Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:42, 15 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Fiscal Compact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Fiscal Compact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about European Fiscal Compact. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about European Fiscal Compact at the Reference desk.

The Map

The current map includes Spanish and Portuguese islands but excludes lots of French islands which also also form part of the eurozone. If the map has any purpose at all it's to show which countries are taking part in the Fiscal Compact, not to give geography lessons. We're hardly going to include a map like the one at Special member state territories and the European Union.

Image:European Fiscal Compact.svg is better because its more compact and doesn't require an infobox which is 400 pixels wide. And a quarter of it isn't taken up by the Atlantic Ocean. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Corsica have the same color as France? Ambi Valent (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly! It should be fixed now. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Deposited or Ratification ???

A department in the European Parliament every third week publish a status over the Fiscal Compact ratification process. They define the fiscal compact to be "completely ratified" once it has been:

1. Approved (by a completed parliamentary procedure by all houses).
2. Signed by the Head of State.
3. Published in the Official Journal.

I now wonder why this definition about "complete ratification", apparently is not equal to the term "deposited", and not good enough to deserve being coloured "dark green"? And I also wonder: What is causing the delay between being "completely ratified" and "deposited"? Danish Expert (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The ratification procedure consists of two parts: one internal and one external. The internal procedure consists of a parliamentary procedure, usually including the adoption of a law authorising ratification, and then the ratification by the Head of State by signing and promulgating the ratification instruments. The internal ratification procedure is governed by the constitutional provisions of the concerned state. The external procedure consists of the ratification instruments (from the internal process) being submitted to the depositer. The external ratification procedure is governed by international law (Vienna Convention etc) and the provisions of the concerned Act. The external ratification process is only a formality. However, from a legal point of view, the ratification procedure is not completed until the ratification instruments have been submitted to the depositer. Sometimes the external procedure is completed during a day, sometimes it can take months. --Glentamara (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for the great reply. As it is the "deposited" day regulating the legal matters, I of course now fully support the idea, only to colour the lines "dark green" in the wikitable, once this hurdle also has been passed. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is more than a formality too. Ireland, for instance, completed the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism with presidential assent on July 3 but this was challenged in the courts and they could not deposit the instruments of ratification until the court case was resolved. Had the court found the ESM violated the constitution, the instruments of ratification would never have been deposited and Ireland wouldn't have become a member to the treaty. TDL (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It is not until the ratification instruments have been deposited, a Treaty (or other international agreement) can be legally binding for the concerned State. --Glentamara (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sub-note about expected deposited dates

The 7 nations so far having deposited, used in average 23 days to deposit, after having completed their political approval of the ratification with a presidential/royal assent. To be exact, the following amount of days were used: Austria=13, Cyprus=27, Greece=43, Portugal=8, Slovenia=30, Denmark=31, Latvia=9. In regards of the upcomming next deposits, its interesting to note that the following 5 countries have been standing in the waiting room since these dates (where they completed the political approval with presidential/royal assent):

• Romania (13 June)
• Ireland (27 June)
• Lithuania (4 July)
• Italy (23 July)
• Spain (25 July)

In regards of our article's wikitable with the ratification status displayed, we are only using the green colour for nations who deposited. I predict minimum 3 out of the 5 countries mentioned above, will be coloured green before the end of September. Danish Expert (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about Ireland, the listing of the date 28 June as the "ratification approval" of the Irish Parliament, however appear to be a mistake by the European Parliament's Legislative Dialogue Unit. As the thing that got ratified by that date, "only" was the amendment change of the Irisih constitution allowing for the Irish Parliament to ratify the "Fiscal Compact" after passing the votes in both chambers. After the referendum approval 31 May 2012, I expect it will only be a matter of formality for the Irish Parliament to complete their ratification of the "Fiscal Compact". But apparently the ratification has been attached together with the parliaments approval of the needed new "budget rule law", which contain much more details for the parliament to debate and consider (and this process will only start in the second half of September). The Irish ratification will therefore now at the earliest be completed in November 2012, and in my opinion it is more likely only to get completed around December 2012. Danish Expert (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I also today found an insteresting map published by the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA), which made the prediction that the slowest 2 out of 25 signatories to ratify will be Netherlands + Belgium, with an expected ratification date by December 2012. If the treaty shall enter into force already 1 Nov. / 1 Dec. (ahead of the target date: 1 January 2013), it will thus require that minimum 12 of the other remaining 15 eurozone members can manage to complete their ratification ahead of respectively 1 Nov. / 1 Dec. Danish Expert (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Among the 17 eurozone countries, we currently (as of 28 September 2012) already had 8 of the eurozone countries with a completed ratification. While the remaining eurozone countries are now likely to complete their ratification with a deposit in the following months:

• November = Estonia+France+Malta.
• December = Ireland+Luxembourg+Slovakia+Finland.
• January = Belgium (as their ratification process only is scheduled to start 9 October 2012, and because it needs to walk through 7-9 parliaments).
• ?????? = Netherlands (due to a parliamentary election in September 2012, and apparently only a reluctant support for a timely ratification after the election).

Bottom line is, that the treaty will indeed soon enter into force. But as the 12th eurozone member is expected only to deposit in December 2012, it will NOT enter into force before on the target date: 1 January 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Two months after I posted my prediction above, we only have 9 eurozone countries with a deposit. Here is a new updated outlook for when the remaining eurozone countries will deposit their ratification of the Fiscal Compact:

• December = Estonia + Ireland.
• January = Slovakia + Finland + Malta.
• February = Luxembourg + Netherlands.
• March = Belgium.

All in all, it is no longer likely that the 12th eurozone country will deposit in December 2012 (as originally aimed for in the treaty). Instead this is now expected only to happen in January 2013, simply because the average time used by EU countries to deposit after presidential assent is equal to 1 month. To be honest I feel a bit embarassed, that the required 2/3 of the eurozone states were not able to complete ratification within 10 months after sigining the treaty. In reality it however fortunately does not cause any delay in regards of the entry into force, as we now have a situation where the treaty retrospectively will enter into force on: 1 January 2013.Danish Expert (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Time for a short christmas update. As of 21 December we now have 12 eurozone countries with a deposit, meaning it is now certain the treaty enter into force on 1 January 2013. It was Finland who supprised on a positive note, as they managed to deposit the same day as their preisdent gave his assent. Here is a new updated outlook for when the remaining eurozone countries (BeNeLux + Malta + Slovakia) will deposit their ratification of the Fiscal Compact (please note it is only a forecast - and can change if new info arrives):

• January = Slovakia
• February = Luxembourg + Netherlands.
• March = Belgium.
• April = Malta (due to parliament being dissolved 10 December, and early elections first called to take place: 7 March 2013)

Danish Expert (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Majority needed for ratification

I just expanded the wikitable with an extra coloumn entitled: "Majority needed for ratification". Data was extracted from two EU reports that monitors the ratification process. But unfortunately the data from the two reports in a few cases disagreed or was incorrect. Most countries had the need for majority evaluated by a national "Legal council" or "Council of State" ahead of the parliamentary process, and those reports are of course recommended to check if you want to know for sure if the data in the wikitable is correct. Due to time constraints I have not looked up the evaluation made by all those reports. This note is just to highlight, that you should only consider the "majority needed" data in the wikitable (based mainly on the two EU reports), as being correct in 90% of the times. Danish Expert (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A short update on the accuracy of "majority needed" data in the ratification table, is that these data now are 100% correct for all states completing their ratification in Q4-2012 or later. Because for all those states I have now done the hard work to look-up this data from the primary law documents. In most cases the government's draft law proposal for ratification and/or committee reports often refer to the "majority needed" for a pass (or the constitutional paragraph regulating the majority needed). So you can now trust this info in our wikitable as 100% correct. The only 8 out of 27 countries I haven't checked yet for verification of the "EP data" are: Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. I suspect their listed "majority needed" info is correct, but to be absolutely sure we still need to check their primary law source to verify it. Danish Expert (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Autumn 2012 forecast

The autumn 2012 forecast for 2013 (and even 2014) is already out: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-7_en.pdf Hope that helps.Ambi Valent (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help to update the table. I think it is indeed interesting to see how numbers changed from May to November, and can not help to publish a short list here at the talk page with the biggest changes (measured by structural deficits):

* Greece improved 5.2% (and will now have a surplus on 0.7%, being a true historical achievement as the last time the country had a surplus was back in 1973)

* Cyprus worsened 3.1% (and will now have a deficit on 4.8%)

* Slovakia improved 1.4% (and will now have a deficit on 3.2%)

* Netherlands improved 1.4% (and will now have a deficit on 1.1%)

* Portugal worsened 1.2% (and will now have a deficit on 2.5%)

* France improved 0.9% (and will now have a deficit on 2.0%)

* Czech Republic worsened 0.8% (and will now have a deficit on 2.6%)

* Spain improved 0.8% (and will now have a deficit on 4.0%)

Perhaps as expected, the results have so far been mixed. On a positive note the number of countries complying with the limit for strutural deficits already in 2013 grew from 7 to 9 (with Luxembourg and Greece being the two new countries on this positive list). On a negative note the 19 other EU countries will not comply in 2013. But as the treaty only require the new Automatic Correction Mechanisms to take national effect on 1 January 2014, this was also somewhat expected. In addition we also have a small hidden caveat in the wikitable with "Autumn figures", as it is important to keep in mind the forecasted data only reflect the recently passed "fiscal budget 2013" law for 50% of the countries, while the remaining 50% did not yet pass their "fiscal budget 2013" law ahead of the forecast on 7 November. Only when the next Economic Winter Forecast report will be released on 7 February 2013, we will have all passed "fiscal budget 2013" laws reflected by the figures. So some of the countries still have a chance to improve their figures. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For the purpose of comparing how the 2013 debt figures changed from the May forecast to the November forecast, here you also have a list with all the noted debt-to-GDP changes bigger than 3%:

* Greece worsened 20.4% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 188.4%)

* Cyprus worsened 18.6% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 96.7%)

* Portugal worsened 6.4% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 123.5%)

* Italy worsened 5.8% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 127.6%)

* Spain worsened 5.7% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 92.7%)

* Netherlands improved 3.7% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 69.3%)

* Finland worsened 3.0% (and will now have a debt-to-GDP on 54.7%)

I think the list of the biggest changes in regards of structural deficits and debt-to-GDP figures are interesting to map here at the talk-page. At the same time I however also think it falls outside the scope of the article if we add and display all forecast tables into the compliance chapter. Thus I will now remove the "May forecast table", so that the chapter only display the most recent forecast table from November 2012. Danish Expert (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we should only include the most recent data here. Older data might be relevant to some other article though. TDL (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Will EDP deadlines be prolonged for many of the Fiscal Compact ratifiers in May 2013 ?

This is just to bump a short notice here at the talkpage, about the level of improvement we should expect for the fiscal figures in 2013 and 2014. If I had found a good valid source for it, then my notice would instead have been made at the bottom of the Fiscal compliance chapter in the article. But I couldn't find such a source -for now-, and the needed source will most likely only be written around the time, when the European Commission and ECOFIN council evaluate all ongoing EDPs based upon final fiscal data for 2012 (will be published by Eurostat on 22 April 2013), in conjunction with the country specific Convergence/Stability reports (to be published in April 2013), and forecasted budget data for 2013+2014 (will be published by the Commission's Economic Spring Forecast report on 3 May 2013). Based on all this new updated material, the Commission has been scheduled to publish their updated EDP recommendations for each country on 29 May 2013.

What we should keep in mind, is the concept of the EDPs. They basicly outline an "adjustment path" towards a calculated Medium-Term budgetarry Objective (MTO), that will ensure compliance with the "SGP limits"/"Fiscal Compact limits" for debt+deficit. The EDP itself, will then only be abrogated after the "fiscal year", where the country indeed will comply with the "SGP limits"/"Fiscal Compact limits". In the previous Commission+Council evaluations published since May 2012, the EDP deadlines were only set according to when all EU member states should comply with the "SGP limits". But in the upcoming May 2013 evaluation, it would be reasonable to expect the Commission will start to calculate the EDP deadlines for "Fiscal Compact ratifiers", according to when the country shall comply with the "Fiscal Compact limits" (which with a max. 0.5% structural deficit limit is much more strict). In that case many ongoing EDP deadlines for the "Fiscal Compact ratifiers" are likely not to get abrogated in May 2013, with the EDP deadline now being extended to a later year due to the stricter criteria.

As of November 2012, we however have no official statements from the Commission or ECOFIN council about when/how they will introduce the new Fiscal Compact EDPs for the Fiscal Compact ratifiers (as a direct replacement for their SGP EDPs). So we have to wait and see. Only thing we can know for sure, is that the 2011-reformed SGP rules (to which all EU members are committed as a minimum) now require that the "adjustment path towards compliance with the country specific MTOs" needs to bring yearly improvements for the country's structural deficit, so that it delines minimum 0.5% per year for countries with debt levels below 60%, or declines with a "slightly higher minimum pace" for countries with debt levels above 60% (being individually set -according to several country specific parameters).

My only point is, that our expectations for "structural deficit improvements" for the 21 EU Members still subject to ongoing EDPs in November 2012, should really only be based on my outlined points above, and not based on any false illusion/hope for the "Fiscal Compact" to ensure, that all ratifying countries will manage rapidly to comply with all "Fiscal Compact criteria" from the very moment when it enters into force. It will take longer than that, and we should not get dissapointed about the slow adjustment speed, as long as the figures continue to improve continously. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, the Commission will publish all its new EDP recommendations on 29 May 2013. Currently no official statements however have arrived in advance to confirm my initial understanding, that introduction of new "Fiscal Compact EDPs" would replace the old "SGP EDPs" for the Fiscal Compact ratifiers - starting from May 2013. To be honest I am a bit baffled. But I start to suspect the lack of action might be related to a design flaw in the signed Fiscal Compact Treaty, being triggered by the fact that the treaty can never overrule or change existing EU law (of which the treaty is not yet a part). Article 3.1 of the Fiscal Compact Treaty dictates that:

• The budgetary position of the general government of a Contracting Party shall be balanced or in surplus, which shall be deemed to be respected if the annual structural balance of the general government is at its country-specific medium-term objective (MTO), as defined in the revised Stability and Growth Pact, with a lower limit of a structural deficit of 0,5 % of the gross domestic product at market prices. The Contracting Parties shall ensure rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective. The time-frame for such convergence will be proposed by the European Commission taking into consideration country-specific sustainability risks.

My flag in this debate, was because of my initial understanding that the underlined line above meant the Commission would now need to introduce "Fiscal Compact EDPs" to replace "SGP EDPs" for all Fiscal Compact ratifiers. In a pure logical world (without any political/legal constraints), such a change would indeed really make sense to implement starting from May 2013. Due to no news arriving lately for such a change, I however now start to speculate that it unfortunately wont happen until the point of time when the Fiscal Compact Treaty has been integrated directly into EU Law (which the treaty outlined should be something the ratifiers attempts within 1 Jan 2018, or in best case after a couple of years trial). All this being said, I would however still expect the Commission to publish a sub-note in their official EDP recommendations on 29 May, to flag in what year a fiscal compact ratifier has been forecasted to comply with the "Fiscal Compact EDP" (in the sense of achieving structural deficits below/at the country-specific MTO - which is guaranteed to be less than 0.5% of GDP for "high debt countries" and less than 1.0% of GDP for "low debt countries"). I intend to update the Fiscal compliance chapter on 30 May, based on the new set of published recommendations by the Commission, and will also soon extend the "compliance table" with a column displaying all the country specific MTO's. If you have any source/knowledge to further clarify how/when the Commission will introduce the futuristic "Fiscal Compact EDPs", then please let me know. Danish Expert (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Outlook for Spain

The fiscal outlook for Spain will according to the latest debt sustainability analysis published by the European Commission in October 2012, if assuming the country will stick to the fiscal consolidation path and targets outlined by the country's current EDP programme, result in the debt-to-GDP ratio reaching its maximum at 110% in 2018 - followed by a declining trend in subsequent years. In regards of the structural deficit, the same outlook has promised it will gradually decline to comply with the maximum 0.5% level required by the Fiscal Compact in 2022/2027. So while the current Spanish EDP is scheduled to be abrogated in 2014 (when the budget deficit has been forecasted to decline below the 3%-limit), we can only expect that Spain will be able to comply with all fiscal rules in the Fiscal Compact in 2022/2027. Currently the European Commission will have two options. The first is only to publish "EDP deadlines" and then just delay the EDP deadlines for several Fiscal Compact ratifiers. Or the second option is to invent what we could call "Fiscal Compact deadlines" to exist along with the old "EDP deadlines". At the moment I am not 100% sure what the Commission will do. If anyone of you can find out, please post your findings here at the talkpage. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Commission announced on 26 April, that they intend to extend the Spanish EDP with two years, meaning Spain will be approved only to comply with the 3%-deficit limit starting from 2016. A compliance with the Fiscal Compacts structural deficit criteria (meaning the country's MTO) of course will still only happen in an even later year, which is something that has not been specified yet by the Commission. The Commission's recommendation for the new SGP EDP will be officially published on 29 May 2013, with the ECOFIN council scheduled to make the final approval/disapproval at their meeting 21 June 2013. For the moment, I no longer expect the Commission to replace the old "SGP EDPs" with the new more strict "Fiscal Compact EDPs" for all Fiscal Compact ratifiers (due to some legal concerns if doing so). Yet it is still reasonable to expect the Commission to print these special "Fiscal Compact EDPs" as additional info (although not legally/regulatory binding towards EU), as a sub-note in their upcoming May-recommendation. Danish Expert (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was the Malta EDP abrogated in December 2012?

On a sidenote to the EDP outlook, I can now inform you that the ECOFIN council decided yesterday to extend the Greek EDP from 2014 to 2016 and to abrogate the EDP for Malta. The following lines will only highlight the details about Malta, as this is an interesting border-line case to watch. In the autumn economic forecast (7 November), the Maltese deficit was found to comply with the 3% SGP limit in 2011+2012+2013+2014. In regards of the rule requiring a yearly 0.5% improvement for the "structural deficit", this was found NOT to be met in 2012+2013+2014. In regards of the rule that expenses are not allowed to increase more than GDP growth (unless specific income measures are implemented along to finance the excessive increase), this rule was also predicted to be breached in 2013. And finaly the rule that the debt-to-GDP ratio should be on a declining trajectory was likewise being breached both in 2011+2012+2013+2014. Despite of all these breaches, the Council decided in December 2012 to abrogate the EDP. The decision was reasoned by, that the early cut-off date (19 October 2012) for the Commision's latest economic forecast (published 7 November), had caused that the additional fiscal consolidation introduced by the "Fiscal budget 2013 law" for Malta, was not reflected by the forecast figures. Taking the additional fiscal consolidation into account, the Council decided it was all together sufficient enough to abrogate the EDP. I look forward to learn how the revised figures are for Malta, as they have not yet been published. Honestly I am baffled how both the Commission + Council can decide to abrogate the EDP before knowing the exact revised figures. I suspect they were presented some revised figures by the Maltese Finance Minister, but for the decision to be transparent and fair, they will IMHO need as a minimum to print the revised figures in their specific Council report dealing with the decision. When the Council report is uploaded (and if revised figures are included), I will of course FYI upload the figures here at the talkpage. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahead of publication of the Council report on abrogation of Malta EDP, my speculation also goes that the Council did not evaluate "improvements of structural deficits" year on year, but instead calculated the average for the yearly improvement for the period from the start of the EDP in 2009 until the "current year". The structural deficit for Malta was recorded to: 5.4% (2008), 3.7% (2009), 4.6% (2010), 3.5% (2011), 3.5% (2012), 3.2% (old forecast for 2013), 2.8% (old forecast for 2014). This mean that it declined in average 0.475% per year from 2008 until 2012. According to the EDP regulation (also confirmed by the EDP report to Malta in July 2009), the country is supposed to deliver yearly structural deficit improvements with a minimum size of 0.5% per year as long as having the ongoing EDP. With 0.475% per year since 2008 this is just on the borderline, but apparently good enough in the eyes of the Council. I still look forward to read the council report, but after looking into the fiscal figures, I am almost certain my speculation about the "average-calculation principle" will be prooved correct. Danish Expert (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous!!! What is the point of having rules, if you from the inside of the organisation decide they should not be followed??? It doesn't make any sence, and with this stupid decision my last amount of faith in the European institutions have just vanished. The problem is, that both the Commission + ECOFIN council reasoned their decision to abrogate the Maltese EDP with the story that the new Malta budget law for 2013 had not been passed before the release of the forecast report, and taking the budget into account the figures were now acceptable for 2013. They however forgot to take one important issue into account: The Maltese parliament has not yet passed the 2013 budget!!! It will only be voted for on 10 December, and it is not even sure to pass, as their is a high risk for the government to loose the vote with a subsequent call for elections in March 2013. So the fact that the Commission+ECOFIN council already now take the proposed 2013 Malta budget for granted, is just utterly wrong. This is both stupid an unheard to start evaluating countries upon unpassed laws, and AFAIK also against the previous practise excersiced by the european organisations throughout the past 20 years. I am quiet angry and dissapointed about this, and as a minimum hope some of the responsible persons will be asked by the journalists, why on earth both the Commission+ECOFIN council decided not to follow the written SGP evaluation rules when evaluating Malta's EDP? Danish Expert (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Today the Maltese budget vote was presented by the Prime Minister. If approved it would have lowered the:

• Budget deficit from 2.3% in 2012 to 1.7% of GDP in 2013.
• Structural deficit from 3.2% in 2012 to 2.0% of GDP in 2013.
• Debt-to-GDP ratio from 71.5% in 2012 to 70.4% in 2013 and 69.0% in 2014.

The budget was however rejected with 35 against versus 34 for. As a result the parliament will be dissolved 7 January 2013, and all budget posts will be frozen at their level in 2012, followed by an early legislative election on 9 March 2013. So now we have the unpretty situation I feared. The Commission removed the Maltese EDP under asumption that the Malta 2013 budget got approved...but it was not! Now we can only wait to see how the legislative elections will fall out, and if we are lucky a new government can be formed ultimo March or in April, which subsequently can perform a new budget vote to be approved - hopefully with the same acceptable size for the budget deficit. But none of us can know the outcome of this in advance, and thus I would have preferred if the Commission had delayed their decision to abrogate the Maltese EDP, until the time where the Maltese parliament had actually passed the budget for 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On 8 April 2013, the Maltese parliament approved a slightly revised budget for 2013:

• Budget deficit was measured to 3.3% of GDP in 2012 (a rise from 2.8% in 2011), and now planned to be 2.7% in 2013 followed by 2.1% in 2014.
• Debt-to-GDP ratio was measured to 72.1% of GDP in 2012 (a rise from 70.3% in 2011), and now expected increasing to 74.2% in 2013.

