM has a "collège réuni" instead of a "gouvernement" (the difference of COCOF then being that it in fact exercices powers that initially belonged to an entity that has a "gouvernement", i.e. the French Community). In that sense, one would have more reason to scrap COCOM than COCOF. But the point is that the King (which politically speaking is the Federal Government) has no right to deposit the instrument of ratification, if a necessary parliamentary assent is lacking. And as no-one else has the legislative competence in the areas for which COCOF and COCOM are competent, it's only their parliamentary assemblies that can give that assent and no-one else. The other entities did agree on this because there is a cooperation agreement[12] associating COCOM to the mixed treaty process, concluded together with the general cooperation agreement on mixed treaties from 1994[13]. COCOF never got into the club. It's obvious, however, that the competence being transferred, nobody else can give the assent instead of COCOF. And I don't think the analogy with Gibraltar works. I'm not sure whether this wouldn't be contrary to a constitutional convention, but it is clear that legally the UK Parliament still has the power to impose the execution of a European treaty on Gibraltar, if there were a real conflict. The Belgian federal state can't impose that on COCOF. Sigur (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Digging into the general cooperation agreement mentioned above, I've stumbled over its Article 14 saying that once the necessary formalities have been completed, the MFA will publish the treaty, the federal assent act and the references of the regional and community decrees and ordinances in the Belgian Official Gazette. So I checked out that publication for the Lisbon Treaty[14]: Footnote 3 (you have to look after the assent act but before the treaty text) lists all the decrees and ordinances, including COCOM and COCOF. I'd take that as a strong indication that they realise that both are part of the ratification procedure (But it's true that they just went ahead and published without any reference to COCOF in the case of the EP Seats Protocol). Sigur (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar seems not to have published its agreement to this treaty. How sure is it that it needs to do so? Heracletus (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)