The figures are now slightly worse (as reported above), and Malta will now risk a re-activation of their previous EDP due to the slight account over-run experienced in 2012. If Malta can proof this account over-run in 2012 was solely due to some extraordinary one-off expenditures, they can however still also be exempted from getting a re-activation of their EDP (as the exemption paragraph grant such an option to countries with a deficit in the 3.0-3.5% level). We shall soon learn how it ends. Danish Expert (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive information in the "Ratification process (for late ratifiers)" section

Why include the repetitive info for states that have completed ratification? All of the notable bits are included elsewhere (either in the table or the constitutional challenges section). While you might find it interesting, the date when the "detailed analysis report" was submitted isn't notable. Misplaced Pages isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. This non-notable content is only WP:PRIMARY sourced. If no secondary sources find it notable enough to mention, then neither should we. Also, this article is WP:TOOLONG as it is, so we shouldn't be bloating it with redundant and non-notable content. TDL (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason why I think the descriptive "political ratification process" points should be kept, is because they are not just redundant info, but some fine supplements to the main info provided by the wikitable above, as they carry an interesting description of how the exact political process was in each of the "late ratifying countries". In example, in order to understand the complicated Irish process, we really need this extra point below to clarify the situation. In regards of Romania, it is also an interesting note for many readers, that their constitution call for all EU treaties to be passed by a joint dual-chamber 2/3 majority vote while the intergovernmental treaty is passed normaly by both individual chambers, and perhaps some Romanian wikipedians can also help us to clarify why the country used five months to deposit (i.e. it could either be court troubles, or the situation with their president being tempoarily suspended). I also think the "Submitted date" adds info to the reader by shedding light on, if the slow ratification in the mentioned country was only due to a traditionally complicated and long ratification process (i.e. as we normally have in Belgium), or perhaps had something to do with the government just being extremely slow to submit the ratification draft law to the parliament.

I can however also understand and accept you concern, that we should also limit the length of it, and only keep info that covers notable aspects. So I am ready to accept we can cook some of it down (i.e. removing the date+link for the French governments ratification recommendation). Would you be ready to accept keeping it, if we cook it? :-) Danish Expert (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'm ok with keeping details of the ratification procedure, ie for Romania explaining why a simple majority was sufficient. I just don't see the point of repeating the dates that are already covered in the table. How about moving the details on the ratification procedure to a footnote? TDL (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We already have the important "declaration footnote" (which I btw applaud you for adding), but I feel it would be too much to have 9 additional footnotes listed along. So I still prefer to have a sub-chapter with the info instead. To ellaborate a bit more on my argument/idea, the Ratification process (status and developments) subchapter currently only cover a full explonatory description for "late ratifiers" (being defined as those countries ratifying in Q4-2012 or later). To make this point even more clear to the reader, I am ready to accept we can rename the sub-chapter to: "Ratification process for late ratifiers". IMHO it is notable enough to be kept permanently as a subchapter in the article. Currently the chapter has the function both to map the "ratification status" and to explain "ratification developments". At the point of time where all countries have ratified, the idea is to remove the "colored ratification status" but to keep the description why the country was a "late ratifier". In France, it was mainly due to the presidential election and subsequent demands by Hollande only to ratify the Fiscal Compact if the EU summit first agreed to sign a "Growth pact" (this fact is by the way mentioned by the reference I already added to the text, mentioning this point as one of the main reasons why the French government was ready to recommend the parliament to ratify -despite the president having argued differently during the presidential election). In Netherlands the delay was due to the fact that only a "provisionary government" ruled the country since April and the new fully functional government only being formed by the end of October (after elections). On the other hand, I am ready to accept your point, that a full step-wise description of the political ratification process will not be needed for each of the listed "late ratifier" countries (because once the country completed its ratification, nobody cares about the intermediate stepping dates). So I am ready to accept we remove that part of the description for most of the countries in the subchapter, but still not for countries like Ireland and Belgium, where we really need to keep a full process description in order for readers to understand their complicated and lengthy "ratification procedure". Danish Expert (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now implemented my counter proposal outlined above into the article. I kept your footnotes dealing with explonatory info about changed/special voting majority being required, as I agree with you, that footnotes are indeed better suited for this specific info. But as explained by my argument above, I still kept the "late ratifier" info for those 50% of the countries ratifying in Q4-2012 or later, although now with a new more focused sub-chapter title and introduction lines, and the country specific info is now also cooked down to a more focused angle answering the quiestion: "why the ratification took so long?". What I refer to right now, is of course so far only the info listed for France+Romania. I intend also to re-write the other countries into the same structure, but only when they have completed the political approval. I hope you like the new structure. Personally I think the structure+focus is far better than before. Thanks for pushing me in the right direction. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I agree that if there are sources which explain why a particular state took longer to ratify the treaty (ie France's election) this is notable. Your rewrite of France looks much better, however I still don't think we should include the redundant info (ie the last sentence.) As for Romania, the note really doesn't explain why ratification was delayed, so I don't see the relevance of it. TDL (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I accept your removal of the slightly redundant last French sentence. But only when the subchapter has been fully transformed not to carry any "color marked ratification status" (or at least: we have to wait for a majority of countries to turn green). Problem is, that in the current "intermediate state" the list works both with the purpose of "mapping exact ratification status" and "explaining reasons for late ratifications for slowest ratifiers", and reading through the list it might confuse some readers (not paying notice to the meaning of the green color) to believe the country perhaps still have open ratification steps. In that light, I think it is okay to keep the last slightly redundant line stating that "after completion of political approval the deposit of ratification instruments happened X/X/2012". So I have reinstated it again. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards of Romania, I have managed to dig up some internet articles explaining, that the parliament temporarily suspended the Romanian president from his office arround June 2012. I think it had something to do with a corruption case (but cant remember). According to the romanian constitution the parliament can however not remove the president, but has to run a referendum asking the people to push him away. And so they did. Referendum took place in Q3-2012. The president asked all his remaining supporters to boycot the referendum -and so they did. End result was that an overwhelming majority voted for a removal of the president but as the "boycot" at the same time resulted in a turnout percentage below 50%, the referendum result was not declared to be a valid result by the Romanian constitution, and so the president still stays in office. I also found an article descriping, that there was a power struggle between the Prime Minister and Suspended President in regards of who of them should represent the country at the European summit in July 2012, where the constitutional court ruled the "Suspended President" should represent the country but only as observe (without the right to approve/sign anything before after the presidential election has descided whether or not he was still the president). Quiet a drama. Only reason why I have not written anything about it yet, is because I could so far not find a reference with explicit proof that the "temporary presidential suspension" indeed was the rootcause behind the slow Romanian deposit of the ratification instrument. I suspect it was, due to concerns/uncertainty about the binding legality of the suspended presidents signature, but without the reference prooving this was indeed the case, this currently remain to be my own personal speculation. So for a start I just limited myself to write "deposit was delayed for unkown reasons". My hope is some Romanian/other editor at one point of time can help us dig up a good reference, explaining (either explicit/implicit) why the deposit was delayed. In example it would be sufficient enough to me, if we can find a source stating "all official enactment of bills signed by the suspended Romanian president was put on hold, for as long as the president was suspended, causing a delay for new laws to enter into force during this period". Danish Expert (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. I can accept keeping the redundant details for the time being, as long as the plan is to remove them eventually. As for Romania, yes I remember the power struggle and attempt to recall the president this summer. When I get a chance, I'll try to see if I can find anything to connect it to the fiscal compact. TDL (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. For a start I have now added a short one-liner, noting it could have been a potential delaying issue -but we dont know. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

New objection to the content of the "Ratification process (for late ratifiers)" section

I think that certain points of the "Ratification process (for late ratifiers)" section, as it is now, are completely redundant and absurd. Frankly, I believe that this section was originally used in relevant (European Union treaties') articles to help people quickly identify the (remaining) process needed for a treaty to be ratified in a particular country and also provide the sources of information to update the table (for active editors). Thus, one would read sentences such as: "A relevant bill has not yet been introduced in the parliament.", "Ratification of the treaty, will need a pass by all seven parliaments with simple majority." or "The government submitted a draft law for ratification of the treaty to Riigikogu, on 11 June 2012."

Generally speaking, this is a small section to keep the (remaining) ratification process up to date. This is why it was named "Ratification status", and only contained the countries that had not yet ratified the treaty. It does not and should not go into extensive detail, or list all the remaining or all the past process to ratify the treaty. It should do this in a broad manner, such a sentence of this sort: "The relevant bill has been approved by the Senate and is currently being discussed in (this) Dáil committee". Including all the dates which are already listed in the table and all the stages, even those not included in the table, is clearly too much.

For example, this entry:
"Estonia: The government submitted a draft law for ratification of the treaty to Riigikogu, on 11 June 2012. The draft law passed its first reading on 19 September and final second reading on 17 October, without any MPs voting against/abstaining. The political approval was completed by a presidential assent on 5 November, and the final deposit of the ratification instrument happened on 5 December 2012.",
only serves to add to the article the date the bill was introduced for ratification and nothing more. Most of its info, and even itself in its entirety, is redundant.

Generally, it always takes a long time for countries to ratify treaties, unless they are really essential for their very existence. Even treaties that concern border settlement, may take months to be ratified, if the settlement is minor. (A quick Google search will support this argument.) This is easily explainable by the fact that the parliaments concerned have loads of other issues to discuss, and usually ratification of an agreed treaty is either a mere technicality of low priority, or, requires extensive talks to reach consensus, and thus takes a long time to happen. In either case, there's no real reason to include such details in the treaty article, unless they are highly notable, which can be easily interpreted as unusual.

The only points I could think of as really relevant to this particular treaty article for the countries that have already ratified the treaty, could be summarised in two sentences, one for Romania and the president impeachment attempt, that may or may not have pushed back its deposit of the already nationally ratified treaty, and another for Malta that has to hold elections and cannot ratify "on" time.

But, what about timing, too, as the section refers to "late" ratifiers. Well, since the intended time for this treaty to become effective is January 1st, 2013, how can any ratifying country that has already deposited its instrument of ratification be called a late ratifier indeed? I mean, it's quite clear that even if the needed 12 eurozone countries deposited their ratifications on Jan 1st, still, none of them would be late, no matter if they had finished their national ratification processes back in March 2012 or, on December 27th.

Having to include other details like that the ratification bill in France was connected to another bill (which is quite common, for example, in the UK there's only one bill for the accession of Croatia to the EU and the Irish "concerns" protocol on the Lisbon treaty), or that on a certain date the bill passed the internal committee of a parliament seems quite absurd to me. Not to mention the example of the Netherlands on this section, where even the party politics are mentioned.

As it is now, this section is too long, has too many details and is up to some degree speculative.

My suggestion is to get rid of the countries that have ratified the treaty and keep a small section, or more, for unusual things that have happened, such as the constitutional challenges, the Malta elections, the impeachment attempt in Romania, and Ireland deciding to first approve the responsibility law and then deposit the ratification. One section could be named legal challenges, and another, ratification details. Also, for the current section, the colours used should be reverted to the original scheme, and each country entry should be reduced to the essential, which means, if a relevant bill has been introduced or not, on which stage it is, and what remains for the treaty to be ratified. Heracletus (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The basic idea behind the current version of the chapter Ratification process for late ratifiers, is that unusual things did happen for all countries ratifying in Q4-2012 or later. In example -now when you mentioned France- it is certainly notable and important to mention, that their newly elected president first required the European Council to sign a "Compact for Growth", before he was ready to start the French ratification. When the Fiscal Compact was signed 2 March 2012, it was also described as important to ratify it as soon as possible, and that all signatories should do so before 31 December 2012. With this in mind, it is also an unusual event by-it-self, if a government subsequently opted not to submit the treaty on an early date to the national parliament. Looking among the 9 eurozone countries and 5 non-euro countries currently being classified as "late ratifiers" (with a more detailed review/note given of their unusual ratification process), it is IMHO only Estonia where we have a border-line case, where you can question if any unusual events really happened (as the Estonian government submitted the treaty in June - and completed the ratification in December).

In my opinion the fact that only 1 out 15 countries can be questioned of being "truly unusual", merit that we keep utilizing the "ratified in Q4-2012 or later" criteria for when to provide a short additional description/note to explain the ratification process in those countries. Please keep in mind, that for all countries achieving a "Green status", we are currently shortening the note the moment it turns Green. And from the moment when all of the "late ratifiers" have ratified, we will entirely remove the color scheme and redundant info (meaning the dates for presidential assent + deposit will also be removed from the notes). So the notes will gradually shrink in size with time. The reason why it is nice to keep a certain level of redundancy for the time being, is that the chapter currently also function as a "status indicator" for the ratification process in the group of countries being "late to ratify", and here it serves a purpose to get the exact status confirmed (in order not to confuse the readers). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot but disagree in a certain degree with you. I don't think there's anything really exceptional about the ratification processes in Estonia, Finland, or Slovakia. The specialities of France, Ireland, Malta and, even, the Netherlands can be summarized into one or two sentences per country. I am not sure if Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are just being slow or there are real issues there. I think this section needs to be restructured, as I have already suggested.

As this treaty bills may or may not involve constitutional issues, and, thus, most countries are consulting their constitutional courts and/or such special parliamentary committees, I think it is quite normal that there's some stalling in the ratification process. However, when the matter finally reaches the parliament itself, the procedure is usually quite quick (with the exception of Malta and the Netherlands). I think that the sections of France and the Netherlands have only to do with internal politics, and could be greatly reduced.

I believe late ratifiers should be defined as countries ratifying the treaty after this has officially come into force. I propose we split this section into a section for (late) ratifiers and their ratification process, and, another for countries that faced some quite individual issues during ratification, such as France, Ireland and Malta. For the Netherlands, I think we should only mention the general election, rather than the internal politics.

I don't find it unusual that non-eurozone countries take a long time to ratify this treaty, as the treaty doesn't involve the same rules for them (namely articles 3 and 4), and they don't have any effect on when the treaty comes into force. The stalling in most countries can be easily explained by the treaty raising constitutional issues addressed by parliaments, internal politics and long parliamentary processes, which all seem quite normal and usual. Constitutional challenges outside the parliamentary processes are not as usual and thus, have their own small section, which could be done also for the unusual ratification issues encountered in each country. Every treaty is supposed to come into force as soon as possible, but, it quite usually takes a country 6 months to a few years to fully ratify them, even when they involve nuclear weapons, accession of a country to the EU, border settlement, or whichever other topic.

On a particular level, I think Estonia (and Finland and Slovakia when they ratify) should be removed, and the entries of France and Ireland (and the Netherlands and Malta when they ratify) be moved into a different section or this section be renamed accordingly (into "ratification issues" or something along those lines). Heracletus (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I see no reason to implement the proposed changes and a new structure. Currently the chapter function both as a section with status of the process for remaining "late ratifiers", and a compilation of notes to highlight why the ratification in several countries took longer than expected. In this way I think it really -in a good valuable way- supplements the wikitable, which only feature barenaked dates. There are the following two good reasons justifying it is okay to classify countries as "late ratifiers" if they only ratified more than eight months after signing the treaty:

1. All 17 eurozone countries managed to ratify the just as important ESM treaty within eight months after having signed the treaty (while four of them even had first to argue and win some delaying constitutional court challenges on the road).
2. All signatories of the Fiscal Compact agreed upon the time of signing, that it was of huge importance to ratify fast, as a part of the reason behind the compact was to throw some strong short term signals into the head of financial markets, about the eurozone now will start to act in a much more fiscal sound and responsible way. By ensuring a fast ratification to happen, it would show to the financial markets that this time the eurozone was really committed to improve their fiscal responsibility.

Given the two points above, it justifies why we have a short section to single out the reasons why the ratification process took longer than expected in certain countries. In Netherlands there is absolute no doubt, the delay was due to the previous government loosing their parliamentary majority in April 2012, combined with the fact that the new election only happened 12 September, and the new government was only formed primo November (while certain parties like PvdA was not ready whole-heartedly to support treaty ratification ahead of the election -due to what I speculate had something to do with an attempt not to support "unpopulair" decisions -in the eyes of their potential electional base- shortly ahead of the election). As internal politics definately caused a delay of the Dutch ratification, it is justified shortly to mention this in our articles current section. Speaking about Finland, this country opted to ratify both the Compact and the much more complicated "implementation law" as a combined bill, and that's why it was only submitted in November 2012. This is also an interesting info for the readers, as this info can not be extracted from the wikitable above with barenaked dates. So far only Ireland+Finland chose this more complicated approach (perhaps due to special legal rules in those two countries - but I really dont know). All other countries opted first to ratify the Fiscal Compact, and then afterwords deal with the needed "implementation law" in a seperate new law (mostly because the Compact outlined that the deadline for passing "implementation laws" is 1 Jan 2014, and the agreed deadline for ratifying the Compact was 1 Jan 2013). So the idea from the start, was that the Compact should be ratified as fast as possible. To be frank, there has also really been no constitutional court cases in the process (except for Germany), as all countries did not prepare "constitutional implementation laws" as part of the Fiscal Compact ratification process. Even in France there was no court case, but only a usual consultation between the government and the constitutional court, if it would be okay only to ratify the treaty with simple majority and outside constitutional paragraphs (ahead of starting the process in the parliament). So there has really been no constitutional challenges (except for Germany) justifying a late/delayed ratification. Anyway - I want to emphasize, that the idea of having the "late ratifiers" section in the article, is however not to create any negative blaming list, but the main idea is really instead to have a section that shortly explains why ratification in certain countries took longer than expected (as it currently does). In most -if not all countries- we had some good explanations. Why should we hide those explanations for the readers, by deleting the notes?

I also see no reaseon currently to start splitting up the section into several sub-sections. This would be more confusing than helpfull. It is better just to have one section dealing with all "late ratifiers" - both in regards of noting "current ratification status" and the main reason why "ratification was slow". The basic idea, is temporarily to allow for in depth "ratification status" details in the notes - for as long as the country has a red/yellow/blue status. But when it turn green we are shorting down the notes, so that it only contain info about the main reason why "ratification was slow". Actually I think it all makes good sence. I can perhaps agree you have a slight point, by stating that it is "less important" for non-euro countries to deliver a fast ratification (due to standing outside the eurozone). But on the other hand, when the non-euro countries are not even legally bound by the treaty after ratification, it also makes it a bit strange and a signal of "no true commmitment" if they do not ratify the Fiscal Compact along with the deadlines for the eurozone. Why hold it back - if it is not even binding? So to me it is also unusual/notable, when non-euro countries did not ratify within eight months. They also shook hands on 2 March 2012, that it was very important to deliver a fast ratification, and are not even hardly affected by the rules straight away. So what has been holding them back? I would really like to know, and that is why I appreciate to have the explonatory section. It is interesting to know, that the delay was caused by "political power struggles" in Romania, and that Sweden apparently have a special tradition of conducting length "publing hearings for 3 months" before starting to ratify anything. I think good explanations and sources will eventually emerge for all late ratifiers. The concept of having a small section for it (as we have now), is in my point of view a very good idea. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding to reply on your first section which involves politics and a discussion on why the ESM had to be ratified sooner than the Fiscal Compact, I will just stick to this sentence you wrote: "Given the two points above, it justifies why we have a short section to single out the reasons why the ratification process took longer than expected in certain countries." The key point there is longer than expected, because the date by which at least 12 eurozone countries have been expected to have fully ratified this treaty is January 1st, 2013. This is what the wording of the treaty clearly implies. So, until that date, or the actual date on which the treaty becomes effective, no country can be considered late.

You may mention elections and the period of inactivity before them, in general, but, internal politics and certain parties policies are always speculative. This is quite easy to explain, in the same way that opinion polls are not always bearing the same results as elections, a party statement that it supports or does not a certain bill is not always indicative of how the bill will be voted on by its MP's. It always has to do with the exact statement and the person making it, and, generally, this information is redundant. Eventually the parliament will vote on it and we'll see if it passed and who voted how on it, or the bill will be withdrawn and noone will ever know what might have happened. In the same fashion, we could have detailed results per party, per parliament, per country. And, these are not even results, they are statements of intention by some parties, in a particular country, the Netherlands. They're nice info to include before the actual vote, perhaps, but, once a vote is taken, they will not really mean anything anymore. In their very essence, they are opinion polls of parties (representing their PM's) before a vote, with the clear reflection of certain people (representing the whole population) participating in an opinion poll before elections.

You do mention yourself that "the agreed deadline for ratifying the Compact was 1 Jan 2013", so, you provide yourself the counter-argument for the inclusion of certain countries in the late ratifiers category. I think it's more interesting to know which countries have already passed an implementation law, rather than if that happened in a combined ratification law. Finland and Ireland which already passed an implementation law before depositing the ratification instrument did NOT miss the "agreed deadline", yet, you want to include them in the late ratifiers section.

You also state that you don't understand why a country would not ratify a treaty that is not legally binding for itself as soon as possible. Well, the answer may lie in what I wrote about parliaments having enough load already and thus assigning low priority onto it? Also, by referring to stalling due to constitutional issues, I was not explicitly referring to legal challenges, but, also to most parliaments seeking to define (either by consulting the national constitutional court, or a relevant committee) how this treaty should be ratified and what, if any, constitutional issues arise from it, BEFORE they started actually ratifying it, thus rendering any constitutional challenges on it AFTER it has been ratified null.

Also, as this is not a general article on the parliamentary process, or about bills, in Sweden, and you acknowledged that "Sweden apparently ha a special tradition of conducting length "publi hearings for 3 months" before starting to ratify anything", don't you think including this here is redundant? The parliament there just follows the usual procedure, after all... However, I find the incompatibility section in the Sweden entry quite important to include as it is particular for this treaty and a unique case.

Anyway, we've made our points, we disagree and there's no third opinion on the matter yet, so, I don't see any point in continuing to argue here.Heracletus (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Heracletus, this has become ridiculous. Nearly all the details you've sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. WP:SECONDARY sources don't mention these details because they aren't notable. Just because a state was late ratifying, doesn't mean that something strange did happen. Sometimes, states are just slow. We should only cover notable delays in the process, not all states who were "late" by the criteria you invented. Since you've kept adding this non-notable information after our previous discussion on this topic, I'm going to start reverting as per WP:BRD. Please seek consensus on the talk page before re-adding all these non-notable details. The article is already WP:TOOLONG. We should be cutting all the trivia out, not adding more. TDL (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your act is offensive, TDL. Earlier on in this debate at 29 November, the two of us together agreed on a compromise and consensus for the content in this sub-chapter. You are not allowed few hours after a second editor post his oppinion at the talkpage, suddenly to declare a new WP:Consensus for your own view point, and certainly not just on the basis of counting that we (apparently) for the moment have two editors vote standing against another editors vote. This is not how consensus rules work here at Misplaced Pages, where consensus is reached through debate -exchange of views- and letting the strongest argument win, or develop consensus through that road. I will ask you to carefully read the WP:Consensus. The fact that you just bluntly deletes ALL GREEN INFO points is ridiculous. Heracletus, stated he actually found value in certain parts of the info points, but just suggested another structure and way to present it. You have ignored that fact, and now just violently removed it all. Based on that, I have to completely undo your removal. I persist, that before enforcing violent changes to the article, we have first to reach consensus about what to do, here at the talkpage. I am ready to consider some of the proposals Heracletus mentioned above (but certainly not ready to accept that you remove everything). In the process of reaching a consensus, it is very hard to consider and debate a new structure for the content, if all the content suddenly is removed from the page. This is the ground, why I now reinstate the deleted material again, so that we can debate and reach a true consensus. Danish Expert (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the few reverts and a few harsh words, this has been quite the most polite dispute I have faced. Nevertheless, do you think that someone should refer this to dispute resolution, not so much because it is anything close to a major dispute, but so as to get more opinions on the matter and more people involved? If you think it's a good idea, you may pick one of the six ways, here: WP:DR. I did try to ask for more opinions on the WikiProject European Union (WP:EU), but so far got no reaction. Heracletus (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: No need to get defensive. I never declared that there was a new consensus, I simply said that there was no consensus to add all this information, and undid your edits. If you'd like to add the info to the article it's your responsibility to seek consensus to add it, not my responsiibility to establish a consensus to keep it out. I simply followed WP:BRD. Your additions have been reverted, now you need to establish a consensus on the talk page for them. If you'd like to engage in a WP:DR process such as a WP:RFC on the issue, I'd gladly participate in that.

Please note that I didn't "bluntly deletes ALL GREEN INFO points", as you suggest. The edits by an IP were not me, and I don't support their removal. I agree with Heracletus that there are details on France and Ireland that is notable that should be kept. Instead of attacking me, you should try to WP:AGF as I have done of you. Please don't restore your disputed content until there is a consensus to include it. TDL (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, because this is going towards a revert war, I suggest either of you requests a dispute resolution now. I may disagree with Danish expert, but, I must also note that things are not exactly like you put them, TLD. The BRD is about being bold once, being reverted, discussing, it's not being bold twice and re-reverting before the new consensus is reached. I may agree with your changes (or not), personally, but, I don't think we have reached consensus, as Danish expert's arguments are not to be entirely ignored. I don't think there have been any real attacks on anyone personally yet, and I wish we will not go into that. I see what we have all written as referring to the content of the page, and not the people involved.

I also have to note that either side must establish consensus involving the other side. If consensus has not been established in general, including or excluding even a single sentence cannot be considered legitimate. Also, BRD is not a policy, and its page includes this: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." I would suggest reverting back to the version with Danish expert's edits, or keeping them as comments inside <!-- -->, to serve as a discussion basis, if TLD agrees.

I also have no problem submitting the dispute resolution request myself, if we first reach consensus on which kind we/you want to apply for. I may also apply for a resolution even if you cannot agree on which kind, if things escalate.

If this article is so important for either of you, consider, instead of reverting, using your own sandbox, which can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload to present a version of what you would like the page to look like. (For future easy access, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page.)

No offence meant. Heracletus (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus, but my edit isn't the bold one, it is the revert. Danish Expert boldly added lots of non-notable content, and I reverted until a consensus is reached for its inclusion. I attempted to do this with a partial revert, since some of the additions were worthwhile, however if you or Danish Expert desire I can do a full revert back to a undisputed state. I'll happily participate in any form of DR. A RFC, as I suggested above, is probably the best course. TDL (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been a couple of day offline for Christmas, but now have time to respond shortly. Sorry if I got a little heated above. After checking the edit history, I can also see you are right that another IP removed the remaining Green points, so I apology for accusing you for that before having carefully checked. However, I still insist your removal of content was bold and unjustified, TDL. Because ahead of the removal the two of us had agreed it was OK the sub-chapter temporarily (for as long as countries had red/yellow/blue status) could function as a status chapter with in depth status details being listed and acceptance of a certain level of redundant info with the table above. The fact that you choose again to remove the disputed content after I had reinstated the content and provided good valid grounds for why it was important to keep until a new consensus was reached (as it was hard to get other editors evaluation and input for consensus if the disputed points had been removed), I feel tends to be directly provocative and not helping our discussion at all. On the contrary it spoils the attempt to reach a new consensus, and was a bad move.

I also insist this info you dispute and continue to remove, is certainly not trivia. On the contrary it helps readers to understand how far the ratification progressed in remaining countries that are still in the process to ratify, and provide high quality explanations why the ratification was late / delayed. I think it is very informative - and something being highly appreciated by the readers. Our first agreement and consensus reached on 29 November, was to heavily cook down the amount of details mentioned the moment a country reached a "green status". This is actually also what I have done until now (although as explained above, I did not remove the redundant info with date for presidential assent + deposit, as I felt this was needed for as long as the chapter primarily functioned as a "status chapter" - in order to prevent the readers getting confused about the "true status"). Again I have to repeat, that the reason why details are currently dense for "Red/Yellow countries" like Netherlands/Belgium/Poland, is to provide readers with a high quality status for the ratification progress. The moment these countries have ratified and become Green, I agree with you that it is possible and fully justified to omit unneeded details from the process. But: Only from the very moment where a country turn into "Green status". And the moment when all countries are listed green in the sub-chapter, I also agree it is okay to remove the color code and all redundant info. So as time progress, it will heavily shrink in size. This is also why, I really do not share you concern for the article to develop into something like {Toolong}. We actually already on 29 November agreed on a strategy that will prevent a {Toolong}. Danish Expert (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a new consensus solution

To move the discussion and consensus attempt a bit forward, I am ready to accept the point stated above by Heracletus, in regards of changing the "late ratification" criteria from the previous post "1 October 2012" deadline to "1 January 2013" (the date of entry into force, and the official target deadline from the start). The reason why I initially chose "1 October 2012" was because I could see a pattern, that there were special circumstances in 13 out of 14 countries ratifying in Q4-2012 or later, with the only exception being Estonia. Given the argument given by Heracletus about the deadline being irrationally picked, I can however also agree, that he indeed has a point to describe it does not make sense to call countries for "late ratifiers" when this in principle contradicts with the fact that they managed to be within the "target deadline" for ratification. On this ground, I am ready to accept we can now change the "Late ratifiers" chapter only to list countries ending their ratification post 1 January 2013. This consensus proposal is however conditional, that we along the way also create an additional sub-chapter still to mention those countries which had notable ratification events during their ratification process. In order to avoid a forest of sub-chapters, my proposal however goes, that we could simply have one subchapter entitled "late ratifiers", and a second entitled "Significant events for early ratifiers" (incl. German constitutional court challenge, French push for conditional Growth Pact, Irish+Finnish government opting for the approach to delay ratification until also first having enacted an "implementation law", etc.). My parenthesis should currently be understood in this way, that we continue listing "country info" in this chapter as per a bullet point with all significant events for each country. In example, Ireland had more than one. With this new proposed structure, I can of course also accept striping away green color code (incl. redundant info) for all the countries to be listed in the second chapter. But insist to keep color code + redundant info temporarily in the first chapter, as per our consensus originally reached on 29 November (but now with the criteria of being a "late ratifier" being pushed from the 1 October 2012 deadline to 1 January 2013). Could this be a solution and compromise that you are willing to support? Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agreed not to push for the removal of the existing non-notable/redundant content in the article, however I didn't agree to the addition of even more. I really don't feel that I removed any significant details from the Red/Yellow countries, I mainly just cut down the repetitiveness of the text. If you think I've removed something important, you can either selectively restore it or take it to the talk page and we can discuss it point-by-point. Also, if you'd like to restore the section on Estonia and a brief description on Finland (per our previous agreement) I won't revert (though I don't agree that this info is notable enough to warrant a paragraph), however I object to all the other minute details that have been added since.

As for your suggestion of "1 January 2013", I object to a specific date altogether. If something notable happened in a state that ratified before 1 January 2013, we should mention it in the "significant events" section. If a state ratifies the treaty in February 2013 and nothing notable happened, it should be deleted. Basically, I'd support your proposal as long as a state is moved from the "late ratifiers" to the "significant events" section and all the redundant info deleted immediately after ratification by the state. TDL (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer to TDL about his previous removal/re-edit of material (inappropriately made before our consensus debate had ended): My earlier opinion about this is unchanged. Only point I want to rectify compared to my previous reply, is that you indeed did not remove red/yellow/blue content, but in your reply at the talkpage you questioned its notability and expressed a desire that you wanted to remove it. The way I described it here at the talkpage, this was not perfectly clear, and your move sounded to be more "violent"/bold that it actually was. Sorry for that. Yet, my main point still stands, that removals/changes of edits currently content for consensus debate about its existence and structure here at the talkpage, was a bad move and actually makes it more difficult plus time consuming now to reach the consensus we all attempt to reach. I will now start to read through all the changes you made since 22 December at the disputed subsection, and see to what degree I can approve your country-specific changes. My only point is, that in situations like this (with an ongoing consensus debate), we will accidently use too much of each others valuable time (compared to the level of positive results this effort provides), if we constantly re-edit each others edits in the disputed chapter before having reached consensus. It is much more time efficient first to reach consensus, and then only subsequently start to change/re-edit content. I feel the damage has already been done, but just hope you will be more patient in the future, before you start to re-edit or remove material being content for an ongoing consensus debate.

Argument for permanent "Late ratifiers (post 1 January 2013)" chapter: The Fiscal Compact treaty enters into force 1 January 2013 for 16 countries, and define interdependent subsequent deadlines (being 12 months after the treaty's "entry into force") for when the countries at the latest need to enact required "implementation laws". As countries ratifying after 1 January 2013 will have a later "entry into force" and hence also later deadlines for enactment of "implementation laws", this by-it-self (in particular when also keeping in mind the political commitments outspoken at the time of signing the treaty, which emphasized the need for all countries to do their outmost to reach a fast ratification of the treaty before 1 January 2013), really justify why we also create and permanently keep to display a section that highlights some short key-info and explanation for why the ratification for "late ratifiers" became delayed. I still insist, that most readers will find this info notable and interesting.

Argument for notability of "status content": On an overall level the notability of my content and add of status info is justified by the fact, that we currently have two high quality WP:SECONDARY sources frequently updated and published by two different departments of the European parliament (Directorate General for the Presidency and Directorate general for internal policies), and even also a Misplaced Pages:TERTIARY source from IIEA. This proofs people are highly interested to read and learn details about the ratification status. The fact that our Misplaced Pages article's "status section" is build only on WP:PRIMARY sources and in fact has a higher degree of quality and accurate info compared to the two WP:SECONDARY sources from the European Parliament, is basically just something we should be proud of. This is a result of dedicated hard work from certain wikipedian editors, who managed to dig up correct status info from the golden level of the primary source itself.

Argument why WP:TOOLONG concerns do not justify removal of content: If sections of notable info becomes too heavy in an article, the general policy always is not to delete it, but to spin-off the content into sub-articles and writing a shorter resume at the main article.

Proposal for further talkpage debate on notability of certain country-info: Previously I have already listed some of my country specific arguments. But currently I feel it is impossible to debate both the "general notability" + "chapter structure" + "country specific info" in the one and same reply here at the talkpage. If we start now also to discuss country specific details, I fear this will derail the debate and attempt to reach consensus for "notability criteria" and "chapter structure". My proposal is first to reach consensus for that, before we start to discuss country specific details. Or at least we should deal with country specific debates at dedicated sub-sections here at the talkpage.

Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

As this seems to my eyes as an implementation of my suggestions, I agree on principle. However, I still have a number of reservations. First of all, I think we should somehow achieve a more broad consensus, because changes in the format of this article will probably modify the format of the pages for any new EU treaties. I mean, the general layout and format of this article is clearly the same used for all the latest EU treaties, i.e. first the ratification table and underneath it a ratification process section\list that slowly disappeared as the countries ratified the treaty. I think this could be done by requesting dispute resolution through an RFC. In the opposite case, I think the consensus that may be achieved now will be revisited and debated upon again quite soon. Secondly, I am not sure if we would all agree on the same entries for the ratification issues per country. The definition of what constitutes a significant event has already been debated above. An example of this, are the implementation laws. For me, it would be more interesting and helpful to have another column on some table stating whether a country has enacted a compatible (or in the case of Sweden not so compatible) implementation law, but this may prove difficult to check and is not included in any secondary source. The fact that Finland chose to pass the bill ratifying the treaty together with an implementation law does not seem so significant to me, whereas the fact that Ireland had to wait a long time for the implementation law to be voted upon and only then deposited its ratification seems more significant. On a third point, I would not like to see any mentions to the ratification process in such a section, other than what is really needed to explain the issue mentioned. The two or three sections, could be merged as they (almost) are now, with the countries that have ratified moving up and the others having a subsection label of "late ratifiers" or "ratification still pending". Generally, we may or may not disagree on the details, but, I also think an RFC could be useful for future articles, too.

I also agree with TDL's approach for late ratifiers, when they ratify and nothing significant has happened, they should be gone. The fact that they were late can be easily denoted with a footnote on the table.

As you still seem to disagree whose edit was the least constructive, I do suggest you engage in dispute resolution somehow. Heracletus (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, Heracletus. I got caught up by holiday travels and other work on the agenda, but now have time to thoughtfully respond with the following 3 replies:

Reply on the proposal to develop a common standard for future "ratification articles" through a RFC process (reservation 1): I see no need at the moment to launch a RFC solution, as we already have a good handfull of engaged editors involved to push this Fiscal Compact article in the right direction. At some point of time a RFC might be a good idea if we continue to disagree, but not right now. In my point of view it is also just a small part of the newly proposed consensus style (namely the part about using the red/yellow/blue/green color as status indicator for progress of ratification) which is subject for future use in other treaty ratification articles. And I do not think it should be a new standard used blindly on all sorts of treaty ratification articles. In example it has been appropriate for the Fiscal Compact treaty to map its ratification developments more closeley in each country due to its importance and fiscal effect in each of the ratifying states, while I would never provide the same kind of details for the ratification article on Croatia's accesion treaty. The idea to highlight significant events delaying the ratification, should in my point of view alos be limited only to be used for treaties with a specific target date. Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply on notability of the integrated ratification approach picked by Ireland+Finland: The reason why this is notable for both countries is:

1. It deviates from the outlined ratification approach in the treaty which ask countries to follow a two step approach where the treaty should first be ratified as soon as possible (and prior 1 Jan 2013), followed by a 12-month deadline to subsequently deal with enactment of compliant implementation laws.
2. On the day where the treaty was signed all signatories shook hands on the importance of ratifying the treaty as fast as possible, due to the symbolic calming effects this kind of commitment would generate towards the nervous financial markets in Europe; and as an instrument to secure a fast ratification the two-step approach obviously is the best, as countries following this approach can wait until a later time to design the detailed domestic laws with all the complicated implementation stuff.
3. So far only Ireland+Finland opted to follow the combined ratification approach which in both cases significantly delayed their ratification of the treaty - which is notable for the article - because it informs the reader why the process took so long time to complete in Ireland and why Finland was one of the last countries to ratify despite having a reputation of being one of the most committed countries. This is why I still think this special process should be shortly noted for both countries.

Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply on use of footnotes for "late ratifiers" (completing after 1 Jan 2013): I have two reasons why I still prefer we instead should continue to use the list-format in the subchapter (with a short note of the delaying ratification events for late ratifiers) -and not convert it into footnotes. First reason is, that it provides a better and more logical structure in the article to let the footnotes only deal with certain limited fields of info (which is the argument of only letting the subchapter deal with all explanations of "late ratifications" - and YES we have "significant events/non-events" for all "late ratifiers" which help to explain why it took so long). Second reason is to preserve a more pleasent layout, where I think a too dense or long list of footnotes should be avoided, and thus I prefer not to use them for notice on "late ratifiers" and their delayed deadlines for "implementation law" ratifications (prefering this info to be listed shortly in the subchapter). Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Next time you mess with the comments, I will make a huge deal over it, and it may go bad. I understand the section was not well-ordered, but, you may not mess with other people's comments to restructure them so that you can answer. At least, not without asking. Read this WP:TPO. Heracletus (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right. It was also the first time during my three years of contributions, I have been so bold to split up a few comments at a talkpage. I took the chance of doing so, as I felt it would hugely improve the structure for our plethora of sub debates, and thus also benefit the chance of other editors opting to chime in with their oppinion. And I also did it very carefully, so that nothing was destroyed or put out of context. If you/TDL feel we should revert it back to the previous format, I will of course accept it; but as said before I only had good intentions when deciding to add more structure into our debate -and also think it will only benefit the outcome of our debate in a positive way. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Most EU treaties use the same format, and usually have a target date, formal or informal. An RFC would solve most issues.

There's no two-step approach. The treaty just gives ratifiers a concise amount of time to implement its fiscal provisions into national legislation. They "shook hands", now, didn't they? In my honest opinion, it is not really important if a country voted the implementation law together with the treaty, if it did so 3 days after it voted for the treaty or six months later. What is important is which countries have ratified it and, which countries have enacted an implementation law, and if this is fortified in their constitution or not.

Honestly, a footnote is much much shorter than a full-blown section for late ratifiers. And, honestly, 2 or more years after a certain country has ratified the treaty, nobody will really care if a certain Senate had the second reading on one date or the other... If something is notable, it will survive, whether the country is a "late ratifier" or not. And whether a country has ratified the treaty after it had already come into force for other countries or not, can be shown by a one-line footnote. Heracletus (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply about launching a RFC:I concede to your argument about the target dates indeed being a common thing in EU treaties. I will also NOT object if we at one point of time launch a WP:RFC for our article about the Fiscal Compact. My point that we should not create an overall common standard applying for all articles about "Ratification of International treaties", however still stands as per the wikipedia policy (I forgot the link): That we do not need to align all articles belonging to the same category into the same common standard for the content or structure of content, as wikipedia allow for different content standards to co-exist - as long as it is supported by notability criteria and other overall policies for the content. Again I have to repeat my argument above, that I do not want the article covering the ratification of Croatia's accession treaty to use the exact same standard as we have used in our Fiscal Compact article. My argument is, that the ratification outcome - both in regards of outcome and entry into force - is given in advance for Croatia's accession treaty (with all the ratification procedures mainly just being a matter of formality), and thus it is not appropriate for this type of articles to feature the same detailed "status updates" to map the progress of ratification in each of the ratifying states. The fact that Croatia is accessed into EU also have limited internal consequences towards each of the ratifying states, which also is an argument against having the same kind of in depth detailed notes about their ratification, as we currently have in our article about the Fiscal Compact. As per the italic wikipedia policy I mentioned above, I think it is okay our Fiscal Compact article deviates from the standard used by the article covering the ratification of Croatia's accession treaty, and do not think these two articles should be designed according to any identical standard (simply because notability for "details about ratification" will greatly differ - depending on the content of the treaty being ratified). Danish Expert (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply about countries not ratifying according to the two-step approach: You are correct, that no countries were forced to use the two-step approach for ratification. My point that it is however still notable to mention this with 1 short line, whenever a country opted to ratify according to a one-step approach (with the "implementation law" being integrated into the ratification procedure of the treaty itself), is that this is a short explanation pointing out why it took longer time for such countries to complete their ratification of the treaty, compared to other countries. I still think this is a notable point for our readers. Please note I am only talking about having 1 short line here for Finland, and possibly 5 short lines to descripe the more complicated process in Ireland. Finally, just to argue the other way around, if we ommit notes about special events (or non events) having a negative impact on when a country completed ratification, we will also reduce the information value for readers to understand all the hidden stories behind the late "completion dates" in the wikitable. In other words the short explaining notes in the subchapter below featuring "countries having completed ratification with significant events", really complements the wikitable in a good valuable way. Danish Expert (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply about footnotes for "later ratifiers" (completing ratification after 1 Jan 2013): First of all, I agree with you we should not have a full blown description for "late ratifiers" in a subchapter, as we currently have while the country have an open ongoing ratification process. As I already agreed with TDL in November 2012, our strategy is to reduce all the country specific ratification info into short lines that only explain: "significant events during the ratification having a negative impact on when the ratification was completed" (but only at the point of time where the ratification status turns green). So what we discuss right now, is if we should have short lines about "delayed entry into force" placed in the subchapter where those "countries having completed ratification with significant events" are listed OR place this note up in the "Footnote section". I still think it would be inappropriate to list this the note about "delayed entry into force" in the footnote section, as we would basically start to drown in the number of footnotes attached to the table (with 9 countries needing to have their own specific note for this). And as I already argued earlier, we will already have all of those 9 countries listed in the subchapter below featuring "countries having completed ratification with significant events", as all of them in first place is characterized of having suffered some delaying significant events during their ratification procedures. Thus, to save space and provide for a better structure, I still have the opinion that it is better to place the 1-line extra note about "entry into force" down in that section, rather than having it listed as footnotes beneath the wikitable. Danish Expert (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, we again disagree, we have presented our points in an exhaustive manner, and further discussion of this sort just restates what has already been said. But, ok:

I suggested an RFC for the ratification section, and for EU treaties. And, a relevant article is this: Treaty of Accession 2011. You may note there several shorter or longer delays, yet, no big deal is made about them. You may argue that the target date is further in the future, but, in Fiscal Compact, the target date was for at least 12 eurozone countries, not for every country to have ratified it by then. Heracletus (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised my previous reply accidently had a wrong link to Croatia's Accession Treaty. This has now been fixed. All along I referred to the same article you linked to above, when saying that I do not think its appropriate to let it follow the exact same "content standard" as we choose here for our Fiscal Compact article, per my arguments about different notability thresholds applying to the various content of treaties being ratified. Another matter of detail, is that the Fiscal Compact is an "International treaty" and not an "EU treaty". I still insist it is a bad idea to enforce the same content rules for all ratification chapters related to all kind of "International treaties", per the argument that notability of the ratification status will differ from treaty to treaty. Croatia's accession treaty do in my point of view not merit a detailed status chapter with colour codes, per my argument above that ratification status is not notable due to the insignificant impact the ratified treaty has on internal affairs in each ratifying state, plus that ratification of such treaties is only a formality that normally does not merit a detailed status chapter. Danish Expert (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some countries had already compatible laws long before the treaty, some refined their laws to be compatible, some introduced new, some have a year to do so, some must first ratify the treaty, then, will have a year after to pass an implementation law. Some countries decided to pass the ratification along with the implementation law. Ireland, decided NOT to. Ireland, just waited for the implementation law to deposit its long before signed and passed ratification law notification to the EU. Is this notable? perhaps, in relevance to why it took a long time to deposit the ratification... Is this mentioned clearly? YES. Is it notable that some countries (Germany, Poland, Spain etc.) already had a compatible law and didn't need to pass a new one? perhaps yes, perhaps not, but not in relevance to ratification - perhaps, as a trivia could fit somewhere... Is it notable that Finland passed its implementation law along with its ratification law? NO, as it didn't seem to delay the ratification process. Is it notable whatever happened in all its detail with all the 25 countries (or all eurozone countries, or all late ratifiers, or all countries that start with "S") and their implementation laws, and the "hidden stories" behind them? NO. In the opposite fashion, why not add every other law any parliament has considered before or together with the ratification law in every country, as it can be certainly claimed that doing so delayed the ratification? To sum up, if something relevant (and highly notable) to the treaty happens, it will be added, no matter if it concerns implementation laws, or the ratification, or whatever else.*

From my POV, since the ratification is a current event, the section requires updates, and removing the old information, keeping only what -from my POV- seems notable. I am under the impression you want to update the section, but not remove the old content - being sure every late ratifier has something notable to be written about it, just add the new events as they happen. Otherwise, the presentation of late ratifiers is a matter of style and wording. To put it frankly, the section was -in my opinion- far more exhaustive than it should be. I have already suggested that notable content will indeed survive*.And, we're starting to drown in footnotes, because new quite long footnotes are added about the required majority needed. And, uhm, no offence meant, but, you seem to add them yourself... :P Are you sure we couldn't use references for them, instead of explaining the full story why a committee/court/law mandated this or that majority was necessary?

*Are you personally satisfied with the way the ratification issues in countries that have already ratified the treaty are currently presented?

I feel like I am making quite the same arguments over and over again. Heracletus (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, our debate indeed contain some redundancy. I feel one of the reasons are, that you accidently continue to assume that I want to keep all non-notable stutus info permanently in the article. I do not want that. At the very start of our long debate (and as per our previous consensus agreement reached 29 November 2012), I emphasized the detailed status info was only ment to surrive for as long as the country had an ongoing uncompleted ratification, and the moment it turned green it was OK to chop away non-notable content. As outlined in the November consensus debate, the argument supporting such an approach was that the "Status chapter" was an ongoing event with extra notability attached in the mind of readers, having a great interest to follow the progress of the ratification for as long as the ratification was still pending a possible political/legal approval. All along I have accepted and agreed the notability for status details is timelimited and will disappear the moment the ratification has been completed. Our only disagreement at the moment, is related to some single countries where I want to add 1 or 2 more new lines. This is why I pretty early in our debate, also called for a country specific debate about notability issues rather than debating things on some more genral lines. I even accept the new structure with one subchapter for "Pending ratifications" and one for "Completed ratifications with significant events" (and the move of countries). To move things forward, I will now re-add those few points which I feel should still be included. We are not so far from each other, compared to what you think. The point we continue to disagree about, is that I insist all 9 ratifying countries ratifying after 1 Jan 2013 should at least have 1 line noting why the ratifcation got delayed and when their deadline has been set for enacting a compliant "implementation law", and that I continue to feel it is notable to mention by 1 line that Finland opted to ratify the treaty + implementation law as an integrated approach, which obviously had a huge delaying effect on when they were able to complete the ratification. This is pure logic, as the implementatin laws call for much more political considerations and design decisions first to be made before the government submits its law proposal, while the ratification of the treaty did not require any additional documents being prepared by the governments before being voted for in the parliament. And the reason why it is notable info for Finland, is that it explain why Finland was one of the last countries to ratify. So despite the fact that Finland managed to complete their ratification 10 days ahead of 1 Jan 2013, it was still a delaying significant event in the ratification process that they opted to ratify according to the much more complicated "integrated approach". Danish Expert (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply about footnotes for required majority needed: They can not be replaced by references. They are notable and needed as sentences to explain why the majority needed changed from the usual/pre expectation of a needed majority in the countries having a note. They are not added for countries where the majority needed is not a surprise for the casual reader. In example, we have France where the previous Sarcozy government had prepared for a constitutional implementation law + treaty to be passed by a qualified 2/3 majority, but the court allowed Hollande to pass it as organic law by simple majority. Hence this was also a surprising change compared to the early expectations for a majority needed. Danish Expert (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone understands that you agree with removing most of the redundant content once a state ratifies. As you state, the problem is that you insist on having a section for every state which ratifies after January 1, regardless of whether something notable happened in that state or not. For a case like Slovakia, it's silly to have an entire separate section which only says: "They ratified on January 30th" when that's already listed in the table. What more is there to say? What benifit is there to repeating this in a separate section? TDL (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In case of Slovakia we had 1 significant event/non-event which caused the delayed ratification: The government only submitted the draft law for ratification in mid-October. Hence my one-line permanent sentence for Slovakia in the section would be: Slovakia had a delayed entry into force of the treaty on 1 February 2013, due to a delayed completion of the ratification in January 2013, caused by the fact that the government only submitted the draft law for ratification to the parliament in October 2012. When you have a target date to complete ratification prior 1 Jan 2013 it is an unusual and notable thing when the government does not submit its ratification law proposal minimum 3 months ahead of the deadline (in order to ensure that no delay will arise for the agreed ratification). Danish Expert (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the fact that they didn't ratify until after 1 January is notable, you're the only one who'll ever care what date they submitted the draft law. The former is already included in the table, and could be emphasized with footnotes/colouring/italics/etc if need be. We don't need a separate section to say this all over again. Since this conversation isn't making any progress, and it seems clear that you aren't gonig to agree with Heracletus and I, we need to move onto WP:DR. I think the best approach is to wait until Slovakia has completed their ratification, and then I'll start a WP:RFC on removing this non-notable content. TDL (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed Belgian subnote and the note about the impeached Romanian president

@Danish Expert: Text such as "The Policy Department of the European Parliament claimed in their most recent status report, that the draft law for ratification of the Fiscal Compact had been submitted to the Senate on 14 November but as of 20 December it was still not visible on the list of all submitted draft law proposals, at the Senate's website. Thus, it appear the source claiming it was submitted to the Belgian Senate is wrong, and accidently mixed up the info with the fact, that the draft law to ratify the treaty allowing for Croatia's accession to EU (with a very similar title), was submitted to the Belgian Senate on 14 November." and "it is currently unknown if this power struggle started by the Prime Minister, indeed also was a root cause for delaying the deposit." is speculative WP:OR that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. You may think this is a "high quality explanations why the ratification was late / delayed", however this is your personal opinion and not an opinion published by a reliable secondary source. TDL (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the two speculative sections are totally unneeded. The first one is very useful to editors as a comment, until a new report is released by the European Parliament, and the second one could survive as a carefully worded link to the Romanian referendum. Heracletus (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@Heracletus: As for the specific cases, we can't "guess" that the European Parliament has made a mistake. If RS say that they've mixed up two bills, then by all means we should mention it. But we shouldn't do WP:OR to conclude that they're mistaken.

Same for Romania, unless a RS connects the fiscal compact to the referendum nether should we. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If we wrote: "Romania didn't submit to November. There was a referendum in July." this clearly implies something that is not explicitly stated by a RS. TDL (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

To be completely honest, we could add it and add the "citation needed" template next to it. To be even more honest, we all know why it's so difficult to find a reliable source about it: very few people really care that much why the deposit of the ratification happened 5 months after it was ratified. I also don't think that the impeachment attempt played a significant role to when the ratification was deposited, after all, since the romanian president was suspended from 6 July to 21 August, and the instrument of ratification was submitted only on 6 November 2012, but, perhaps it did. Heracletus (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can accept TDL changed my subnote about the source making a false status for Belgium into a hidden note (as it is in first place only subinfo to guide the true hardcore followers of the subject with info why Misplaced Pages maps another status compared to the latest false report comming from the European Parliament). In regards of Romania, I feel we already had this debate back in November, where we after exchanging well-thought arguments on the subject, agreed it was okay to keep the carefully worded one-liner noting "the impeachment of the Romanian president possibly caused a delay for the deposit of ratification instruments"? The intention of keeping the Romanian note, was that it hopefully could lurke a journalist or any wikipedian editor with knowledge/time to read through the Romanian documents, to invistigate/clarify the matter at some point of time. The note never claimed it was a given fact the impeachment alone caused the entire deposit delay, but only mentioned it as a potential reason for the the delayed deposit. Looking at all deposits for past ratified treaties, you will find that if it takes more than 3 months to deposit there will always be a specific reason why the process to deposit got delayed. Beside of "political turmoil caused by the presidential impeachment", it can also be a court challenge? Or simply because Romania wanted to deposit the "implementation law" along with the treaty? And for Romania it could potentially perhaps also be a matter of having forgot in first place to decide wether or not a "declaration of intend" should be attached to the ratification (which we know they did by the end of the day, but it would be great if someone also checked if this was included from the start, as I am currently out of time to read through all the Romanian google translated law proposals and case documents). As a concluding remark, I feel it is fully justified to keep the Romanian note in its previously formulated version, as I believe this by time will help motivating other editors to try and help finding a sourced reason, for why the Romanian deposit was unexpectedly delayed. Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Danish Expert, the Belgian note was perfect, just could not be sourced, thus, it's still a perfect internal comment. TDL's verification was a bit redundant. However, the note/comment will disappear probably, when a new report is published, or when Belgium starts processing the ratification law. The thing about Romania is that it cannot be sourced, either. So, either you have to find a source yourself, or we cannot include it. We could include it along with a citation needed tag, but, still, that will leave it to the discretion of any editor, including TDL, to just remove it after some short time. Heracletus (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I never agreed to include unsourced speculation on Romania. My last comment stated that I'd help you look for sources that linked the referendum with the fiscal compact. At that point in time, no mention of the referendum had ever been included in the article. Later, you added it without any sources and I subsequently reverted this.

Our job is to reflect published reliable sources, not to speculate and put forward new ideas to "motivating other editors to try and help finding a sourced reason". Everything included in the article needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE, but no sources even state that the impeachment might have played a role. If you'd like to leave some info for other editors, this is best done as a hidden note. I'm definitely not opposed to adding a hidden note about the potential role of the referendum, so other editors might be motivated to investigate the matter. TDL (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of adding an implementation law column to the ratification table

@Heracletus: Agreed, a column/table on the implementation law would be a good idea. TDL (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On an irrelevant note, Corsica needs to be painted dark blue on the map. I also found out that the deutsche bank research publishes periodically an update to what has happened with the fiscal compact so far, which also includes a table with the progess of "debt brake" laws, i.e. the implementation laws in each country. The latest one can be found here: and we can use it accordingly. Newer versions will probably be posted here: . Heracletus (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like BHL beat me to Corsica. As for listing the details of the "debt brake" laws, yes that's a good source. We'll have to have to decide whether we want a separate table or just a new column. I suppose it depends on how much information we want to include. If we want to do a step-by-step approval process, as for the treaty itself, with "Conclusion date; Institution; Majority needed; In favour; Against; AB" I think it would be better to put it in a separate table. If we just want to list the final date of approval of the imlpemenation law, we could add a column after "Deposited". What do you think? TDL (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally would be in favour of the single column solution. But, I don't think it would look very good on the current table, as this is structured focusing on the ratification process and a column for (a different) implementation process will not fit very well into its context. I think it could stand as a separate column or small number of columns, but, I don't think it should be a full-blown table like the one for ratification. However, I hope we will reach consensus on this issue, too. If noone disagrees, I would be grateful if you could open an RFC section for all the issues of this section, so, that we could discuss all issues together and reach an overall conclusion. Heracletus (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think all the in depth details of the implementation law are really that notable. Perhaps the best solution would be to add a column with either a yes/no or a date of approval to the table in the "Fiscal compliance" section with this info? TDL (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree with this, too. You can find an incomplete experiment to implement this into the ratification table here: User:Heracletus/sandbox. However, I think it's probably better to be implemented somehow in another section, and on a somehow separate table. You can use my solution somehow, to implement it as a "separate" table. Heracletus (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea to add "implementation law" info for all 25 countries by an extra column is okay with me. But I do not see any notabililty for us to list specific enactment dates (as this would basically not tell readers anything new, when they already know implementation laws should be enacted within 12 months after the treaty entered into force), but I think it would be fine shortly to note with abbreviations the type of picked implementation law enactment in each country: C (for Constitution), O (for Ordinary law), NC (for Non Compliant). The Commission and ECJ have been granted the task to map if implementation laws have been enacted timely and compliantly in each country, and will most likely publish a compliance report about the issue around January 2014. The only countries allowed to be Non Compliant after 1 January 2014 (if we disregard the small group of countries having a couple of months extra in deadline time due to a completed treaty ratification only in Q1-2013), will be those non-euro countries not having submitted declarations of being bound be the deadline to enact compliant implementation laws before on the date they adopt the euro. This minor change to the wikitable, however will not change my view, that we should still have a small subchapter below to list all significant events having a delaying effect on the ratification process (not only for the 9 countries ratifying after the target date 1 January 2013, but also for those countries ratifying prior but suffering a significant delaying event which causes any reader who look at the dates in the "ratification table" to wonder why the ratification took longer than it usually does). Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"any reader who look at the dates in the "ratification table" to wonder why the ratification took longer than it usually does"... i.e. you, Danish Expert... :P

Actually, we will need 4 categories, ordinary law enacted with majority vote, ordinary law enacted with 2/3 supermajority vote, law amending the constitution and law which is non-compliant to (the provisions of) the treaty. Please take a look on my sandbox, and, feel free to contribute any edits there. There are two issues: whether we should use the ratification table, or the table in the fiscal compliance chapter of the page, and, if you like the visual style of the separate extra column(s). I will merge the new columns into a single one with the four different category footnotes, when I have time. Heracletus (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Using an abreviation for type of implementation seems like a good idea to me. Personally, I don't particularlly like the way you've made the "Implementation law" column a separate table. I'd rather have it between the "Deposited" and "Ref." columns if we're going to put it in the treaty ratification table. TDL (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It makes most sence to me, that we add this extra column in the Ratification table rather than the "Fiscal compliance table", per the argument that "Fiscal compliance" does not depend on the chosen "implementation law" type (constitutional/organic) in each country. I also think most readers will appreciate this info is listed in/at the Ratification table, as it help at an early stage to achieve an overview of the ratified solutions in each country - plus it complements the current footnotes about non-eurozone countries not being required (unless submitting a declaration) to enact compliant implementation laws before adopting the euro. By placing the column as TDL suggests between "Deposited" and "Ref", I think this will also be sufficient enough to signal that the implementation laws were not deposited along with the treaty. It is important we signal that, as some readers otherwise accidently could be confused about it. If we place the column with some whitespace to the table (as in the current sandbox), this is a bullet proof message to readers that the treaty and the "implementation law" is two different legal documents with different enactment dates. For layout reasons, I however is ready to support the suggestion by TDL, that we place the column into the table between "Deposited" and "Ref", but only for as long as we have no signs of readers getting confused that we are indeed dealing with two seperate legal documents. Danish Expert (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a better idea would be to move the "ref." column to right after the "AB" column, which is the end of what it is actually referencing anyways. That way we would go: AB; Ref.; Depositied Implementation Law. This might make the distinction clearer. One reason that I don't particularlly like the "separate column" idea (aside from asthetics) is for sortability reasons. I was thinking it would be nice to make this table sortable, so that it could be sorted either by country or by date of deposition. If the implementation law is in a separate table, it wouldn't get sorted along with the other columns. TDL (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, and fully support we implement an AB>REF>DEPOSITED>IMPLEMENTATION order of columns. I also support your idea of making the table sortable (if possible). Danish Expert (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The table is sortable; it does not consist of two tables but, only one fully sortable table. I added the visible implementation law column and an invisible column of two white spaces in between it and the other columns, which also puts bold border where it's needed. :P I didn't include the implementation column into the other visible columns, because the ref's are about the ratification. I intended to separate ratification from implementation. Also, i added the <div> to navigate left and right on the table, since it's not fitting into most screens. The table can be easily made sortable by changing "wikitable" into "wikitable sortable". Also, I added the different implementation statuses as notes, in the format already used, but, could also make them into single letters instead of numbered notes, linked or not. Please state again your opinions, and i will make the required changes. Heracletus (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a clever way to keep the table sortable. Perhaps it would be better if the "invisible columns" were black or something. That way we could see them, but they would mark a clear separation between the two tables. Other than that it looks great! TDL (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However, if the table needs to be sortable, it needs A LOT of tweaking... I tried to see how it would look like, and because of the use of "rowspan" a lot of rows change. Changing this into making it look properly involves adding a lot of code, as far as i understand. More info can be found here WP:SORT. Heracletus (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed this would indeed be the case, as per my own failed attempts in the past to circumvent the troubles of getting "wikitable sortable" to work with rowspans. I hoped you had a few tricks up in the sleeve. As this is not the case (and no solution description so far has been uploaded to wikipedia), I am afraid it is not possible. In regards of the column's placement I support your latest layout, as moving the REF coloumn to the left would anyway also have meant it had to be coloured green to avoid colour confusion (which would have reduced its standout position from the rest of the data coloumns). Danish Expert (talk)

For the other matters: (1) I prefer the layout with white space rather than black space, (2) After a second consideration plus your add of <div> for small screens to scroll - I now also have the oppinion we should list full worded "law types" in the column instead of footnotes. Reason for my second oppinion is that we can do it with very few words (without clotting up the table), and that I think its more convenient for the coloumn to carry it in full rather than as footnotes (because otherwise editors each time need to scroll down to footnotes to read it - which becomes a little bit too troublesome). When given in full you will get a quicker overview of the content. I have implemented the new alternative proposal in the sandbox, so that you can preview how it looks. BTW I one month ago added the needed link for the Finnish implementation law, and for Poland they have a constitutional fiscal law but will not update it to be compliant with the treaty before euro adoption (hence I changed the colour from green to red). Danish Expert (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS:SCROLL says scrolling tables should not be used. While I'm not opposed to using "Ordinary" or "Constitutional" in the table (as opposed to Yes or No), all the other details should go in footnotes as it just bloats the table.

Also, with "invisible columns" the table is confusing as the grid lines do not extend all the way from state name to "Implementation law". Colouring the the columns black would connect them and make it look like a "BIG" gridline. TDL (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from not liking visually the idea for a black column, I don't really have a specific opinion on the rest. I also am not sure about Poland myself. Since you edited the sandbox, add the Finnish implementation law link, too, please, Danish Expert. Heracletus (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Black in particular is visually bad, or any colour is bad? A problem with the current layout is that with my current screen size, I'd never even know that there was another column. The ref column is right at the edge of my page, and the white space makes it look like the table is done. Only once I scroll right do I discover that there is more to the table. Do we really need these invisible columns at all? I think we should either colour them (say darkgray), or get rid of them and use a black gridline to separate the last column. TDL (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

White space seperates better than a thick black line. A thick black line will also seperate, but not as visually efficiently as white space does. I personally still prefer the white space (for screens where everything is visible). The choice of having white/black inbetween is however only a small question of detail for me. TDL has a good point by stating we should also consider functionality issues for "small screens", and on that basis I am ready to support implementing a thick black/darkgrey gridline instead of white-space. In any case, I will suggest in order to reduce the overall table width, that we return to use the short date format for all data columns; meaning that we abbreviate 1 September 2013 into 1 Sep 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS:SCROLL is a policy which discaurages the use of Scrolling Lists (automatically hiding a part of the content). It does not in any way prevent or discourage the use of the <div> code implemented by Heracletus to automatically create a wide table scrolling functionality for small screens. This is all good, and should not be changed. In regards of your counter proposal to turn all parenthesis in the last column into individual footnotes, this will not help to reduce the width/height of the column, but only contribute negatively to the articles layout by creating a bulky list of footnotes. This is why I prefer we stick with my proposal not to convert all the parenthesis into footnotes. Danish Expert (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the definition of a Help:Scrolling list. They specifically state <div> is how to create a scrolling list. Such formatting is not permitted, so I'll remove it. TDL (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but actually Help:Scrolling list explicit in its lead say "wide templates and category content tables also may be scrolled." By effect our wikitable function as a "wide template" as it can be converted into such a format without changing the content/layout. Based on that I think it is OK to use the code. If we do not use it, I think the wikitable in normal circumstances will attempt to automatically adjust column widths with the content being asked to display at more lines in each cell (when being displayed on small screens). According to my own experience this however not always work as good as one could hope, meaning that sometimes one or two columns accidenly will exceed the borderlines of the viewed webpage (despite of the wikitable's auto-adjust attempt). The <div> code implemented by Heracletus was a solution to improve the tables layout for "small screens". If you think we should not use it, then please give us an argued reason why it is better without. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, any content can in principal be moved to a template, but that isn't the point of the policy. The point of MOS:SCROLL is that such functionality doesn't work on many devices. We want to make the article WP:ACCESSIBLE to as many as possible, hence we should avoid using formatting which often fails. If there's too much content in the table, we should address that problem as opposed to trying to avoid it with technical tricks. If you disagree, you're welcome to start a discussion at WT:Manual of Style to clarify the appropriate uses of <div>. TDL (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Heracletus added the <div> code to make the table better accesible by devices/computers with small screens. For the use in the current version of our wikitable it would only be activated if you have a screen less than 17" (or a very big text fond). So for the majority of readers (incl. myself) it would never be activated. Personally I do not care if the code is there or not. I just want as many as possible to fully enjoy reading the table. If what you say is correct, that a significant amount of small screen devices will not display a part of the table if we use the code (and that it is not just a matter of the code not being activated -leaving all content visible by scrolling the normal standard way on the device), then I of course vote we should not do so. I just wonder why the code then has been allowed for the use in "Wide templates"? As I have no small screen to test with (where the <div> code do not work as it is supposed to do), I have now submitted the policy question for a respond at Talk:Manual of Style as you suggested. Once again it is not a high priority for me to have it implemented, but if it only improve things without destoying anything I think we should implement it without any hesitation. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue lies with browsers and css... However, most (major or not) browsers have implemented now this element of css. I have a small screen and it works fine, as I use the chrome browser. Generally speaking, the use of overflow clipping set to auto is quite common in wikipedia. However, as the table is currently not as wide and as I personally don't like clipping either, I do not support debating on this issue anymore, except for reasons of policy clarification. Heracletus (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As Heracletus said, the issue is with CSS and browsers (see MOS:ACCESS#Users_with_limited_CSS.2FJavaScript_support). While most new browsers support it, legacy browsers are more hit and miss. I'm just trying to follow the MOS here, so let's see what responses we get to the discussion you started. TDL (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As my request for comments on the MOS talkpage did not return any reply within 10 days, and as my initial motivation to push for clarification only was feeded by a firm believe that Heracletus actually preferred the div code (based on his experience with a small screen device), I now also support not to use this code. Danish Expert (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion to use "short date format" is a good space saving idea. However, how can you say that removing "(enacts a constitutional law in 2013)" won't reduce the table width? The column is twice as wide since you moved the footnotes into the cells. TDL (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In my first update the parenthesises did not make the last column wider, but when I added the single one stating "(enacts a constitutional law in 2013)" you are correct it became a little wider. For your personal comfort, I am hower willing to change the parentheis to (will enact a law in 2013). I have just updated the table according to that, so you can have a look. If we convert all the parenthesises to footnotes, we will need to have a lot of them if we want to list the same details currently given by my added parenthesises. Personally I prefer the layout with small parenthesis in the table, rather than having a sub-forrest of footnotes providing the same kind of info. But if you/Heracletus continue not to like it (for whatever reason), I am ready to consider your arguments. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

After Heracletus earlier today transferred the new implementation column into the article, I took time to go through some of the data. Until now I checked the status for 5 countries (Finland+Poland+Slovenia+Spain+Sweden), and had to correct the data for 3 of them. For your notice, I have also enforced a "current status" criteria for the data, meaning that the background colour is either green/red according to what is currently both enacted + treaty compliant in the country. If a country currently has a fiscal budget law not being treaty compliant we simply note "Non-compliant" for the country (without giving any details about the non-compliant fiscal budget law they have). The type of submitted new implementation laws (yet to be enacted) will be noted in parenthesis for all countries having such data available. As a third overall reference for the column's title cell, I also consider to add our frequently updated reference from the European Parliament. It will take some time for me to go through it all, but I will start today and update the table as my work progress. Danish Expert (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the two sources (well: scanned them), but couldn't find the "non compliant" info. Could someone indicate where that is? Furthermore, the table is now very much in a short-statement style, that is not clear. Those countries are not non-compliant, but their law is, and they have a year (or: years) to correct that. What is a short phrase to rectify that? "present law not compliant?" L.tak (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The title of the column states "Implementation law", so when the data line say "non compliant" then most people will understand it in the way, that the current "implementation law" is "non compliant". In order to make it even more clear that the column only deals with "implementation law" data (and not treaty data), I wonder if it would help on clarity if we re-introduce the white-space between the column and the rest of the table as originally proposed by Heracletus (see how it looks here in the sandbox)? Some countries already had implementation laws enacted prior of signing the Fiscal Compact as an instrument to achieve the countries fiscal targets. However after signing the Fiscal Compact it has been established that most of those implementation laws are non-compliant with the Fiscal Compact and needs to get updated with new laws to be Fiscal Compact compliant. Both in Sweden+Poland they have non-compliant laws and have decided not to update their pre-existing implementation laws to become Fiscal Compact compliant until the date where they adopt the euro (which legally is regulated by the fact that they -as a noneurozone country- have decided not to submit a declaration of intend to be bound of complying with this particular fiscal demand in the treaty -and thus are exempted). The current references for these decisions are respectively the Swedish law proposal and Polish law proposal submitted by the government to their respective parliaments (listed down in the ratification in progress subchapter), and when agreed+deposited this info will also be displayed by the Depositary ratification webpage (as no D=Declaration note will appear for those two countries). Hence, the parenthesis for both countries have noted "(awaits euro adoption)". Recently my first formulation said "(new law awaits euro adoption)", but as TDL launched a concern for having a to wide column I shortend it to the new version. Please let me know after looking at the sandbox version, if you would like a re-appearence of the initial white-space between the "implementation law" column and the table, and if this would be sufficient to gain clarity about the data (or if you think a bit longer formulated parenthesis is still called for). Best regard, Danish Expert (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

reaction in shorthand (not to be rude, as I should be doing other things, I have no time to fine tune...;-)): I like the separate column better, but that is not a principle point for me... Non-compliant is a very negative term, and having a non-compliant law, while not being forced to have one is a completely different interpretation than a cursory reader will get. So I am afraid we need a) remove the red colour (which has a very negative feeling, and suggests something should be done), some words extra ("implemented (ordinary), but not compliant?"). An alternative is to add a column "implementation deadline", which makes it a lot clearer if a country has "done their job" or not... (and did I miss it, but who says the Polish law is not not compliant? was that in 1 of the sources? or is that a European Commission thing?) L.tak (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for quick reply. I myself also has to leave now. Later tonight I will consider your specific comments and reply. For a start I have re-added the whitespace as we are now three prefering this style, and because of the recent other efforts implemented to reduce the overall table width. In regards of Poland, the main source for this is the statement made by their Finance minister, who in May 2012 announced that he expected to submit a draft law for integration of the "golden budget rule" into their national legislation in the third quarter of 2012. Subsequently it was however confirmed both by the Polish EU affairs Committee in November and by the Polish law proposal in December, that Poland will not submit a declaration to the treaty's ratification because they wanted to continue operating with their existing fiscal implementation law until the date they adopted the euro. When I have time, I will go through the countries step by step and add the specific references into the column. As for now, I just so far did not have time to through ita all. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see that another IP editor yesterday changed the colour from red to yellow for Poland+Sweden as you suggested above. I welcome this change and agree with your argument above. I do not support your idea to list all the specific deadline's for implementation, as this in most cases will be redundant info (as the reader already can see that from the depositary dates noted in the table; and moreover for the first 14 countries with a deadline being 1 Jan 2014 the parenthesis in the implementation law column already denotes they will enact an implementation law in 2013 if not already having done so). In regards of your second proposal to write "Ordinary, but not compliant" instead of the current "Non-compliant", I also think most readers will not care about the type of non-compliant laws - as they in any case will not be directly related to the Fiscal Compact treaty. This is why I think that for the Non-compliant countries it will be better to omit this info from the column - also because it does not necessarily dictate if a new compliant implementation law will be ordinary/constitutional. It is easier and shorter for us just to write "Non-compliant (awaits euro adoption)". If you think clarification is still needed for the info, my counter proposal is to write "Non compliant (new law awaits euro adoption)". Danish Expert (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As a sidenote here at the talkpage, I can inform you that Poland has a 55% debt-to-GDP ratio ceiling written into their constitution with a direct note that an ordinary law (Public Finance Act) will regulate how this should be implemented and understood in practise. Hence their implementation law is only ordinary and not constitutional. The pre-exisiting Polish debt-brake is also fully compliant with the Fiscal Compact's specific debt-brake provision. As the pre-existing implementation law however have not included regulations for the "Automatic correction mechanism" + "Independant fiscal advisory council" + "The new structural deficit rule", it however has a status of being Non-compliant with all of the treaty's fiscal requirements. As outlined by the governments ratification law, Poland plan at some unknown point in the future (when Poland adopts the euro) to enact a fully compliant law at the ordinary level - most likely through passing an amendment law for the Public Finance Act. Danish Expert (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is still not very consistent to me (although I agree that my proposals are also not always helping in that regard). The column is called "implementation law". Non compliant means then: "having an implementation law that is non-compliant", while it should mean "already having a law, which is not compliant". Furthermore "law awaits Euro adoption" reads to me that the law-proposal is already there, but awaits the adoption of the Euro later... I would propose to change non-compliant to "No", with a not thate there is already certain legislation there (in the consitution or outside). Law awaits... could be --> Not required before Euro (btw: is the Polish stance your reasoning based on reading the laws, or is that the conclusion of a specific source?). L.tak (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have now changed the text to "No (not required before euro adoption)". At the moment the full status info for the Polish "implementation law" is included in the "Ratification in progress" chapter, and until the country has completed its ratification of the treaty (most likely in March 2013) it will be best to keep the info listed by that section. When ratification has been completed, I support your proposal to convert the info into a special footnote about the Implementation law status. My info listed above about Poland is basicly the extract from chapter 3 of the Polish Government's draft law (legal evaluation) for the ratification of the Fiscal Compact treaty. Danish Expert (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! I have added now a small spec (constitutional amendment and ordinary law), which should cater together sufficiently for the occasional reader that is more looking at the table than he is looking at the text. Feel free to revert if it's not ok... L.tak (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer only to write "Ordinary" instead of "Ordinary law" and "Constitutional" instead of "Constitutional amendment". Reason for this opinion is, that we should be careful not to fill up the table with too much text, and that I think (although this is solely based on my knowledge of how the Danish language works) that the English language actually permits us also to speak about a "Constitutional implementation law", and hence we do not need to extend it to say "Constitutional amendment - implementation law". NB: My add of "implementation law" into the given example is just to illustrate the grammatic argument, and will appear when we read the data line in conjunction with the column's title text. As it is not an issue of major importance to me, I however did not revert your changed formulation, and will leave it up to other editors to decide which one of the formulations should be used. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

He Danish Expert, that's exactly where our opinions differ: for me a "constitutional law" sounds silly (unless it's the law that "constitutes the constitution", i.e. for the first time) and inexact... anyway, I think we have found an acceptable conclusion the way it is now... L.tak (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. My personal preference was only because it goes so well in the Danish language to say it in the "inaccurate way" (because the way the word is used in Danish imply that "Constitutional law" is equal to "Law amending the constitution). I fully accept your formulation, and think your contribution to clarify it was all good. Thanks a lot. Danish Expert (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't consider either version inaccurate... In my mind, "constitutional" or "ordinary" would rather denote the relevant status, than serve as adjectives. Heracletus (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Heracletus, I don't have a problem with either version, but dropping the "law" has the advantage of brevity. Either way, it's probably not worth arguing over. TDL (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why was the full Irish ratification data removed from the wikitable?

As explained by the note listed in the subchapter, the deposit of ratification instruments for the treaty clearly awaited Ireland first to enact the related "implementation law" (or "statute bill"). By keeping the date lines for the "Statute bill" listed in the wikitable, it help readers to understand why the deposit in Ireland took so long, after receiving its presidential assent. This is why I think we should keep the lines in the table. Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have that info in the ratification process section. The corresponding dates are not that important. Heracletus (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And the ratification in Germany awaited the constitutional court's decision, should we have a line for that? Should we have a line for the French election, which stalled ratification? As far as I can tell, there was no legal requirement for Ireland to pass the statue bill before depositing the instruments of ratification, they simply chose to wait so I don't see why it should be mentioned in the table. It's already covered in the relevant section. TDL (talk)

Point taken. I accept we can ommit the lines from the table per the arguments here at the talkpage. The reason I brought this topic up for debate at the talkpage in first place, was that another editor (Japinderum) on 2 January wanted and atempted to re-add the Irish lines according to how it was displayed in the past 6 months. He did not succeed as TDL removed it. I now fully support the argued and more well-thought view expressed here, that it is best to leave these lines out of the table. Danish Expert (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the "French court decision" still listed as a subchapter note?

We already copied the note into a footnote comment, and it is redundant to list it again in the subchapter. The reason why it belongs to the footnote section, is that IT WAS NOT a court challenge but a part of the normal political process in France, where Hollande asked the court in-ante to decide if the treaty could be ratified and implemented by ordinary law and simple majority. The court replied yes to this, and then Hollande's government chose to submit a law proposal to the parliament following this approach. In France they are as a part of their standard political lawmaking process, very often using the court to give its legal advice prior of the government submitting a complicated law proposal to the parliament. In other states, they are using a "Council of State" to submit legal advise. This is why the decision by the French court does not count as an extraordinary "court challenge", with its own right to be highlighted in the subchapter for that. It is appropriate as a footnote (precisily as it stands now), as this shortly explain why the "majority needed" ended at 50% in France. But it should be removed as a point from the subchapter "Constitutional court challenges", as it was not a court challenge. Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, you may remove it. Heracletus (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this makes sense. I'll go ahead and remove it. TDL (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Luxembourgish Council of State

The Council of State of Luxembourg has according to our own page (and the contitution) only an advisory right. That right is -I believe- authomatically exercised in all proposed legislation. Now advices are often ignored, and advises of the council of State of the Netherlands often are (I can give loads of refs; this is relevant because they have the same historical bases). I think it is therefore not enough to base our statement that a 2/3 majority is needed on that advise, but more info is needed to provide that decision (and thus we can not put it in the table). Do we have experts in Luxembourgish law around? L.tak (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the edit history I replied: Yes its "only" advice - but it is unlikely the committee report will ignore the advice - so we can treat it as a defacto decision being correct at the current time (but subject for later change). Or else Belgium and Netherlands also need their 50% mark replaced by T.B.D. (To Be Decided).

You answered: You add it; then more proof is needed... In NL this is not an issue as only constitution changes go with 66%, nothing else.

Here is my 2nd reply: I take your word for granted on this matter, so I will not ask you to post references to proof it, and can accept we now write "50% or 66.7%" for Luxembourg (to reflect the current uncertainty). In regards of NL, I then however now disagree with your argument that 50% can be kept in the wikitable, because even if it is a fact that "NL only ratifies with 66.7% if it has something to do with constitutional changes", as per your argument, we can still not know what the responsible committee will decide to do when picking the needed majority to pass the bill. If the NL committee have the oppinion that a constitutional change will be needed, then it will not be 50% (as currently estimated by the European Parliament and noted in our wikitable) but the 66.7%. My only point is, that if the criteria for the column now shall be changed only to note the "majority needed as finally picked by the committees", then we also need to note a T.B.D. also for Netherlands and Belgium, as we still await committee reports from those two countries. Until now the approach has been to list the latest official/available advice for "majority needed" in the column. I am ready to support, that we can change it to your new proposal in regards of writing "50% or 66.7%" for Luxembourg with the note below (as we here now have an oppinion from Council of State explicitly stating 66.7%, which contradicts the EPs evaluation that 50% should be sufficient); but if we do it like that I insist also to note a T.B.D. for Netherlands+Belgium on the grounds given above. Can you agree with me on that? Danish Expert (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point on the Netherlands; I will however indicate why I disagree with that matter. The committee can not decide in any way like that because leading is article 67-2 of the constitution stating that a majority (that is in NL: a simple majority of members present) is needed. There are exceptions: constitutional changes (which require twice the consent of both house; the second time with 2/3); and after the objection of a Minister Plenipotentiary (of Aruba, Sint Maarten, Curcao) (3/4 if I am correct) of a Kingdom law (which this one is not). Constitutional challenges are not possible (see here) during the procedure (they are in Sint Maarten, but they do not vote on this one). Furthermore, the advice of the council of state is silent on the matter this time (and other times). All in all there are no indications at all there is a possibility not to have 50%. However, for Luxembourg: it normally has 50%, and there is an advice to have 66%. The discrepancy between those to makes it unclear form me what they will do; and I have no idea why it is unlikely to ignore that advice. I hope that helps; and am open to other sources to get this clear... (and sorry for the proof/prove confusion; I wasn't awake enough...) L.tak (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked the Belgian constitution, which has indeed several 2/3 majority clauses when responsibilities are shifted or when a law is directly dependent on a contitutional clause. Indeed good to keep the TBD there until we know more or have the definite information regarding this... L.tak (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Case settled. Thanks for good input, and your effort to look into the issue. I highly appreciate your contribution. Danish Expert (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Colour codes used for country names with ratification in progress

I reverted blue haired lawyer's (and an IP editor's) edits on the section, because there's clearly not a consensus on them, and he did not make any comments here before re-reverting to them. Personally, I don't agree with removing the colours of the names of the countries, because they can immediately identify the status of ratification in a particular country that has not yet ratified the treaty. This feature is not included on the table, and is quite dependent on the way this section will be formed after consensus. I can agree that plain text is not to be highlighted usually in an encyclopedia, but, I have to argue that this is not plain text, the name of each country is effectively an extension of the table. To avoid highlighted text in the main body of text, we could highlight the country's entry on the table. In my opinion, this is what the highlighted text in the main body stands for.

However, I do again suggest we open a Request for Comments (RFC) section here, so as to reach a conclusive consensus about all the issues that have arisen over this section. In either case, I would appreciate it if we could all discuss any proposed changes and get feedback on them, before we implement them on this section. Any consensus reached here will probably also affect other articles of EU treaties. Heracletus (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree to preserve the previous use of color status for country names to easily map the ratification progress, and agree with your argument that the "name of each country is effectively an extension of the table". As the very descrete color status of "country names" actually serves an important/valuable navigation purpose for readers, I think it is fully justified we can continue this practise. The technical argument supporting our practise is of course, that we are not coloring plain "article text", but only some short "list point titles" which serve the purpose of providing a structural element to the article (giving the readers a fast overview). In the alternative, one could also convert the list format into a wikitable with two columns (named respectively Country and Ratification status/events), and then colour the background according to the same code. In my point of view, the current "list format" is however much more simple and pleasent to the eye (as a dominant disco light of background colours in my point of view becomes a little too much). So I vote to keep it as it is. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As per the new structure being agreed in our consensus discussion listed above, where we now have one subchapter to list status for countries with ratification in progress and another subchapter to list Completed ratifications (impacted by significant events), it of course make sence no longer to have the permanent green colour code listed for those who completed ratifications with a deposit. Thus I have now changed the colour code, so that we have red+yellow+blue+green used in the chapter named "Ratification in progress" (where green now replaced the previous blue colour; meaning it now stands for a completed political approval with presidential/royal assent -but with ratification still awaiting the deposit to be legally completed). Danish Expert (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

False/inaccurate reports from the European Parliament

The 2 reports are mainly used in our article as a general reference in the ratification tables "majority needed" column. As I already noted four months ago in the above talkpage chapter, they were found only to be correct in 90% of the times in regards of "majority needed" info. Now I also has to raise a warning flag for their provided "ratification status" info, which I have also found to be highly inaccurate. I had hoped it would be improved by time - but it has not improved! Both reports made the mistake to mix up the Belgian government's submission of Croatias accession treaty to the Senate on 20 Noevember with the Fiscal Compact. They claim that the treaty was not submitted in Finland (during a time when it was). For a long time included old political comments (i.e. the Maltese February 2012 commment was only deleted in December 2012; despite calling for a deletion at least on 1 October 2012 when their ratification approach changed). The reports did also not discover that Slovakia actually submitted the treaty in October for the 1st reading and then again in November for the 2nd+3rd reading. In top of that, I also found a forrest of other false reports during the past 4 months.

Reason why I highlight this here at the talkpage, is that we still have them listed in the article, and that I want to highlight you should read the reports with extreme sceptisism - without trusting their info unless documented by a primary reference. The way I personally use the reports, is that I read each update of them and then go on to check if a primary source can document what they claim. To be frank I am very close to delete them permanently from the article (and only keep them as a talkpage source) due to the confusion they create on several issues. But on the other hand at least the second report (despite of only being 90% correct) at the same time also feature some nice links to each state's constitution (including a list of the relevant paragraphs to be aware of), so I did not kill it yet. Just be carefull when you read it - you can not trust its info unless you first find a primary source confirming what it claims. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with these reports is that it is not easy to find the newest version available, as the internal website search doesn't work very well. For example, there's a newer version of the table available, which is on a different directory than the last one. In this one, the Belgian submission mistake (and most others) has been fixed. However, the entry on Slovakia is a bit outdated.

It should be noted here, though, that these are internal parliament "notes", not even official reports over the ratification process and thus their integrity is not very significant for the parliament. They are also not regularly publicly updated. They usually catch up to the actual situation after a month or two, at the latest.

The main issue as always is how reliable are reliable sources; if a well-known source that is almost universally accepted as reliable publishes something should that always be considered as reliable information? And, aren't primary sources the most reliable ones in certain fields? Heracletus (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only good news contained in the new "first report" version you linked to from 7 January 2013, is that they corrected the Belgium mistake. But unfortunately it is still just showing the ratification status as of October 2012 for other states with pending ratifications. It provides an incorrect (or 3 months old) ratification status for Malta + Luxembourg + Poland + Slovakia + Sweden. So it should definately not be used as a source in our quest for seeking updates on ratification status. As it in some cases also provide mis-guided info on "majority needed" for ratification (i.e. on France+Latvia), its existence as a source for our ratification table might be short lived. As the document is subject to ongoing updates, I will however still give it a chance (but only for a few more months) to see if it ultimately will correct its reporting mistakes on the "majority needed" info for all states having completed ratification. Otherwise I propose we only use the "second report" for the "majority needed" column (as it currently feature 100% correct info for all states having completed ratification). We shall see. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On a sidenote, here is a direct link to be used when we search for updated versions of the second report. Next update will likely happen 21 January, and the link will be uploaded in this meeting date subfolder. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic note

My updated formulation from yesterday, where I put the Czech situation into a 100% perfect and correct context, has today been reverted (with the argument that the listed references do not support the formulation). I admit indeed to have stretched some of the points to a small degree. However, this was needed in order to present the readers for the correct context. Now after the formulation has been adjusted, the context appear wrong (as if Petr Necas has personal support for Czech to accede). The truth is that eurosceptic Prime Minister Petr Nečas (ODS) only support that Czech Republic accedes to the treaty if a political consensus between all parties in the Czech parliament first can be reached on how to ratify such an accession. His party ODS call for a referendum as the one and only ratification path to follow. This is not supported by the other governmental party TOP09 and in particular not by the Social Democrats in the opposition. Currently the ODS stance on this issue bloc for any accesion. This situation might however change after the next parliamentary election in May 2014, as the current opinion polls show a major support for the Social Democrats, which leader Bohuslav Sobotka has pronounced that Czech Republic should accede as soon as possible (without a referendum). The written context is clear if you carefully read and combine all the provided references in the Czech note. I am out of time to search for new references for the matter, but if any of you have time, I invite you to do it, as I think we need the note to show the correct context about the true position of the current Prime Minister Petr Necas (ODS). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of pure luck my 5s google search came up with this reference supporting my claim above. So I will now go on to implement it in the note (despite not having the time). :-) Danish Expert (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was because none of the sources supported the claim that ODS has made a referendum a precondition for accession. While you may believe this is "100% perfect and correct", it still needs to be sourced. Also, you need to be very careful when you "carefully read and combine all the provided references" not to WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions not explicitly stated in the sources. Your new source is helpful, but be sure to only report what it actually says: that Necas "favours holding a referendum on the 'fiscal compact,' but is waiting for a final draft". TDL (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you can also find a Misplaced Pages policy outlining that you should not only list/formulate a referenced line into full compliance with the provided source, but also make sure that it is formulated in a way so that reading the pre-existing Misplaced Pages section's paragraph in its entirety can still be done without the overall message provided by the already existing lines in the paragraph being confused/destroyed. To say it short, the way the old version of the Czech note was formulated it accidently implied there was no political difference at all between opinions of the existing PM Necas and opposition leader Sobotka on when/how/if the Fiscal Compact should be ratified. I clarified this situation at first, by denoting that Necas wanted a referendum and that Sobotka wanted to join straight away without a referendum. You then responded by reverting. I then replied by adding two additional references for the referendum situation, fully supporting that I had not reported something wrong. It was OK that you called for additional refs. My only point is, that another time when you question the facts in any of my contributions please do so by adding the {{cn}} tags, because in 99.99% of the cases I never add something wrong, and will be able to find additional sources if you think it is needed. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you often either missunderstand or missrepresent what the sources are actually saying. For instance, you wrote: "would only support the country to join the Fiscal Compact, if this was first explicitly approved by a referendum" and the article you sourced this to says: "would like to see the matter decided in a national referendum". This isn't an accurate reflection of the source. I "would like" a million dollars for my old, beatup car. That doesn't mean that I "would only" accept a million dollars for it. Two different statements entirely.

As for the rest, please see WP:BURDEN. If you want to add something to the article, it's your responsibility to source it. I try to keep as much as I can that is sourced. However, there's WP:NODEADLINE so if you can't find a source now there's no hurry to add the content. TDL (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the article's info is found not to comply with reality, we should correct it so that it do reflect reality! Or do you really prefer to have an encyclopedic article telling a wrong incorrect story that do not reflect reality? Yes, the previous linies individually matched the contained explicit info in the noted reference. But when reading the lines all together in our wikipedia articles paragraph, then the wrong story was accidently provided to the reader. I sorted out the problem by reformulating the text, so that it matched reality 1:1. If a single reference has used a specific formulation you should not always trust/valuate such a formulation as the one and only truth. Please also check if the formulation match the story reported by other available references. In many cases you will accidently report the wrong reality if you only reflect a story based on the formulation by 1 specific source. Many sources themself are not formulated 100% correct. Instead of critisizing all what I do, you should really start to appreciate and applaud that I help to get reality reflected in our article. Once again, you were right to ask for additional references for the verification of my reformulated lines about the referendum. I then provided you with 2 new references that did so. The second happens to say, that the governments cabinet voted on 19 January about what to do with the Fiscal Compact (where TOP09 was voted down by ODS+Public Affairs), deciding that a referendum should be called (either as a single referendum or a combined euro referendum) if the government in its sitting term should sign the Fiscal Compact. So when I write "ODS would only support the country to join the Fiscal Compact, if this was first explicitly approved by a referendum", then this is the one and only truth and 100% backed by the reference. By the way, I can also tell you that it is the one and only truth, that if the referendum had been called ODS+Public Affairs would both recommend the Czech people to vote NO to the treaty. The only reason why the government did not launch the referendum, was because TOP09 categorically refused to vote for such a proposal if it was ever submitted to the parliament. Please note, that I did not use this exact formulation in our wikipedia articles paragraph, as I did not have a source with this exact formulation. But this is the truth, and you should really be able to grasp that point just by reading the link I provided here for the second new reference. Despite not being formulated explicit this is implied by the reference, and so it is not incorrect if we imply the same in the paragraph (without writing it explicit). As a minimum we should at least avoid to imply something that is direct opposite and not matching the reality (which was done by the previous formulation of the note). I have now hugely improved the note, and deserve only praise of having helped you with that. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All hail the great Danish Expert!

Yes, but once again you're either missrepresenting or missunderstanding the sources. The link you point to says: "would prefer to see the matter decided in a national referendum" and "provisionally endorsed a national referendum". This is entirely different than saying they "would only support the country to join the Fiscal Compact, if this was first explicitly approved by a referendum". Your attempts to decide what is "implied" by the sources is WP:OR. While, I doni't doubt that you think that your version is the WP:TRUTH, as WP:V clearly states: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". If you disagree with my revision, I'm happy to discuss it with you here but please stop adding this unsourced speculation until there is a consensus for it. I've tried to retain as much of the material that you've added as can be sourced, but if you disagree with my revision you are welcome to revert to the status quo revision circa January 13 while we discuss the issue further. TDL (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can accept the latest reformulation you did 18:23 18 January, as you in that version was more carefull to maintain the major points I had added. For the remaining minor disagreements about use of some single words, we are obviously right now having a borderline discussion about when we should be "reporting slaves" of the reference's explicit formulation (of occationally some randomly selected words by a journalist in a single line) or adhere to the implied main message by the reference. In example I wrote:

"the situation is likely to enter a deadlock at least until the next parliamentary election"

while the supplied reference in its lead paragraph wrote:

"The question whether or not the country should join the emerging EU fiscal union has divided Czech politicians and appears to be fraught with problems. While one governing party is in favour of an emphatic “yes”, and the country’s eurosceptic president have already voiced an emphatic “no”, everything points to the fact that Czechs will continue to sit on the fence for as long as possible."

The simple fact that the journalist used the words "EU Fiscal Union" is a great example that some of his selected words are not necessarily formulated 100% accurate, as we both know that what he really meant and referred to was the international "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union" - also known as the "European Fiscal Compact". This message (and the rest of his points) becomes 100% clear when reading the entire article and not just a single line. Personally I understand your argumentation and the general call for edits to be true to the selected wording from a reference. On the other hand, I am also quiet sure you understand my call that at the same time while being carefull not to reference a wording that the journalist did not say (or intend to say), we should also be carefull to avoid just to slavicly report the exact same randomly selected wording by one of the lines in a reference. It is okay (and actually preferred) that we read the entire article and report its message when being read in its entirety. Sometimes if you just cherry pick the wording of a single stand-alone line, it will be taken out of context, and its meaning becomes different if it stands alone. According to my experience so far with all the EU-related articles at wikipedia we unfortunately have a forrest of wrong info and missing info in the majority of them, that are much more serious than the small details about wording you and I now use plenty of time to discuss. Now when both of us clearly have expressed our points of view and agreed on a compromised formulation for the Czech note, I think it is time to move on and start prioritizing doing the work to add some of the missing info in our article. Since December I have along my work to update ratification status, also made a personal to-do list of important things to add to the article. In example it is of huge importance that we add a column displaying all current country-specific MTO's to the "Fiscal compliance table". I have found a reference for that, but it all takes time (and currently awaits I first complete some of the other stuff still standing on my to-do list). No offence meant, but I think both of us should really try to use less time to discuss "wikipedia policies" in general, and dedicate more of our precious time to improve the article. Danish Expert (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "EU Fiscal Union" was used quite often back then before the treaty had actually been signed, so it was certainly not inaccurate. Of course the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union" didn't even exist when this article was published and it didn't become universally known as the "European Fiscal Compact" untill much later. (Hell, this article was originally titled European Fiscal Union before being moved )

I certainly agree that we need not repeat the specific words that a source says. However, the issue is that you often see "implied" messages in articles which are far from obvious. It seems that you think that you know what the truth is. You find sources which say something similar and use it to support your more extreme claims. In the example above, you wrote that "would only support the country to join the Fiscal Compact, if this was first explicitly approved by a referendum" when the source says "would like to see the matter decided in a national referendum", "would prefer to see the matter decided in a national referendum" and "provisionally endorsed a national referendum". Your text obviously misrepresents what the sources actually say, and goes much farther. I simply changed the text to "suggested that the treaty should be approved by a referendum". That's not a matter of cherry picking or slavishly following the specific words chosen, it's a matter of reporting what the sources actually say and not what one might image the sources could be implying. TDL (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quiet funny that you claim an "extreme difference" existed between my formulation and the one used by the reference. Yes, there was a minor difference, but it was far from extreme. And once again I am sorry to say that in this particular case my formulation match reality 1:1, although I admit it did only match the formulation of the provided source by 98%. If you doubt my claims so heavily, then please be my guest to search for additional references. Then you will find further proof for all my points written here at the talkpage. My main point however only was, that it was important for the note to highlight that the existing PM preferred a referendum solution while the Social democratic party and TOP09 was opposed to such a thing. In the previous formulation you made and with my two additional provided references this has now been implemented. I accept the current version, and do not boughter to use any more time to document further details about the story. So why do we continue to discuss this topic? I think it is time for both of us to move on with other more important edits. Personally I am now satisfied with how the Czech note is formulated. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I can inform you the TSCG title was coined around 1 December 2011, and actually replaced this former title of the treaty in its very first draft phase: International Treaty on a Reinforced Economic Union. As all of my previous edits have revealed, I am one of those annoying guys who happens to know what he talks about (and very seldom have made the mistake to report anything that is direct wrong; as you only have caught me doing on the expirering date for the Icelandic EU negotiation agreement reached between VG and Social Democrats, which I this week accidently -due to a bad google translation of the Icelandic language- thought also was a post election agreement, but as we both could see the next day after reading the follow-up MLB article it was clearly only a pre-election agreement). On that single point I did a mistake. But please do not generalise based only on that. There is no reason to accuse me of being highly wrong or inaccurate at a general level. On the contrary, I am one of the good guys always making high quality edits and greatly help to improve the content on several articles. If you treat me with respect, I will continue to help improve this Fiscal Compact article on various aspects. Alternatively you can also choose to hunt me away with personal attacks, and do all the remaining work yourself. It is really your own choise. I am starting to get a bit tired. Other points on the current to-do list (beside of adding the MTO column) is that the "History chapter" is heavily inaccurate/misguiding on several issues, and that we still need a short country note formulated for UK. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See, this response is a classic example of you misunderstanding text. My statement: "it's a matter of reporting what the sources actually say". Your response: "If you doubt my claims so heavily" and "You have no reason to accuse me of being highly wrong or inaccurate at a general level" and "hunt me away with personal attacks". I understand that English isn't your mother tongue, but words have very specific meanings and these meanings often seem to get lost on you. I didn't express any doubt about the accuracy of what you'd written. I didn't accuse you of being wrong. All I said is that the sources didn't back up what you'd written. You can lecture me all you like about how your edits are "100% perfect and correct", but at the end of the day that's irrelevant. All that matters is whether you can back your claims up with sources or not.

The same happened during the dispute over the referendum. You say your text matched the sources 98%, but when I tried to make it match 100% you reverted me twice to restore the version that only matched 98%. How is misrepresenting the sources helpful?

If you don't like your work being criticized, then wikipedia probably isn't a very good place for you. You need to be able to accept that people are going to disagree with you, and not take it personally. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they're trying to "hunt me away with personal attacks". I've tried to be very patient with you, and explain to you the rules about how wikipedia works. However, you don't seem care and just ignore the rules whenever you don't like them. My suggestion would be to spend some time reading wikipedia's policies, particularly Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. If you don't understand something, you could consider Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user.

As for your sidenote, what's the relevance of this? Who said anything about the TSCG name not being around before then? No me. It seems you've misunderstood my words again. We were discussing its "nickname". You said referring to it as the "EU fiscal union" was not correct, but I told you that the "fiscal compact" nickname had yet to be standardized by then. You can find plenty of RS from Dec 2011 or Jan 2012 which refer to it as a "fiscal union" (, , , ) so it's no less accurate a nickname than "fiscal compact". TDL (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I know all the Misplaced Pages policies you refer me to - before you refer me. In the past 3 years I have actively contributed with good quality edits, and you were the only person to accuse me of not understanding the policies (and all the rest you seem to imply). You should stop acting like a better knowing preacher/teacher. In particular because you do not always yourself understand or obey to Misplaced Pages's written policy in a 100% firmly correct manner (and sometimes even use it in ways it was not intended to be). Sure you are good referring to it. But you also have a talent to twist the debate and for unknown reasons your replies to me lately have a tendency of becoming more and more personal with all kind of implied attacks. I welcome to have grown-up debates on an informed level at Misplaced Pages, and of course also welcome that other editors change my edits if they find something in them which they do not find correct (or otherwise want to improve). For strange and unknown reasons, it appear you have decided to put me into a wrong category of editors "who do not act correct on a general level". I am willing to assume good faith, and on the contrary always have treated you friendly and with respect. But what do I get in return? Apparently you do not like me on any level (for whatever strange reason), and is on an ongoing quest to try and annoy me as much as possible or hunt me away. As I stated earlier in another of our latest debates, I have no problem at all with you in regards of how you behave or act in the Misplaced Pages article space itself. I think both our contributions on a general level have greatly helped to improve a lot of articles. I only made a friendly call here at the talkpage, that I think your way of handling the talkpage debate (and in particular your implied tone in the debate) could be better and more friendly towards me. The choice of how to continue is yours alone. I have already made my points and moved on. Danish Expert (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Malta

We seem to be outdated on Malta, stating in the section above the ratification table taht a governmental decree will be used; stating below that the parliament will be dissolved (last week), but that ratification will take place after elections. I don't know too much about Maltese politics (I guess the decree is simply outdated and that the law is now on hold until a new government comes, but..), so can someone get it a bit more consistent? L.tak (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see TDL has deleted my 1 line making the exact status of how far the parliament had treated the "ratification motion" prior of the parliament being dissolved and elections called. The status is that the parliament is still in an ongoing process, where they since 2 October 2012 at 6 meetings have been debating the treaty and ratification motion clause by clause. They have not yet voted on anything in the parliament. On your request, I will now reinstate the valuable status line that TDL on his own hand decided to delete in December 2012. Danish Expert (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the deleted text (didn't see it). My main point is the inconsistency with the text above the table that still speaks of the decree; should that simply be removed? L.tak (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The text above never outlined a governmental decree for Malta but only for Cyprus. So it is perfectly consistent. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

ah, those small countries.... ;-) L.tak (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The information about the motion is no longer relevant, as the new parliament will (most probably) set a new agenda, along with it being a new legislature and so on. For some unknown reasons related to original research and my common sense, I do expect the budget to be among the very first laws submitted to the new parliamentary composition. Whatever will happen to the motion is ...unknown? Hence the half yellow, half red colour. It would be quite weird if the parliament kept discussing the draft laws and motions submitted to its previous legislating session and those were not dropped or re-introduced by the new government. So, I think we can expect a new section here under the title "Twelfth legislature (2013-)", with new sittings, new agendas and so on. The reason this has not happened yet is that of course, the present parliament is still sitting for the odd cases of Malta going into war, tsunamis hitting Malta, meteorites falling on Malta and such (article 76 of the constitution of Malta) before the elections happen. Common sense... is original research of course.

So, why keep all this information, as to when it was debated and such? 85.179.46.184 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the IP. The only info that DE restored which I deleted was: "with the first out of three readings starting on 3 October 2012" and "Since then it has been debated clause by clause, in eight parliamentary sittings -with the last one at 5 November, and it is still listed on the open agenda for upcoming further debate." Who cares how many days it has been debated on? I don't see how any of this is really significant. (And to suggest that you restored it on L.tak's request is rather misleading since it has nothing to do with the OP.) TDL (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The normal procedure in all European parliaments when a sitting term is abrupted due to early elections with a parliament getting dissolved, is that one of the first actions of the new parliament after the election is to transfer those ongoing legislation procedures not being finished in the previous term. Until we know what the new parliament+government will do, I think it makes sence that we keep the old info about how far the previous procedure has evolved. To be honest, I think the new parliament will continue and complete the parliaments initiated procedure for ratification. Please note they only deal with a simple ratification law here, and not the more complicated process about the design of the implementation law. So there is absolutely no reason why they should nullify the previous draft law and start all over again. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the old procedure has some value, but that does not include the quantitative data (who cares how many hours it has been debated, as long as we know what "gates have been passed": is it in parliament?, have they voted? etc). So I would agree with keeping that info out (even if I am not convinced that a formal action is needed to carry over the procedure from one term of parliament to the other; I know for a fact that is not the case in "all European parliaments", but know nothing about Malta) L.tak (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I did not intend to clutter it up, and you are correct that it can be cooked down to less details on a few points (ie. removing the number of meetings). However, I suggest we still keep the info that: The parliamentary debate started 3 October clause by clause, but was not completed during the subsequent parliamentary sittings and remained as a topic for the open agenda at the time when the parliament got dissolved and the early election was called. In regards of transferring ongoing law proposals to the next term, I accidently wrote in my reply above that it was "standard procedure" to transfer all ongoing proposals in most European parliaments. What I intended to write was that most European parliaments have a "standard procedure" for situations where early unexpected elections are called, allowing the next parliament to transfer previously debated law proposals into the newly opened term -and that the newly elected parliament do not necessarily have to start all over again. We can not know for sure what the next Maltese parliament will choose to do. By using common sence and logic, I think it is however more likely to expect they transfer/adopt the ongoing motion as something to be completed in the parliaments upcomming new term after the election, rather than nullifying the previous motion and the work already being done. BTW, if we should cook down the Maltese note any further, I will suggest we remove the second line explaining what the Maltese government initially intended to do in February 2012. This can be removed without harming the note's informational value. Removing the direct status line and the link explaining how far the current motion have progressed in the old parliament, would not be good. I think we should await to see what happens after the election, before we consider to update/remove that particulair line. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Good reply, and, from my point of view what you suggest is quite acceptable. However, if someone disagrees, you could just comment out these sentences, so that we preserve them until everything clears out. Heracletus (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with including a boiled down summary, but I'd say the same thing in half as many words: "The parliamentary debate started on 3 October, but was not completed prior to the House being dissolved ahead of early elections." TDL (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New colours for the Fiscal Compact map

For me the most important difference between the parties to the treaty is whether they are bound to section III and IV or not. Presently we have that not available grafically. Shall I adjusted the image to add it (by playing with the -then- three colours of green?). I realize that makes the image more complex, but I think it is vital info... L.tak (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't that wait until most (4/5 or more) - if not all - countries that have signed also ratify the treaty? 85.179.46.184 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the rational behind that? L.tak (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The rationale is simplicity of the image, as probably either all eurozone members or all others will have ratified the treaty by the time 4/5 of the signatories have ratified it and, thus, we won't need 6 colours on the image, but, again only 5, or even 4. 85.179.46.184 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid the last colour that will "run out" will be the green shade I need; but I do think I can make enough difference with a seventh colour... L.tak (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is the most important distinction. After ratification is complete the best solution is: Eurozone/Non-eurozone bound by III and IV/Other ratifiers/Other EU. A seventh colour isn't ideal, but doesn't particularly bother me if it will go away eventually. (We really only need the light green OR the light blue to "run out" so we can repurpose it.) Another option would be to stripe the non-ratifiers with the same colour as the ratifiers of the same category. (IE all Eerozone states are dark blue, but eurozone states which haven't ratified are striped blue as opposed to solid blue.) TDL (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If we should go ahead with a new colour scheme for the "ratification map", then I would pick the following four colours:

• Dark green for the two "non-eurozone states with a ratified and immediate entry into force of fiscal provisions".
• Yellow for the six "non-eurozone states having picked a delayed entry into force of fiscal provisions when the state adopt the euro".
• Red (as now) for EU countries not having ratified the Fiscal Compact.
• Dark blue (as now) for all ratified eurozone countries.

I however share the concern also to have light green and light blue and light yellow for those having signed those categories but not yet completed ratification, and think this disco light of colours would be a little too much. Personally I prefer in the new colour scheme to drop all the light colours to make the map more simple. I think the above new colour scheme would be better in the long run, as it is more important to map the "legal status" rather than the "committed status". Only remaining question is however when we should adopt the new colour scheme. This is a question I will leave for others to decide. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, from a treaty point of view two of the three proposed light colours have value:

• light green (as now): 4 non-euro countries that are not party to the treaty
• light blue (as now): the 4 euro countries not party to the treaty

We could however lump those two colours together in one colour (signed, but did not ratify...), as the importance of their distictions is less relevant now that the entry into force criterium has been met... L.tak (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As for striping: I am ok with that, but wouldn't be capable of implementing it... L.tak (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view, that the treaty's entry into force is an event calling for us to reconsider implementing a new colour scheme for the map. In the long run, I think the majority of readers will mainly check the map to get a visual update about to what extend the treaty has been legally adopted by the various countries, and that the "identification of states with open ratification procedures" will be of less interest. Hence, this is why I suggest the simple red (not ratified), yellow (non-eurozone states without enactment of fiscal provisions), green (non-eurozone states with enactment of fiscal provisions), blue (eurozone states covered by all treaty provisions). For the sake of finding a compromise (and trying to meet your counter proposal), I am ready to support if you add the light red colour as the fifth colour for "all signatories with uncompleted ratification procedures". Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with danish expert and L.Tak on the proposal as formulated by danish expert, red for non-signatories (i do think DE meant non-signatories, not non-ratifiers), blue for eurozone ratifiers, green for non-eurozone ratifiers bound by the full treaty, yellow or other colour (perhaps light green?) for non-eurozone ratifiers bound by only article V, other colour (yellow?) for all signatories who have not yet ratified. As long as the colours are quite usual, I do not object to any of them being used for the last two cases, though in my opinion something like black or purple would not fit well in the image. I also do not object to striping as long as this can also be easily done for the colours on the legend. Heracletus (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented DE's idea as far as I could. I have used a new svg-file, that is not human-edited too much with inkscape , but that can be edited by just changing the country abbreviations in the top. Feel free to revert or tweak... L.tak (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did assume that DE meant a separation between signatories (but lumping euro and non-euro signatories) and potential parties (uk, cz), but keeping similar colours to indicate that both groups are "out"... L.tak (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why use a new file, though? and, why remove the sea? I do think the previous image seemed a bit less contrasting. Heracletus (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be better, because it is much easier to edit using a text editor (and thus much more precize). Also colour can now be changed much faster... So basically it is making use of what svg was made for... I have changed the borders to white; does that help? I might look at getting the sea coloured again, but don't know how yet.... L.tak (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also coloured the sea now... if you want another colour, just let me know, this is ECF8F8. L.tak (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, but I prefer your version with black borders. Lativa and Lithuania especially look like one massive state. TDL (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful. Good work. The fish are however still grasping for some water in Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega, and need a rescue. I would also consider to use a somewhat bigger circle-line for Malta, as the light-red colour is hard to see in the ocean. The white border lines differentiate the small dark blue states better (i.e. this might be important for Luxembourg). On the other hand I also agree with TDL it badly borders the yellow states (where the black would be better). I prefer either a white/black borderline rather than light-gray, as I like the sharp contrast for the border lines around grey states. As long as it is either white/black I am happy. You decide. Right now I am watching the NFC Championship Game, if you have time it can be recommended to tune in to watch the remaining of the 4th quarter. It is quiet a thriller! Danish Expert (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor tweaks done. I am finally understanding this file.

• lakes are blue now (they had opacity 0.4, and coloured with the state...)
• borders are black again
• to avoid the whole Euro-ratified area becoming 1 big area, I have faded that colour a bit
• recoloured the pink circle for Malta. I didn't update my latest colour change there, that's why it was vague... Good luck with the NFC! L.tak (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would probably have picked other colours, but, it does look great. Heracletus (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So would I... but it was a bit of a moving target: starting out with the original ones, and changing for contrast in the light and the dark coloured states... Coulors are however never a principal point to me, and it literally takes 1 minute to change them; so feel free to suggest changes... L.tak (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it looks great. Good job. Heracletus (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Euro

Is the ratification a condition for introducing the euro from now on? 134.176.205.89 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, from a judicial/formal point of view, no or, at least, not yet. This is an intergovernmental treaty outside the scope of the EU and/or the Eurozone. However, from an informal/political point of view, yes, it would be quite difficult to join the eurozone without ratifying (or acceding to) this treaty even now, and next to impossible when/if all Eurozone countries have ratified it and it has been incorporated into EU law. Heracletus (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter 2013 forecast of Fiscal Compact compliance in 2013

This is just to bump a short note that the European economic forecast - winter 2013 report has been released today. I will now start to update the articles wikitable with the new figures. You should of course still keep in mind that we still only deal with forecasts here, so the figures can obviously change during the next course of the year. Denmark remain perhaps as the best example in that regard, as I previously elaborated on in full detail in this archived discussion. To be more exact, todays forecast report claim the 2012 fiscal budget deficit will be 4.0% of GDP for Denmark, but our ministry of finance announced 10 days ago that billions of extra tax income from higher than expected pension yields and collection of corporate taxes is expected to improve the deficit with something in the range of 1.0-1.5% of GDP. This mean the Danish 2012 budget deficit (to be officially released and confiremed by Eurostat on 22 April 2013) will be posted to be around 2.5-3.0% of GDP, and not the 4.0% of GDP which today is claimed by the latest EC forecast report. The forecast reports are still the best forecasted data we got. But as my 2012 example for Denmark have proofed, you should keep in mind that the 2013 figures can still change with significant amounts during the course of the upcomming year. Danish Expert (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Table has now been updated. Most remarkable change since the last November forecast, is that Greece will achieve a structural surplus on 1.8% and Romania+Latvia will now fully comply with all Fiscal Comapact criteria in 2013. Overall we therefor now have 11 EU member states complying with the Fiscal compacts structural deficit criteria (two more compared to the November forecast), of which Italy and Greece however still suffers from an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio and thus do not yet fully comply with all criteria. The remaining 17 EU member states are still forecasted to have a non-compliance with both the deficit and debt criteria in 2013. As mentioned earlier (both here at the talkpage and in the article), a non-compliance with the deficit+debt limits are also allowed for ratyfying states, for as long as they are moving ahead on the scheduled "adjustment path" - towards fully respecting the limits after a handfull of years ahead. The main rule for the "adjustment path" (which actually has been established for all EU members as part of the SGP regulation), is that the structural deficits shall show yearly improvements at minimum 0.5% of GDP, in order to be deemed sufficient enough during the period where the country walk on its "adjustment path". Danish Expert (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there something you want to discuss; something that might be controversial? L.tak (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my notes are not just notes for the sake of running a backpage forum for the European Fiscal Compact. As a part of developing and improving the article, I admit to have a habit of noting many facts and speaking out loud about my thoughts on certain points. I am sorry if it sometimes get too extensive, but it is also part of my own process to move forward my own thinking in the debate by gradual steps. On your request, I will now sum up my current position on how I see the article can "pick up and improve on the subject I have opened here.

First improvement I think we should implement, is related to the fact that the Fiscal Compact criteria will be evaluated both in the past direction of "recorded data" and the futere direction of "forecasted data regulated by budget law". Thus, I think we also in the article need to include the most recent version of both the "recorded data table" and "the forecasted data table" (OR if you only want only 1 table it should be the one with recorded data rather than forecasted data - in the quest to show the most encyclopedic relevant and accurate data), and then also have a subchapter that explain the uncertainties related to the "forecasted data regulated by budget law" - how this uncertainty was previously dealt with by the countries - and how they will deal with those uncertainties in the future (to ensure compliance with the new Fiscal Compact criteria).

The point about the newly implemented "automatic corrective mechanisms", is (as you already know) that the member states shall correct imbalances "on the fly" during the year. However, as we have huge uncertainties related partly too the method for calculation of "structural deficits" and also huge uncertainties for many countries related to the fact that final "tax income" is only calculated by the end of the year, the idea and approach of implementing extra counter correcting measures during the year, will in many cases be evaluated as being unjustified by the end of the year when the final data arrive. I of course support the new "automatic correction approach" introduced by the Fiscal Compact, but a country like Denmark would have to construct it in a way, so that we are calculating our tax income not only once a year, but perhaps four time a year to counter measure the current "income uncertainties". Denmark has a track record for the past 4 years, to have passed fiscal budget laws based on conservative estimates, where we by the end of each year ended up to receive a positive extra "unexpected" income surprise. This happened to us both in 2009+10+11+12, where we in all 4 years had a forecast showing our fiscal deficit would exceed the 3%-limit, but by the end of each year the recorded data always revealed the 3%-limit had been fully respected. If counter applying the fiscal compat correction mechanism backwords in history, then Denmark would have corrected too excessively, and most likely recently suffered from a second recession. To be honest, I am not quiet sure at the moment how much attention we should provide to such issues. For a small start, I however think that a short general subchapter about the entailed "measurement+forecast" uncertainties would be appropriate, and that our data section should not only display "forecasted data" but at least also start from next year to display a similar table with "recorded data from latest year".

What I have written above represents my current thinking and standpoint on the issue. But in regards of the "recorded data table", I recommend that we wait to introduce it until we have the final recorded data for 2013. Because showing the recorded data for 2012 does not really make any sence (in my opinion), as the Fiscal Compact did not apply in 2012 but only started to apply in 2013. But I support and think it would be a good idea, if any of us soon could start to look further into creating a subchapter to highlight the challange of "limiting forecast uncertainties in relation to a succesfull operation of the automatic corrective mechanisms", and "how/if this has been counter measured or dealt with in the various ratifying countries". Do you agree? Danish Expert (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another "uncertainty point" I forgot to mention in my reply above, is that the recorded EMU-debts are displaying the member state's gross debt, meaning that it can be reduced/increassed strategicly by the state i.e. by reducing the liquidity on public accounts or when selling some public financial assets (i.e. through privatisation of publuc companies). On top of that many states in 2009-12 launched a time limited rescue package for its bank sector, which meant their EMU debt temporarily increased, but when the financial assets the government got in return for the recapitalisation rescue packages are sold again then it will automatically help to bring down the EMU-debt. So in regards of the EMU-debt we are also not dealing with an exact sience here. It will be quiet easy, at least during the first years of the Fiscal Compacts lifetime, for the member states to ensure compliance with the EMU-debt criteria only by excercising some "creative book-keeping". I suspect most member state with excessive EMU debts have already speculated and planned their debt saldo's according to that (i.e. by building up some extra buffer cash liquidity on public accounts during the years where they have an EDP, and when the EDP is abrogated the extra buffer cash liquidity can then be gradualy reduced again in order to help ensure the EMU debt will show a declining trend). It is not directly wrong according to the fiscal compact rules to be a bit creative in this field.

My only point again is, that we in the new "uncertainty subchapter" should highlight that also the auto-correction mechanismn in its quest to ensure EMU-debt criteria compliance, will be operating in a field that can not be claimed to be an exact science, because it has not yet been described/regulated in sufficient details - leaving it open for a multiple use of various practises and interpretations in the various member states (at least during the first years of the Fiscal Compact's lifetime). Of course I am fully aware, that when a Member State operates a fiscal budget that comply with the Fiscal Compact's structural deficit criteria, then it will also in most cases automatically ensure that the Debt-to-GDP ratio will decline with a satisfactory pace (due to the fact that the nominal GDPs each year are increasing through inflation and real GDP growth - and thus even if the debt measured in euros will be kept unchanged it will relative to nominal GDP show a declining trend); so by the end of the day this "debt uncertainty" can indeed be claimed only to be of secondary importance. As it still constitute a significant uncertainty for the auto-correction mechanisms and the regulary conducted criteria compliance checks, I however still think the "debt uncertainty" should be shortly mentioned in our new "uncertainty subchapter". Do you agree? Danish Expert (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Danish Expert, I agree on some of your suggestions, but not on making a whole new subchapter. I think you should collect your thoughts on this issue and write one or more introduction paragraphs about the uncertainty and how this mechanism works exactly. And, I suggest we modify the table so that each country row (with the span of 2 rows) is connected to two year rows, one with the actual published results from last year and the other with the latest forecasted results. Colours would be applied to both lines per country, showing overall changes, or even changes per column. I would suggest you use a sandbox to prepare this introduction (from what you have already written here) and table. In this way, we could also correct things before copying it here. For this purpose, you can create your own sandbox, or feel free to use mine. Heracletus (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "outcomes" of the deficit would be a very good addition to the table, but feel unconfortable adding too much about depth uncertainty here. I have two reasons for that:

• Depth and deficit are linked to the European Fiscal Compact, but (by far!)not the only driver for fiscal deficits. Too much information here suggests too much that they are. I recommend to start an article "Fiscal complience in the European Union" or "government depth and defitits in the European Union" or the like that would be devoted to that and that would have a section on the link with all fiscal policies, the solidarity principle and emergency measures (in and outside the Eurozone). Here it should be brief...
• This article is IMO already on the wrong point of the line with regards to original research which shows in errors in interpretations of google translate and detailed evaluations of errors of the European Council. It does have a purpose (we have the most up to date overview on ratification on the internet), but should not taken any further, so discussions on the way values are interpreted/changed/manipulated can only be added if it are reliable secondary sources and if the subject is linked to the article subject.

I will rest my discussion on talk page length by suggesting that you indeed start a subpage (of my talkpage, your talkpage, this page) with your thoughts and comments in an attempt to keep this page small and readable and to the point; but still allowing you to develop your thoughts. L.tak (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understood it, the argument about the table was for adding the published exact data for last year along with the current latest projections/forecasts, which makes sense in my opinion. Also, a paragraph or two about how the mechanism works exactly (even without any mention about how it could be abused) wouldn't hurt. Heracletus (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be a bit out of topic, but say here that we should archive every 6 months for the time being, because the issues discussed here about ratification are still relevant, and dependent on the ratification process which takes (unfortunately, very) long... Regarding this, I do intend to prune that section as countries ratify the treaty, but, there are sentences about the implementation laws, about which I am not sure what to do. An example is Poland, where half the entry is devoted to the implementation law. Heracletus (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With all the recent changes, will we still switch to 2014 data when the Spring 2013 forecast is out? (We've been using 2013 data starting with the Spring 2012 forecast) Ambi Valent (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I suggest we keep showing the 2013 data until the autumn forecast arrives in early November 2013, where we then can switch to 2014 data. My argument for this is, that 2014 data will remain to be preliminary "no policy change" figures until November 2013. Only when Budget laws for 2014 are tabled ahead of the November 2013 forecast report, these data will be reliable enough to justify publication at Misplaced Pages (per the policy: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Polish ratification

The President of Poland signed the treaty http://www.prezydent.pl/prawo/ustawy/podpisane/art,31,luty-2013-r-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.178.161 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the heads up! TDL (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MTOs for all EU member states

Today I have updated the table in the Fiscal compliance chapter with a MTO column, as a follow-up to my recent reply in the discussion above. Already back in November 2012, I flagged it was important for us to include, but then unfortunately ran out of time to do it. But now its finally done, based on the following two sources (which I can recommend to read): Report on Public finances in EMU and Fiscal Stability Report 2012.

I plan to update the MTO column again, as soon as we get the new MTO target years published by the European Commission on 29 May 2013.

It is noteworthy, that the Fiscal Compact in general did not introduce any stricter criteria/limits. The debt criteria is identical with the one in use by the SGP, and in regards of the structural deficit criteria the SGP already introduced strict MTOs for this, so that 25 out of 27 EU member states already have a MTO fully complying with the Fiscal Compacts maximum limits for the structural deficit criteria. The only two member states where ratification of the Fiscal Compact would introduce stricter MTOs are: UK (which currently has a SGP MTO at 1.0% with a debt above 60%) and Hungary (which currently has a SGP MTO at 1.5% with a debt above 60%). If both countries ratify the Fiscal Compact their MTO will be lowered to 0.5% (for as long as their debt-to-GDP remains above 60%). The bottom line is, that the Fiscal Compact in most cases did not introduce stricter criteria/limits compared to SGP, but the key point where it makes a major difference is that it require all member states to implement the criteria directly into domestic law, while establishing national surveillance councils to monitor adherence to the rules are met on a monthly basis -and if not the automatic correction mechanism will be activated.

As my time in this week is limited, I will appreciate if some of you can help me also to update the Content chapter, about how the MTO's are related to the "budget balance rule" and "automatic correction mechanism" (and noting debt+deficit criteria in principle is identical when comparing FC with SGP for 25 out of 27 EU member states), so that we get this central "MTO term" integrated from top to bottom in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In the SGP article, I have now written this dedicated sub-chapter about the Medium-Term budgetary Objective. In addition it has now also been mentioned briefly in the content chapter (along with the fiscal compliance chapter) in the Fiscal Compact article. Feel free to post input if you think it is insufficient and/or not reported clear enough. A point of confusion in this field is, that "sustainability for the medium-term" means sustainability 20 years ahead in 2030, while "medium-term budgetary targets" usually represents what the state by maximum should produce in yearly deficits during the next 4 years ahead, and sometimes the states also have some so-called intermediate "operational targets", for each of the upcoming three years.

Just to mention one short MTO example, Denmark defined its 1.5%-2.5% surplus "MTO for 2005-2010" in Nov.2004 (which was only slightly revised in Nov.2005+Dec.2007) - then defined a new 0.0% "MTO for 2009-2015" in Dec.2008 - and in May 2011 Denmark published its current -0.5% "MTO for 2011-2019" along with a 0.0% "MTO for 2020 and beyond". Another example is Sweden, which outlined they currently have a -1.0% deficit MTO for achievement of "long-term sustainability", but along the way will attempt to achieve a national 1.0% surplus "operational target" during 2013-2016 (because they want to lower the debt more than actually required by the MTO-formula). Hence, it can sometimes be quiet confusing. According to how I currently understand the MTO definition, it should be calculated to be the worst average structural budget balance allowed for the state throughout the next 20 years - in order to deliver an economic sustainable government to the next generation. States are of course allowed to over-achieve if they have a fiscal policy of leaving "no debt" to the next generation (which would leave them better of than the current generation), and apparently this is the current "2030 fiscal policy" by Sweden+Denmark. To make it all a little bit more confusing, the Fiscal Compact allows Denmark to have a structural MTO deficit of -1.0%, but yet we have selected our MTO to be -0.5% in 2011-2019 and 0.0% in 2020-2030. At the moment it is the member state and not the European Commission, that decide what the MTO shall be. Despite of being somewhat confusing, I think it benefits the articles "Fiscal compliance" table, that it now also feature the latest country-specific MTOs - including the forecast for when the MTO is achieved. Danish Expert (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Great news (MTO formula revealed)

Great news: Today I have been reading this very interesting MTO source. It is a technical report explaining exactly by what formula the current upper MTO limits are calculated. This is by far the very best source to read, if you want to know how this is done. All 30 pages are a highly recommended read. One of the first notes in the report states, that until 2009 there was no MTO upper limit calculation formula, but that the Commission then in November 2009 developed a formula, which they strangely enough opted to classify as "top secret". So it has (as of 2010) never been published officially. Based on the published "2009 Code of Conduct for calculating MTOs" (outlining the main principles), the report has however based on a reasonable set of assumptions now managed to calibrate how the exact formula looks like. The formula for calculating the MTO Minimum Target is:

• MTOMT (MTO country-specific Minimum Target) = Maximum (MTOMB, MTOEA, MTOSM). <=> The lowest value of {MTOMB, MTOEA, MTOSM} will be equal to MTOMT.
• MTOMB (MTO country-specific Minimum Benchmark) is the "no breach of 3% government deficit" safety margin, which was disclosed by the European Commission (2007, p.107), and is calculated to provide a safety margin against the possibility that, given an unexpected worsening of economic conditions, the nominal budget deficit suddenly rises and exceeds the Maastricht 3 percent of GDP reference value. This notion underpins the country-specific MTO minimum benchmark, calculated using a country‟s sensitivity of budget balance to output gap together with an estimate of output volatility –e.g. the extreme (negative) value of the country‟s output gap that might occur in the future with a certain probability-10. Thus, a country whose budget balance is more (less) sensitive to cyclical fluctuations -probably as a result of institutional arrangements concerning the operation of automatic stabilisers- should be committed to a more (less) demanding MTO and therefore to a tighter (looser) medium-term target for the structural budget balance. A similar commitment is expected from a country exhibiting a business cycle with large (small) output movements since an unexpected, large drop in economic activity is more likely (unlikely) to occur, dragging down the budget balance.
• MTOEA (MTO country-specific Euro Area limit), is the EU regulation limit enforced on all Eurozone states and ERM2 members, to achieve at least a structural deficit of 1% of GDP. Note: If any state is bound by the fiscal provisions of the "Treaty on Stability", it will be either 0.5% of GDP if the debt-to-GDP ratio is below 60%, or 1.0% of GDP if the debt-to-GDP ratio is above 60%. States that are neither members of Eurozone/ERM2 nor bound by the Fiscal provisions of "Treaty on Stability", will have no MTOEA value to be considered in the equation.
• MTOSM (MTO country-specific limit addressing the issues of Sustainability of public finances; implying room for budgetary Manoeuvre for Member States with relatively low debt to perform potentially increased public investments) = "Budget balance stabilising debt-to-GDP ratio at 60% given a country's long-term growth rate of potential GDP" + "Supplementary debt reduction effort for countries whose debt exceeds 60% of GDP" + A proportion of the adjustment needed to cover the present value of the future increase in age-related expenditure (i.e. the cost of ageing) <=>
• MTOSM = -(60* long term potential growth rate)/(1+ long term potential growth rate) + 3.3%*(debt-to-GDP ratio last year - 60%) + 33%*S2E, with "long term potential growth rate" measured as average for 2010-2060 (as published by the Commissions Ageing Report), and S2E indicator represents the fiscal adjustment needed to finance the country's increased ageing costs throughout 2010-2060 of which however only 33% of the S2E savings needs to be put aside on saving accounts during the years - assuming the state will implement the remaining 67% of savings through later implemented structural cost saving reforms (S2E values are published by the Commissions Sustainability Report)*. *Member states can also instead of using this standard S2E formula (33%*S2E), opt to calculate the annualized value of cost of ageing cumulated until 2040.
• A country must commit to achieve an MTO (denoted MTOD, with D standing for "declared") that is equal or more demanding than the MTOMT, so that: MTOMT ≤ MTOD.

This is basically how it works. Unfortunately it is a bit too complicated for being explained just by a single line. When I get time during the last half of this week, I therefor intend to add the direct equation info listed above directly into the Medium-Term budgetary Objective article. For the moment I think there is no need to include any of these equation details also in the European Fiscal Compact article, as it already contain a wiki-link to the MTO article. Please, let me know if you agree/disagree with my decision. Danish Expert (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

History chapter disputed

After reading the history chapter today, I have added a disputed-section tag for the Response to the sovereign debt crisis chapter and Negotiations chapter. I found several mistakes/misunderstandings included in both sections. In example the claim that the Financial Transaction Tax should be entailed by the "Treaty on Stability" is wrong, and it is also wrong to claim the "Treaty on Stability" will create a fiscal union (it is only a small stepping stone towards a fiscal union). Likewise it is also inaccurate to claim Germany pressured other Eurozone states to agree implementing fiscal budget rules into domestic law (as I recall Germany's proposal in May 2010 about balanced budget rules amended into domestic law, was first endorsed by an anonymous euro summit, and since then became the first working stone to give birth to the "Treaty on Stbaility"). Feel free to help correct all the issues with inaccurate formulations. I guess most of the issues can be fixed after reading the references and adjusting the text accordingly, although in a few cases we might also need to correct the issue by adding new additional references. Currently, I have not time to read through all the sources in the chapter and correct it myself, so feel free to help fix it. If nobody has time to help with this, I will slowly start to fix it next week. Danish Expert (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Danish, I am a bit lost regarding what you are planning to do. Now it seems we have a fork in the article with two similar sections. If fixing means making a separate chapter from scratch, after which you remove the other version, then please indicate so and proceed by proposing a new version here that we can replace after consensus (it's otherwise not a very collegial way to work). Could you place react here on your planned procedure; and if indeed a complete recast is proposed: please move the proposed section here, where we can work on it until there is consensus to include it…. L.tak (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My procedure is to work from top to bottom in the History chapter. At first I will correct the incorrect informations, and if the provided source does not say what it should, then I will of course replace it with a better source. Currently I have only checked and approved the first two subchapters: Background + Response to the sovereign debt crisis. By the way, the lengthy Trichet citation you removed, was only to highlight what he precisely said, to proof that he did not directly spoke of a "fiscal union", but simply of need for enhanced fiscal and economic integration in certain areas for Europe to benefit from the new opportunities arising from Globalization. I do not object you removed it. In fact, I only left it in full length so that other editors (like you and Danlaycock) in a fast and easy way could check if I had managed to extract the most important points out of it (and could consider if it should be reduced to perhaps only two of the lines, or entirely removed).

Please note, that I have not yet started to rename/merge subchapters in the History chapter, as I planned only to do that as a last step in my process. The first two chapters present the broader context/background for the later creation of the Fiscal Compact, with the first one focusing on the situation ahead of the financial crisis until 2008, and the second one focusing on the context in the post crisis years. If some of you prefer this should instead be merged into one chapter, I will not object. The two last subchapters named Proposal development: Sixpack, Twopack and Fiscal Compact and Negotiations, are something I indeed consider to merge into one chapter. But as I said before, during the next week my intention is first and foremost to check/verify content, and then only as a last step my intention is perhaps to propose a new chapter structure. I haven't checked any of the sources yet in these two chapters, but despite of that already know 50-75% of the lines are formulated incorrectly when compared with what other of my sources are writing. My intended content scope to be displayed by a merged final third chapter, is to map and note the date for "proposals submitted" + "initial positions by those negotiating the proposals" + "info in what way negotiations changed initial proposals" + "date when proposals entered into force". As my time is limited, my first work will only be to fix the problem with inaccurate formulations, and the second step will be to improve the structure+content along the lines I have descriped here in my reply. Danish Expert (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as long as you don't throw things out with the bathwater and discuss when making big changes that might be controversial, by all means, go ahead... L.tak (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can promise you that, and I really do appreciate all your feedback. When making the next update, I will post a brief status here at the talkpage, to list what I so far did and how my thoughts are on what still needs to be worked on in the chapter. Danish Expert (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurobonds

Why are they relevant in relation to this Compact? L.tak (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, they seem not; only in the "bigger plan" the according to certain sources this is a part of… I have removed it. L.tak (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As I replied in the History discussion above, the two first subchapters named "Background" + "Response to the sovereign debt crisis" are both context/background subchapters. They attempt to map the broader context of why the Fiscal Compact was invented/agreed in first place. A part of this reason, is that many countries has a political wish for a later implementation of common debt instruments like Euro-bills or Eurobonds. Many countries (in particular Germany) however demands, that before they will be ready to consider introduction of common debt instruments for the eurozone, they need as minimum for all Eurozone member states first to agree on enhanced rules for Stability (Stability and Growth Pact), Coordination (Coordination of economic policies), and Governance (increased economic governance through euro summit meetings). Hence, this is one of the political reasons why the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance was signed and ratified. To understand the history behind the Fiscal Compact, the information about early political proposals for common debt instruments is highly relevant also to include. Based on that, I will now reinstate the paragraph you removed. Danish Expert (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you dig deeply into the matter, you will btw also be able to find sources highlighting that crisis hit countries suffering from high governmental interest rates (at an early point in the crisis) has attempted to push Germany to sign a political agreement for a roadmap with a later introduction of euro-bills/Eurobonds, as part of a solution to lower their governmental interest rates. All economic experts agree that common debt instruments like euro-bills/Eurobonds (where all states guarantee completely for each other towards external creditors) would indeed ensure equal interest rates in Europe (in principle such instruments would mean that southern Europe then can draw on Germany's high credit ranking, while the German government will have to pay a slightly higher interest rate due paying the price for a decline of its credit ranking due to their promise to guarantee in full for liabilities of the slack economies in southern Europe). Germany on the other hand has rejected signing a political agreement for eurobills/eurobonds in the short term, and instead been pushing hard to repair a broken Stability and Growth Pact with the purpose of calming markets through executing increased fiscal responsibility, and answered this need first to be in place before they are ready to consider a potential introduction of eurobills/eurobonds. My own perception of the political positions in this field is, that Germany is actually ready to support the introduction of eurobills/eurobonds, but only on the condition that Europe first succeed to repair the broken Stability and Growth Pact, because Germany only want to excersize genuine solidarity towards Southern Europe if they genuinely commit to execution of the same fiscal responsibility policies as Germany does. This is understandable from a neutral point of view, because otherwise it would always be "responsible Germany" paying for the irresponsible behavior of the Southern Europe. The moment equal responsibility is shared, then my prediction goes that eurobills/eurobonds will also indeed be introduced. Danish Expert (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful addition for a general article on the Eurocrises etc etc, but here, it is only tangentially related. This pages getting out of control and the focus is getting lost. The relation is there (granted), but the direct link is not obviously there: you need to "dig deeper in the matter", make "predictions", make vague text ("all experts agree"), "own perception", "perceptions". Let's make a "see also" link at the beginning o fthe history chapter to the true wider context, and not enlarge this even further… L.tak (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not propose to enlarge it any further, compared to the 4 context paragraphs already written in "Background"+"Response to the sovereign debt crisis" in the article. My reply above was just to post the argument behind my claim, that it was justified to say eurobills/eurobonds is also part of the important context behind why the Fiscal Compact was created. The paragraph you removed, only comprised 7 lines, which did not only refer to eurobills/eurobonds but also to the sixpack and twopack. I suggest we keep the paragraph in the article for now, and then when the History chapter has been updated for the second half, we can start consider potential compression of text or if anything of the written material should be skipped. In my point of view it adds to the quality of the History chapter, that we first have a "background chapter" that briefly explain the context around the Fiscal Compact proposal, to tell the reader why it was born. And then afterwords supplement this with a short "negotiations chapter". BTW, I don't expect the History chapter from now on will grow any further in length, compared to now. The rest of the work in the chapter will mainly be to adjust formulations, and add supplemental/better sources for some of the lines in the second half. Danish Expert (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration note for "Ratification completed" overview table

Yesterday in the Ratification completed section, I wrote the following note for Romania + Denmark, as observation for what the meaning of "full application of treaty by declaration" meant:

A non-Eurozone member state which has declared itself bound by all treaty titles. This however does not include being legally bound by the additional "EU article 136 regulations" referred to by Title III+IV of the treaty, which as per the EU law (article 136 of the TFEU) only can apply for Eurozone states.

The second line of the above note was however removed by L.tak, reasoning that: "The effect of "full ratification" was already pretty explicit; and it is not a standard declaration (Denmark was the only one to do so); not relevant enough for this page."

My reply is, that the additional Danish declaration observation does not only apply for Denmark, but in fact also for Romania. It is a matter of "legal observation", and something that can not be regulated by "declaration words" nor by "national legislation". The point to keep in mind here, is that EU law (within the EU treaty competencies) always has a higher legal position compared to domestic law. Hence, Denmark and Romania can not as non-Eurozone states be legally bound by those EU law regulations under article 136 of the TFEU that only explicitly apply for Eurozone states. In my point of view this observation is not something obvious for the casual reader to be aware of. The confusion arise i.e. from the second provision of Title IV which specifically say:

Contracting parties are committed to make active use whenever appropriate and necessary: 1) Of the more ambitious regulations and measures applying specifically for Eurozone member states in accordance with article 136 of the TFEU (which relates to the already existing enhanced and more strict Stability and Growth Pact regulations applying only for Eurozone member states)

Hence when hearing that Denmark+Romania has declared to be fully bound by this provision, it might lead the casual reader to think these two states will now also be legally bound by the EU treaty's "article 136 regulations" according to the line above. But this is not the case. To be more specific, the consequence of all this is that the SGP's article 136 regulations only applying for Eurozone states (i.e. those introducing fines for states which repeatedly refuse to implement commission recommended fiscal corrections), will not apply for Denmark+Romania. In my point of view, it is relevant that the listed declaration note, now shortly also mention this to the casual reader, which I attempted to say with my full note listed above (which I now in the attempt to reach consensus has formulated in an even more clear way). Please let me know if you agree and can accept my formulated version above, or have counter proposals to perhaps an even better formulation of the note. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You give the answer yourself. It is not obvious at all!

1. This declaration was made by Denmark, and not endorsed or whatever by any other state.
2. The value/truth of this declaration is unclear. It could also be a declaration reducing the application in part as any non-Euro state is allowed to conform "by all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty." In any case: it is about Denmark only (and might have "universal application" because it is implicit in the treaty within the context of its relations with other instruments, but we don't know, that would be up to the European Court of Justice to interpret)
3. The interplay between Eur Fisc Comp, national law and community law and the founding EU treaties is complex. Especially because the refer to each other. But also because the treaty language is so vague "are committed to make active use whenever appropriate and necessary".

In other words, it is not up to wikipedia to interpret this. It is venturing so far into OR that I strongly object. Please do not add it again, until there is consensus; and suggest possible alternatives on this page (maybe a quote in a ref, where it specifically refers to Denmark?). L.tak (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@DE: While all of the above is quite likely correct, it is also quite obviously the result of your original research. You can't present your personal analysis, based on flawed logic, as an undisputed fact, which is precisely what you're attempting to do here. I feel like we've had this same discuss a million times, but nothing ever seems to change.

If you want to claim that "A non-Eurozone member state which has declared itself bound by all treaty titles ... does not include being legally bound by the additional EU regulations referred to by Title III+IV of the treaty" then you need a source that says that. At the moment, you've sourced this to a declaration made by Denmark where they accept the provisions of the treaty titles with the explicit exception that they don't accept to be bound by any extra EU regulations. Denmark obviously felt the need to specifically declare that they aren't bound by these regulations because they thought the legal situation was less than 100% clear. Even if we accept your dubious argument that this was a "legal observation" and not a "declaration" (the source clearly labels it as a declaration and not an observation, and note that it says "Denmark will not be bound ..." and not "non-eurozone states will not be bound..."), Denmark's position is still but one opinion, and as a WP:PRIMARY source it is not appropriate to make the far reaching conclusions which you are attempting to do if they are not explicitly stated by the source. It is likely true that non-eurozone states are not bound by these regulations, but you need sources that specifically say that, not something which you interpret to imply it.

And no, I don't think that the causal reader would be confused by the clause "Contracting Parties stand ready to make active use, whenever appropriate and necessary, of measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro" into thinking that these states are automatically bound by any of these measures. Speaking of which, the text you added to describe this paragraph of the treaty WP:PLAGiarizes the source without proper attribution. We've also had this discussion in the past. Everyone makes mistakes, but you promised to be more careful last time though it seems that this hasn't been the case. I don't have the time to deal with this at the moment, but we're going to have to go through the entire article and remove all the plagiarized text. A quick glance at your recent edits reveals that this is a serious, ongoing issue which is not confined to this article, so I may need to request admin intervention as well to protect the project.

I've tried to be patient with you for the last year, and give you detailed, policy based explanations for why your edits are not appropriate, but I feel like I've just been banging my head against a wall. I'm really starting to come to the conclusion that you lack sufficient WP:COMPETENCE to contribute productively here, as it seems you are either unable to sufficiently comprehend, or unwilling to abide by, wikipedia's core policies. TDL (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@L.Tak: Point taken. I accept your arguments. Let's keep the line out, for as long as we don't have any explicit source for it. The reason why I highlighted this in first place, was based partly on my "own reading of article 136 and own knowledge about how legal laws are prioritized within EU" and based partly on the fact that both our "Danish Prime Minister and Danish ECOFIN Minister" in a public TV-interview ahead of the treaty being ratified in Denmark (in spring 2012) - indeed confirmed that when Denmark ratified all provisions of the treaty "this would not mean that Denmark would become subject to potential fines for not following the EU commissions adjustment recommendations -as ratifying the intergovernmental Fiscal Compact could not alter on how the existing liabilities regulated by the EU treaty should be understood". Based on that, I highly suspect it is true this part is only a "legal observation" and not a special "Danish declaration". But you are of course correct to call for a source to proof the claim. I will start to search my Danish sources, to check if I can find some written material. If you have time or energy for this, then please help me to find the needed source by searching through all our international sources. Please do not be mad on me for adding the disputed clarifying line. I attempt to clarify a lot of things for the benefit of the article, and see it all as an ongoing working process where we all continuously work to improve the content (incl. finding additional sources for various claims). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@TDL: Thanks for being rude. The truth is that you already throughout the past 6 months have been reading through all of my Misplaced Pages contributions, and now when you found and discovered one so-called example of WP:PLAG in the content chapter you are apparently so happy about it, that you immediately use the opportunity to throw mud against me again. Feel free to do whatever you want. I have now fixed the WP:PLAG concern you raised your concern about by adding the quotation marks for the "copied phrases", and yes there has been 3 points in the content chapter where I was careful to construct all sentences in my own perfect clear fine way in the attempt to avoid breaching WP:PLAG, but where it was not possible to reformulate the words of certain phrases compared to how they were formulated by the treaty, because in that case we would risk making the grave mistake to enforce our own interpretation of the words, which could very well be a complete misleading of the readers, so it was far better to use part of the same "phrases" as the treaty did. This is why you recently found 3 examples placed on the borderline of WP:PLAG (which were written by me as clarification of the points at the exact same time). I take your point, that it in this situation however was better to use quotation marks for the phrases, rather than attempting to balancing on the borderline of WP:PLAG. This is why I left it undisputed, when you yesterday corrected the two other "incidents in the content chapter", and this is also why I now today also corrected the third point according to your standard for this issue (which both of us overlooked to correct yesterday). I really think you should relax your angry temper towards some of my minor edit mistakes, and start to appreciate that all of my edits have helped greatly to improve the articles you and I have a common interest to improve. Life is to short to be mad about minor issues. Cheers, Danish Expert (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL and Danish Expert, I think you're again arguing too much over nothing. The copyright statement here reads:

"© European Union, 2004-2013

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated."

So, Danish Expert just add proper references when you copy something and try to keep it short or rephrase it (not only change one word), and also, try to view our comments as friendly comments to get better. You are adding too much content too fast and we can't just keep an eye on you all the time for possible policy violations. You have to understand how things should work, so that TDL doesn't have to review your edits all the time. Your content is valuable, but, also sometimes has poor language, is your own conclusion or is copied exactly as it appears somewhere else. Try to address these issues, or use a sandbox when you want to make a long edit (so that you also make only one edit in the article page).

TDL, stop picking on Danish Expert all the time. You're overdoing it, and you could try to understand this. You can also make the proper changes yourself - or ask him to stop making more edits, until you discuss what he has already added - instead of just reporting him or threatening to.

For the specific issue at hand, we should only mention that some countries have declared themselves to be bound by this treaty in full. The very specific details of them being bound by relevant articles of other treaties or not are a bit too much to include here. The fact is they have declared themselves to be bound fully by this treaty, so, this is what we should write here. They have not made any comments on being bound or not by the articles of other treaties, so, there's no reason to write such a thing here.

Danish Expert, try to include in wikipedia only things that are explicitly reported elsewhere (in a secondary source, preferably). Heracletus (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

About my shortcomings: As a native Dane, I admit to have a shortcoming in regards of sometimes not formulating perfect English lines straight from the start. It is however never as bad as TDL claim. It is always fully understandable, and I never write like an 8-year child as he sometimes claim. It is not possible for me to perfect it more than I do. On the other hand I could also potentially fire back at TDL, with criticism that each time he has corrected my edit, I need to return and fix a high amount of typos he leave after correcting my edits (but for the sake of it I never complain about that). Recently I initiated a process to improve and clarify the formulation of the lead, and indeed succeeded after TDL made his corrections to my update, while I then afterwords had only to return one time to correct and further improve some minor mistakes/typos left by TDL. We all have our shortcomings. But when they are really minor, I think there is no reason to complain. I think we all complement each other in a good way. It would be nice if TDL at some point of time could also start to appreciate the great content value I deliver for the articles which he is highly interested in, instead of criticizing my formulation style. I hope most of you also have noticed the great value of my edits added to the article during the recent week, where I managed to correct a lot of old written misunderstandings and add some important clarifications and new info about MTO. Personally I do not expect to receive any thanks or gratitudes, but to say the least, I think the value of my many clarifications and content contributions by far outweigh, that the quality of my English language fair enough only can be rated to be of medium quality. Danish Expert (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

About missing quotation marks in 3 content points: Finally I want to emphasize, that I do not have any general problem with adding sources correct. The problem TDL highlighted here, was a specific case where he pointed out that quotation marks where needed, because after I had written a version of the line by as many of my own words possible it was still 80% identical, because the specific content points could not be formulated with other words due to the source using either vague/specifically formulated references (so leaving it with 100% of my own words would simply be an even worse solution, as it would then be either inaccurately reported for the specific facts, or constitute an incorrect enforcement of my own interpretation of the meaning of the vague parts of the provision). In fact I think TDL fully agree with me on that, because he also opted to insert quoted phrases when he a few days ago corrected the first two of my recently added clarification lines in two content points. Today I have now implemented the exact same fix for the third point he today raised a flag about, which we both had overlooked to correct a couple of days ago, when TDL corrected the other two points. So actually TDL and I fully agree on how it is best to report these 3 points, and all problems have been solved! In regards of your suggestion to add a specific source along with the quotation marks, I think this is not needed as it is already obvious that the entire content chapter is based on the "Wikisource" listed in the grey box. Danish Expert (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

About the specific line debated: If you all think its irrelevant to add info that non-Eurozone states declaring to be bound by Title IV wont by bound by the referred to article 136 regulations in the second Title IV provision, then I will obviously not use time to find such a source. However I have to counter argue on this view, while quietly noting that in a Danish context this significant detail was evaluated as being important enough to become highlighted in the Danish TV-news. Currently we have existence of several "article 136 SGP regulations" that only apply to Eurozone states, where it is impossible that they can apply legally for the non-Eurozone states declaring to be bound by Title IV, despite the fact that Title IV explicit refer to, that member states bound by this treaty title, should commit to adhere to the article 136 regulations of the EU Treaty. Normally this would not confuse us experts in the field, but I maintain it is something that will confuse the casual reader, being left with doubt whether or not Denmark+Romania now as a consequence will need to adhere to the "article 136 SGP regulations" after declaring to be bound by Title IV. I recall the Danish ECOFIN minister said in the Danish TV-News, that when Denmark declared to be bound by title IV, this would when seeing trough legal glasses, only reflect an outspoken willingness for Denmark to voluntarily comply with the content of all article 136 rules, but that we could just not -due to the legal limbo- be directly sanctioned/regulated legally by those EU rules (for a potential non-compliance), until the point of time of becoming a Eurozone state. In my point of view it is important to inform the readers (and all non-Eurozone states), that non-Eurozone states declaring to be bound by Title IV, will not be legally bound by all article 136 regulations (and thus not risk being fined by EU for a potential SGP non-compliance). I look forward to here more comments, if you think based on the debate so far (while assuming it is possible indeed to find a specific source confirming the line), that this extra clarification line should be added or not? Danish Expert (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Danish Expert, you also need to calm down a bit. If you cannot write in perfect English always, it's not a big deal, someone else will just correct your English eventually. I find your edits mostly constructive and valuable, and that's why I have tried to not escalate our past conflicts. But, I made a few other points as well, which you would need to think about addressing... I do think that usually the points we debate upon are not really really significant.

The reason why you face so much opposition is exactly because you add too much content too fast and therefore multiple issues may arise. I do disagree with the approach of TDL towards you, but, you also need to understand that most points TDL makes have some basis. So, try not to take things too personally and to think of the point the other side is trying to make.

I really mean no offence towards you or TDL, but, you really escalate your conflicts for reasons I find not significant enough. I also identify I usually fail to provide a third opinion in a way that would resolve the conflicts. I do not know how to address this issue in a different way other than suggesting you to try to think about potential issues before adding too much content, and suggesting to TDL to be even more patient with you.

For this specific issue in this talk section and for any other such issue, if you find a source supporting your point, and if your point is not almost completely irrelevant (and, in this case, it is not) you can probably find a way to squeeze it somewhere in the article and noone will really be able to remove it. The problem is you usually stick to minor details and have not found a source supporting your points BEFORE adding them. Misplaced Pages is not a place to create content on your own, it's mostly a place to record already existing content. So, the usual way is to first find a source, then, add something. I do understand and know that when you know something is true, you (or me) just want to write it even before you (or me) locate a source proving it to others, but, unfortunately, this is not the way wikipedia works, because the content needs to be verifiable even by people who have never heard of terms such as the "Fiscal Compact" before. I do hope you understand.

To understand my point, I will share my personal experience. At some point Raúl Bobadilla signed for Aris. All Aris fans knew this and most had witnessed him signing. However, it took some days for a source to publish that this happened. And, until they did, I kept getting reverted when I added that he had signed for Aris. I knew it had happened, I had seen him signing, but, for some 24-48 hours I could not prove it here... :P Every time I got reverted I got pissed off of course, but, I couldn't do something. Now, you have to defend even smaller details than an international player signing to some team, so, you have to put up with even bigger opposition to your edits, even when you know these are true.

I can also assure you that 99.9% of casual readers don't even know what "article 136 SGP regulations" are and that if it ever comes to that and some other country disagrees with the interpretation of the Danish ECOFIN minister, a court will have to decide over this issue.

If you find a source proving the Danish minister said that, you can try to add it somewhere, not in the general footnote, starting with this: "According to the Danish minister responsible for ...., Name Name, <your/his point>...". Then, noone should disagree much. Heracletus (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to including a brief explanation of this (especially if it received significant coverage in the media), but first and foremost it needs to be sourced. And yes, I'm fine with quoting the relevant parts of the treaty, as long as proper attribution is provided. TDL (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to DE and Heracletus here. TDL (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for clarifying your points of view. I will slowly return to my edit-work, and do not feel offended by any of the comments made towards me within the last 24 hours. Let me kindly remind, that I have all along taken part in a process to implement a solution for all raised issues in a very constructive way. In regards of the extra line removed by L.Tak, I will now attempt to find a source for it, as I clearly agree with him (and the rest of you) that such a source is needed. This was indeed an incident, where L.Tak was absolutely right to remove it. I have accepted it already early in the debate, and way before it reached a status of being an "edit conflict". I also admit that this was clearly a mistake from my hand, due to going ahead with my edits a little bit too fast. I apology to all of you, that I forgot as minimum to add a CN tag behind the extra line (in addition to the Danish declaration source I had added). Personally, I also admit paying attention to details. But in this case, I still think this particular detail is very important to highlight (as it is key to understand what treaty rules each state is legally bound by).

My only attempt when adding the disputed line, was genuinely to help clarify what the notion "full appliance of all Treaty titles by declaration" really meant for a non-Eurozone state, because I considered it to be a serious issue needing a clarification fix to reflect the reality. As I have now indeed detected movement from all of you towards acceptance of adding this "disputed note", provided that a high quality source for it can be found, I will now continue my quest to find such a source by searching through all of my Danish sources. But as my time is limited, I also invite all other editors to help me search for this when reading through your International sources. If no source can be found at present time, then I highly suspect a source will be generated within the next year, at the latest around the time when each EU member state in April 2014 publish their next stability/convergence reports (where this note about "limited rules" could be expected in the reports from Denmark/Romania and/or it might also be listed in the filed Commission recommendations as response to the convergence reports in May 2014), or perhaps the info might also be uploaded a little bit earlier at the EU Commission's website for Economic Governance (despite that TSCG is not an EU treaty). I accept to keep silent about this key issue in our Misplaced Pages article, for as long as we do not have a specific source for it, and then look forward at a later point of time to enlighten the readers of the article about this issue, as soon as the needed source arrives. Thanks to all of you for a good solid debate. Danish Expert (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of making this bigger than it is (a content dispute on whether the addion was i) factually correct in the way it was formulated (which I dispute as it was presenting a declaration of Denmark as having any value on Bulgaria) and ii) presenting a clear fact that was not based on synthesis or original research (which I disputed as well)). I still consider adding it controversial, but welcome discussing once you have found a source on how and to what extent it can be added. In view of this, please consider any change still controversial and thus propose it on the talkpage first... the reason why -I think- TDL wrote (edit conflict), was not because there was a controversy over this item (well there was, but that's not the point), but simply because when he pressed "save page" the edit conflicted with the edit I made a few minutes earlier; a technical save page conflict, not a content conflict thus... L.tak (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed line about Globalization challenges

In the History: Background chapter I recently reformulated the Trichet speech line to this version below, in addition to leaving an edit summary saying "Extended the line once again to include that "Globalization challenges" (challenges from increased Global competition) was the main reason behind ECB's opinion, that increased Economic and Financial integration was needed in certain areas.":

1. If these fiscal policies were adhered to by all member states, the ECB believed that this would increase Europe's competitiveness, and ensure the impact of the continuously growing Globalization would be positive rather than negative for the European economy.

Today TDL removed the last half of the sentence (bolded above), and noted in his edit summary: "remove globalization mumbo jumbo again. we aren't the EU's propaganda machine. please seek consensus on talk page before restoring".

I do not agree it is appropriate to remove the second half of the line. It is not a line produced by "EU's propaganda machine". On the contrary it is a line, that help to inform the reader about in what context Trichet made his recommendation for an increased Economic and Financial Integration. The context in 2007 was that Trichet argued increased Economic and Financial Integration was needed in certain areas in order to enable that Europe could circumvent (or take positive advantage) from the increasingly growing Globalization challenges. The title of Trichet's speech is "Building Europe in a globalised world", so the source clearly support we also mention the "Globalization" when referring to Trichet's speech. This is in my point of view an essential info to keep included by the line, in particular because the line is listed in the background/context section of the History chapter. After eruption of the European sovereign debt crisis, the focus/argument for implementing increased "Economic and Financial Integration" has shifted. Today the main argument is that it is needed in the effort to repair the EMU, aiming towards making the monetary union more resistant and resilient towards economic shocks by preventing instabilities in the financial sector, preventing a building up of macroeconomic imbalances, and ensure member states execute a strict compliance with the Balanced budget rule and Debt brake rule. What I attempt to say, is that "Globalization challenges" is a different context background pushing for the creation for the "Fiscal Compact", compared to the "European Sovereign Debt Crisis". This is why I want to highlight that the Trichet-proposal was made in a context, where he attempted to outline how Europe should tackle the economic Globalisation challenges. Please let me know, if you after reading my full argumentation in this reply, now support/oppose that we include my bolded words in the line above. Danish Expert (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally cannot find any really significant reason for removing this phrase (which in its entirety could\should be put inside quotation marks if it was taken off the actual speech). At the same time, I also find that including it is not extremely crucial for the article. To conclude, it's just a matter of style - and I really do not understand the tension over such stuff. Are you and TDL going to draw lots over who owns the article, or should I get the pop corn? Heracletus (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Mid-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles