Talk:European Fiscal Compact/Archive 1

Brussels agreement section

This section seems to contradict it's self, it starts out saying "all 17 members of the eurozone agreed on a new intergovernmental treaty to put strict caps on government spending" and end up concluding "The new treaty could take three months to negotiate". My question is if it has been agreed why does it need to be negotiated ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence. EU leaders agreed on the content of the new treaty. Bureaucrats are now finding ways on how to properly implement the agreement into EU regulation. The final text shall then be agreed on by March 2012.--spitzl (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

European fiscal union is the proposed fiscal integration of European Union (EU) member states --> One should add who propsed it. I doubt that a fiscal union has been agreed upon.--Sustainlogic (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The present discussions about the fiscal union, at the ongoing Brussels summit and so on, relate only to a union among the Eurozone members. Only these would actually come under the rules of fiscal co-operation, budget control etc.

Although the PMs and presidents of the other states (excepting Britain and the Czech republic) are in on that accord, it doesn't make them buy into the realtime fiscal or spending controls (which have of course been watered down anyway from the original intentions two months back) for their own states. The article in its present shape, and especially the map at the top, gives the impression that nearly all of Europe would be in negotiations to join a hardlined fiscal union within a few years; this is not the case, although some lofty europhiles (broadly speaking not the ones sitting at the gears of power) probably would like to see that happen.83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, or which title to use as an alternative Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

---

European Fiscal Union → Fiscal Compact – This name was coined by ECB President Mario Draghi, and is popular in the media. The website of the European Council reads: The fiscal compact ready to be signed. The formal name is apparently "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union". A "European Fiscal Union" isn't mentioned at all.relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) SSJ ^t 01:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – you need more than one source; secondary sources are more important in looking at what something is called. Pick a title that you at least have good sources for, and don't capitalize unless almost all sources do; it doesn't look like capitalization is appropriate for either of these. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "Euro pact" (with or without a blank) has become common in the news media over the past few weeks too, both in English and in some other national languages (Swedish, Danish, not sure about French and German but I've heard it in German). It underlines the fact that the ultimate purpose of the compact would be to strengthen the euro and that the solid body of controls would apply by default only to eurozone members - other states may join in there, but they are not obliged to actually take on the budget rules and would be under only limited judicial responsibilities). I suggest redirects from "Euro pact" and "Europact" to whatever name this page ends up having.83.254.151.33 (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think there are two different topics:

1. Fiscal union is the end product of (or possibly the process leading to) more or less complete integration in fiscal matters, with, for instance, one policy on taxation, in the same way that currency union requires a single currency.
2. The agreement between some European countries is often talked of as one step in this direction.

I think the present title describes the first and should not be capitalized, as it is not a proper name identifying a particular entity. The "Fiscal Compact", on the other hand, though not the official name, is (in my opinion) a proper name identifying a single specific agreement or treaty and should therefore be capitalized. Since the article currently seems to be mainly about the treaty, I would tend to agree with renaming it "Fiscal Compact", but the parts of the text that actually talk about the goal of fiscal union or progress toward that goal should be moved elsewhere or rewritten to reflect that they are explaining a general concept that is helpful in understanding the treaty itself. If the title were not capitalized, it would have to be preceded by "European", because the aricle is not about fiscal compacts as a class (like the article on Fiscal union). I agree that the name "Fiscal Compact" is becoming established, but a future move might become neessary if another name establishes itself after the treaty has been around for a while. The other topic should perhaps be described in an article named something like "European fiscal integration" (as a sub-article of European integration), which could discuss progress toward a European fiscal union in more general terms. --Boson (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A "fiscal compact" is a common term that is frequently used in politics, economics and the media to denote a tax commitment by political arrangment (e.g. between houses of legislature, or between federal and state, president & parliament, government & people, etc.). It was not "coined" by Mr. Draghi. He just happened to apply an the term to this specific case. But it is a generic term. Some sort of more precise title, clarifying it specifically to the EU and specifically to recent proposals should be worked out. I do agree the current title is inadequate (esp. the CAPS). Walrasiad (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose both the proposed move, and any alternative. I oppose the proposed move because, as noted above, "fiscal compact" is a generic term which should not be hijacked for one particular usage.
  OI oppose an alternative rename because any renaming seems intended to blur the crucial distinction between 1) the broad concept of a fiscal union for Europe and 2) the new "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance" (SCG), which is a specific set of proposals that are claimed by some fall well short of fiscal union. Whether or not the SCG is a fiscal union or not will remain a matter of debate, but to avoid confusion Wikipedia's article titles should retain a distinction between the broad idea and the specific step towards it.
  Please note that a similar distinction exists between the broad concept of European integration (on which we have a standalone article) and the various treaties and rules by which steps are taken towards integration. A similar separation is needed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• WikiProject European Union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support split Strong support I agree with Boson that the article should be split, but the agreement part should be at "Fiscal Compact". If fiscal compact was such a commonly used term than why isn't there already an article called that? Disambiguation brackets could be used if necessary but that's hardly so, given that there's no article competing for the name. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: A Google search for ""fiscal compact" -draft -referendum -ireland -draghi -MEPs -ecb -mep -2012 -van -rompuy -merkel -twitter -wikipedia -eu -european -europe -union -eurozone -czech -prime -uk -treaty -crisis -euro -"euro-zone" -draghi -brussels -ecb -germany" gives 10 700 hits (many of them still about the EU deal), as opposed to a search for "fiscal compact", which gives 1 530 000 hits, seemingly all of them about the EU deal. It's clear that calling this article "Fiscal Compact" is justified when it comes to what the overwhelmingly most common meaning of this term is. RTE writes ""Fiscal Compact:" What happens now that EU leaders have signed off on the fiscal compact treaty in Brussels?" They also call it "The Fiscal Stability Treaty": a term not common (yet).- SSJ ^t 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian: "But Britain will take legal action if the eurozone, or a eurozone country such as France, attempts to use EU institutions to re-write the rules of the single market as part of the enforcement of the fiscal compact." - SSJ ^t 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but to European fiscal compact. Mtking ^(edits) 00:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• IMO it's unnecessary to add "European" in the title. As the google search result shown above indicates, a disambiguation isn't needed. Especially since there isn't any existing article named "Fiscal compact". - SSJ ^t 00:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• This treaty doesn't create a new union. The existing EU institutions will be used, and according to Article 15, the deal will be folded into the EU's legal framework within 5 years. The focus is on the deal itself. "European Fiscal Union" is not a commonly used term (it smells crystal balling IMO) and seems unfounded; "The fiscal compact" is on the other hand a well-established term for this deal. I think this article should be named after the treaty; i.e. the short form "Fiscal Compact", and have a treaty infobox. This is about an intergovernmental deal; a new union within the union is not on the table. - SSJ ^t 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM. Fiscal mess in EU happens to be a recent and quite big topic of discussion. That term is being bandied about lately in the European press WP:BIAS is unsurprising. But that's not an excuse to steal conventional terms. WP:WORLDVIEW Walrasiad (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a few examples of the use of this term in a non-EU context? I don't find it on e.g. dictionary.com, and as I've said, a Google search clearly indicates that this is not very common outside the context of this new treaty. - SSJ ^t 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• How about a little more precision with European Union fiscal compact? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs, I would find that, or something like that, acceptable. Walrasiad (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything, "Fiscal compact (European Union)" would be more sensible, as "European Union fiscal compact" isn't the name of anything (besides, this doesn't involve all of the EU). But as I've said, I don't see the need for disambiguation as there's no other article competing for this article name. - SSJ ^t 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – the name of the article should be Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, ie the official name. However the treaty has not been finalised yet, so it would be better to wait the official sign of the treaty scheduled for March 2012.--Insilvis (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  The formal name of the treaty is IMO much too long, and isn't commonly used. "Fiscal Compact" is commonly used, and should therefore be the name of this article. That would be in line with the naming convention on Wikipedia. Note that the name is capitalised, something which clearly indicates that this isn't the EU "highjacking" a good old term (if it is a term older than a year, something I haven't seen evidence to suggest), but rather the proper noun of one treaty. - SSJ ^t 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This would go against both WP:COMMONNAME and our own naming conventions. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Title 3 (the main chunk with the rules) of the treaty is named "FISCAL COMPACT". Does anyone have a traditional definition of "fiscal compact"? If not, then I don't see how the articles stating that Draghi coined the term are wrong. Not that the existence of a conventional definition would be a reason for this article not to have "Fiscal Compact" as its name. - SSJ ^t 18:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Shortened: Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance --Insilvis (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The formal name mentions the monetary and economic union, and that's the whole point. I don't think this shortened name is a good idea. German Wikipedia calls it "Europäischer Fiskalpakt" i.e. the European Fiscal Pact (though I reckon "(fiscal) compact" is only used in English). If "Fiscal Compact" (clearly the most common name for the treaty, used by official websites, the media and senior politicians alike) doesn't turn out to be the consensus in this discussion, then my second proposal is "European Fiscal Pact". It's a name that's certainly more relevant than the crystal-balling and misleading current name of the article: European Fiscal Union. - SSJ ^t 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's still a made-up title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. - SSJ ^t 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Fiscal Compact or European Fiscal Compact. See my comments above and in following sub-section.. --Boson (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: I am keen to reconsider, but only after the treaty will be signed.
  POST SCRIPTUM: what about Fiscal Compact Treaty? --Insilvis (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Stong support for move (several good options available), the "Union" in the title is overstating what this treaty is, and we should not use it unless it becomse the common name to refer to it; or if the formal name changes to this. I am reletively flexible as far as the move possibities are concerned. I like "European Fiscal Compact" as clear and to the point and correct, or "Fiscal Compact Treaty" (as even more neutral: it just says there is a treaty about it; and does not leave the suggestion of synthesis in the title in defining what excactly it estabishes in practice. L.tak (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The inevitable conclusion

1. The common name for an article about this treaty is "Fiscal Compact", not "European Fiscal Compact", "EU Fiscal Compact", "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance", and "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union". The first three are just names made-up by Wikipedia editors. The last is a rarely used proposed official name of a treaty which hasn't even been signed yet.

2. There has never been a rule on Wikipedia that just because a name sounds generic that it can't be used as an article title for a non-generic subject. See for example Ordinary referendum or Minister for Labour. The rules is just that if there are two articles with the same name, we use disambiguation tags on one or both of their page names.

3. If someone wishes to create a generic article concerning fiscal compacts please do so. When that occurs we can argue about which gets to be at "Fiscal Compact/Fiscal compact". Otherwise it's entirely unnecessary. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. - SSJ ^t 18:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. And quite presumptuous. Quite in disregard of WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:RECENTISM. If this was 1999, I'd sure you'd be all over the place talking about how "monetary union" was a phrase exclusive to the European Monetary Union. You seek to abscond with a common phrase generically denoting common phenomenon that is not exclusively European nor related to this latest crisis nor invented by the EU. It is a phrase used for many situations, at many times, in many parts of the world. Exclude all European newspapers & media from your search and see how far you get without the "European" or "EU" or "Eurozone" disambiguator. Walrasiad (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand what all the fuss is about. "Pious baloney" (as recently coined by Romney) seems to be a good description for it all. European Fiscal Union is an excellent title, explaining the focus of the article and using a widely accepted term. As for the other suggestions, there is already clear mention of the European development in Fiscal union and, for the time being at least, Fiscal compact redirects here too. So let's just keep things the way they are. - Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree: the best option is to keep the title as it is now.

(Or, alternatively, modify it slightly into European Fiscal Pact)

--Insilvis (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No the current name can't stand. The treaty doesn't propose creating a fiscal union. That would involve a European finance ministry with tax raising powers. There may well be an article to write about proposed European fiscal unions [sic] but this isn't it. Whatever complaints about world view and recentism can be overcome by moving the article to Fiscal Compact (European Union). — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If Barroso himself can talk about fiscal union, then the title seems perfectly adequate. See, for example, here. Maybe lower case would be slightly preferable but there is certainly no need to come up with a completely new formulation, especially as nothing has been ratified at this stage. - Ipigott (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something, in that speech Barroso refers to

• "fiscal compact" 5 times
• "fiscal stability union" 1 time (together with "fiscal compact")
• "fiscal union" 0 times

Here are the quotes:

• And indeed, during Thursday night an agreement was reached to create a genuine "fiscal stability union", a new "fiscal compact".
• Let me now move on to the key elements of the new fiscal compact.
• Personally, I made every possible effort to agree this fiscal compact fully within the current treaties.
• I intend to make full use of Article 136, by proposing to this House all the legislation that will be needed, to make this construction work, to tie this fiscal compact back to EU law, and to buttress it with the democratic legitimacy of this Parliament.
• It is indeed very important that member states agreed a fiscal compact, but let me say that this is not enough.

--Boson (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the current name cannot stand as the title for an article about this treaty. "Fiscal union" is something different. I am also not happy about using Czech and Russian sources to justify the statement that it has been described (even erroneously) as a fiscal union.--Boson (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Rename but to Eurozone fiscal compact or possibly European fiscal compact. This will not apply to the whole European Union, only to 25 of the 27 members. It will not be a European Union treaty. On the other hand, we may need to rename it again when it is actaully singed nand ratified, so that it may be better to await events. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

EU six pack

Very important legislative package entered into force in already in 2011[1]. I don't see this mentioned here or in another article, so maybe a EU Economic governance "Six-Pack" should be created. See also here.

Actually, the EU six pack (and the expected additional EU regulations for Commission oversight of eurozone national budgets) constitute more of a "fiscal union" than the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union" that only slightly tweaks the already existing debt/deficit rules. Japinderum (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking for Sixpack (EU)? I added it to the "see also" section. --spitzl (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks! Japinderum (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Map: Slovenia

In the map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Fiscal_Compact.svg

Slovenia is not part of the eurozone.

Nevertheless, Slovenia is part of the eurozone.

Cheers. --Insilvis (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for pointing out. --spitzl (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this be at Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance? —Nightstallion 15:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not if you consider Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names (and Wikipedia:Official names). --RJFF (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

General debate on the best use of policies/approaches to reach a consensus at Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a fruitless debate not helping to improve the content of the article. Thus it is now proposed by me (Danish Expert) entirely to delete this section from the talkpage after 30 days from this note (provided that Heracletus and TDL agree, and no other object). If you submit any replies to the archived debate - please limit your respond to whether or not it should be entirely removed or stay as an archived section. Best regards to all, Danish Expert (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I support archiving it, after 7 days. Heracletus (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Solution agreed by all 3 implicated debaters was to archive the debate after 7 days. This has now been done. Danish Expert (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

@Danish Expert: You're misunderstanding how the WP:EP here works. You added some content that I found to be non-notable, and I removed it as per WP:BRD. It's not my responsibility to be patient and leave the content in the article until you establish a consensus for its inclusion. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that there is a consensus for its inclusion. In the future I hope that you will be more patient before trying to edit war content into the article for which there is not yet a consensus. Yes it is notable that some state were "late" ratifying the treaty, but we don't need an entire section to mention that. But the table clearly gives the date of ratification, and as Heracletus suggests we could even add a footnote to the states that ratified after the entry into force of the treaty if you like. We don't need an entire section to say only "they were late".TDL (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of "misunderstanding WP:EP + WP:BRD" and "trying to edit war"??? In order not to repeat myself, I will just refer to my previous replies above, where I provided a high quality explanation why I at 1 time undid your removal of content currently being debated for a consensus approach. When you shortly afterwords undid my revert a second time, Heracletus agreed with me you did not have the right to do so according to WP:BRD. You were simply too bold, and completely ignored to respond on my carefully listed argument for why a "status quo of content" should be kept for as long as our ongoing consensus debate had not been concluded at the talkpage. I of course assume you acted in good faith here, and think it is pointless to use anymore time to debate your inappropriate repeated use of the WP:BRD "reverting tool". My only point was, that I think it would have been faster and easier to debate the structure of the subchapter, if you had not at first removed all the issues you personally had for some of the lines/countries (and none of your replies have changed my oppinion on this). In order to prevent an edit war, I however long time ago for this single case accepted your opposite approach (First to remove things - and then to start a debate wether or not the removed and now invisible content should have been removed or not). Both of us are obviously deeply engaged to improve the article, and have put many hours into this during the past year. I think we should both focus on the article now, and settle our non contributing dispute on wether or not it is best to "temporarily keep"/"immedeately delete" content being actively debated for consensus (after an editor has posted such a request as a friendly respond on your first use of WP:BRD). By the way, I also never argued for a section dedicated just repeatedly to note "they were late", but as described in full detail by my reply above, my argument is, that it would be good if we continue to have a subchapter with short lines providing the "explanation(s) why certain states had a delayed ratification". Danish Expert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You and TDL are both "bad boys" (assuming you're males), and love to change each other's edits (cf. "wording" edits - where the wording is/was quite ok and you keep changing it per POV). In the end, you will either have the discretion to stop playing like that, or ask for dispute resolution, or keep it down, or, ask for an admin... Danish Expert, you usually want to include highly detailed content that is not very notable. Ok, perhaps, some newspapers will report that one of the two or of the 6 branches of a country's parliaments have passed a law on a specific date, but, even local newspapers on uneventful summer days will not go into details about first, second or third reading dates. TDL, you may be playing by the rules, but, like a good lawyer, you know how to (ab)use them; it is not exactly well-established who was doing what per BRD (and, it's not even an official policy), and, you made a point about the thing for Belgium being OR, and, yet, you commented it out and did more OR.... Also, your merging edit of eurozone and non-eurozone ratifiers was highly arguable and POV (only 2 non-eurozone have declared they want to be treated like the eurozone ratifiers). Please, people, let's stop arguing over and over the same things. I think the section is fine as it is now. I think it was also fine when it was not merged. And, I think that most of the notable content will survive in the end. Please try to refrain from POV and arguable edits, or discuss them for consensus.

Arguments like "you have to establish consensus to keep this there" are as valid as "you have to establish consensus to remove that from there". Also, "that has", "which has", "having" and a few other words can be used to say the same thing, and are all STANDARD English. Danish Expert, I accuse you of not understanding what is notable to be included, how many words are enough to say something in the article, and, not always using good English. TDL, I accuse you of using the above-mentioned shortcomings of Danish Expert to sometimes push your own POV on the article in insignificant ways, such as style. None of these accusations are meant seriously, but, some of your points and edits seem to me to be backing these points. You are both good editors and provide valuable information. Keep up the good work and try to address your shortcomings. Heracletus (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An issue that needs to be addressed is the wording and update of sections for the legal challenges of TD Pringle in Ireland in the European Stability Mechanism, Thomas Pringle (Irish politician), and Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland articles. These challenges, if successful, would have affected the Fiscal Compact, too. So, if you have the time, you could fix those. These challenges are also the reason why we've had some IP editors claiming that Ireland's ratification is illegal, and should be considered null and void. Heracletus (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I will make a friendly request, that any additional replies in this section should not be about how TDL and I generally behave or contribute with content to Wikipedia. Because this is really off topic, and not appropriate for this section focusing entriely on "General debate on the best use of policies/approaches to reach a consensus at Wikipedia". I do not have a general problem with TDL (or his frequent rewording of my content), as I so far only was engaged in edit processes with him that ultimately improved several articles. Your observation is correct, that my main focus has been to provide new updated content to several articles and so to speek mainly function as a content provider. It is also true, that as a native Dane my English formulation is not always perfect. The core of this current dispute I have with TDL, is however not related to his frequent rewording of my content, but only related to the fact that I did not appreciate his specific action and arguments launched on 22 December 2012, where I felt he ignored my request to temporarily keep the disputed content and structure unchanged, until we had completed our consensus debate here at the talkpage, per the argument that it is easier to debate visible content rather than invisible content. This request was ignored, and in my previous replies I provided my grounds to express why I was not satisfied with such a treatment. But as I also outlined above, despite of my disagreement, I have accepted this approach was taken in this particular case, and just advised TDL in the future for a potential similar situation, that he should consider a less bold approach towards disputed content being subject for a consensus debate. In example, your add of the {{Content}} template in the disputed chapter is in my point of view a very good example of what can help editors to reach a consensus, instead of just removing the disputed content two times in a row - like TDL did. I never complained about how TDL behave in general. I just criticised his reaction/actions on 22 December 2012 with removal of content he personally did not find appropriate -but being subject for an uncompleted ongoing debate-, being something that specificly did not help to create a new argued consensus. But just like you, I want now to move on with the specific debates instead of dwelling on a specific editors action on 22 December, which I felt was inappropriate. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I was a bit out of line there, but, indeed some edits are just changing the style of the wording. I don't mean any personal insult, but, ok... Heracletus (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Danish Expert WP:BOLDly added content, and I WP:REVERTed these changes. I'm not sure what the confusion is here, this is exactly how the process is supposed to work. Danish Expert, you can't claim that your version is the "status quo of content" when the content had only existed in the article for a few days. The very fact that I reverted your changes shows that there was no consensus to make these changes. The obligation is on you to establish a consensus on the talk page in favour of making changes to the long-term status quo if a dispute arises. Just because I agreed not to argue over the removal of existing non-notable content in the article, doesn't mean that I approve of the structure and thus there is a carte blance consensus for the addition of endless amounts of content until a consensus is reached. Each edit needs a consensus of its own. And just because you disagreed with my responses, doesn't mean that I "completely ignored" you arguments. TDL (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity here is the course of events. On 29 November the two of us reached consensus of keeping to have a colour coded status chapter for "Late ratifiers" (ratifying in Q4-2012 or later), and that short status notes should be kept for countries with green status if they had significant events having caused a delay in ratification; meaning that all non notable details should be cut away the moment a country achieved a green status. We agreed on that, as per your last comment on 29 November. For the next 3 weeks our agreed practise was followed, and I indeed cut away non notable info for Estonia+Finland when they turned green. Spurred by the launch of a renewed consensus debate for the content in the chapter by Heracletus, you made this comment on the talkpage 05:39 on 22 December, and subsequently you went on a half hour later to remove this from the article: Estonia+Finland with green status + The concept outlined by subchapter title and introduction lines of having the subchapter to list all "later ratifiers" (ratifying in Q4-2012 or later, with significant events having caused a delay in ratification). You are correct, that you as an editor always have the right to challenge new info. But after you had been reading our renewed discussion at the talkpage, it was in my point of view obvious that we now had a renewed ongoing debate about how the structure for the subchapter should be. Your contribution to this debate was not to launch an argued point of change at the talkpage, but instead to enforce the change as per how you wanted the change to be in your own POV. And then you cited WP:BRD as the reason why you had done so. I then replied to you 11:37 on 22 December, that I found your use of WP:BRD inappropriate as we obviously had an ongoing debate at the talkpage about the change of content/structure, and thus it was better to temporarily keep status quo of content until we had reached a new consensus, as per the argument it was easier for everbody to debate visible content rather than invisible content. And so I restored the status quo of content 11:37 on 22 December. When you found out 21:25 on 24 December you decided to ignore my request for a temporary keep of status quo of disputed content as you undid all the restored content without giving an argued reason for this at the talkpage, and in the edit history you even cited you used WP:BRD for enforcing your POV change. Your second use of WP:BRD happened at a point of time, after I had made a friendly request at the talkpage for these changes not to be enforced a second time by you, but instead debated for consensus at the talkpage. WP:BRD clearly states that if an editor reply your bold change with another bold answer then you should not continue to use WP:BRD to enforce your own POV but engage in the talkpage debate with the editor to reach a consensus.

My conclusion is, that you in this particular case was too bold (or accidently got confused about the state of the ongoing debate), and that it would have been far more appropriate in such a case not to make a repeated use of WP:BRD, but instead have respected my counter argument that it was better to temporarily keep status quo of disputed content until we had reached a new consensus of what to do on the talkpage. When we already have an ongoing debate about it, then it is anyway also much more helpful not to remove content citing WP:BRD two times in a row, but instead to leave an argued oppinion for change on the talkpage and to use the {{content}} template to get other editors engaged to leave their argued oppinion at the talkpage with the purpose of helping us to reach a new consensus. If you are not willing to admit that I am correct on this point, I am for the case of principle ready to submit this case for evaluation by an administrator to give a third oppinion as per WP:DR. For the matter of the record, Heracletus already agreed with me that it was in his point of view indeed inappropriate that you used WP:BRD two times in a row. Again, I think it is best if we both put this entire dispute behind us instead of using WP:DR. But if you continue objecting to my points stated above, and can not understand my point of view after this long reply, I really think we should contact an administrator to ask for his point of view on how it is best to reach concensus for an ongoing debate as per WP:DR. No offence ment, but I am certain he will agree with my point stipulated in this long reply, that my friendly request to "temporarily keep status quo of disputed content until a new consensus was reached in combination with a use of the {{content}} template to engage other editors for leaving their oppinion on the talkpage to reach consensus" is a far better instrument to use, compared to your choise instead of using WP:BRD two times in a row to change content+structure according to an enforcement of your own POV (without debating your wanted change point by point at the talkpage before enforcing it - and not responding to my request to temporarily keep status quo while debating the content). I assume you acted in good faith, and think our long debate about it, mostly has been spurred by some confusion about who did what and why. I have no problem at all, in regards of how our debate has progressed after 24 December. I just want to make my point clear, that I did not find your use of WP:BRD two times in a row (22 December + 24 December) helpfull for our subsequent debate. On the contrary the debate only got more complicated by the move. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DE, again you are misrepresenting my comments. On November 29 I only agreed not to continue pushing for the removal of the non-notable content that I had previously objected to. You seem to feel that somehow I agreed to support the current structure and the addition of further non-notable content. I did not. For the next three weeks, your desired format was followed only because I was offline for this entire period. As soon as I returned to editing the article, I reverted your recent changes per WP:BRD. There was never a consensus for the inclusion of this content, and thus my removal until such a consensus was demonstrated was entirely normal procedure. Again, you can't claim that your version is the "status quo of content", when this content had only existed in the article for a few days. The "status quo" is the "last agreed upon version", which in this case is the version circa November 29. My reverts were to restore the article to the "last agreed upon version". (Just to reiterate, if your objection is only to my removal of content which existed prior to November 29 (for example on Finland and Estonia), I already stated that I don't object to you restoring it. My objection is to you restoring the new content for which there was never a consensus to add.) Your suggestion that we should keep your newly added POV material in the article until there is a consensus to remove it runs counter to all of the normal consensus making processes here on wikipedia. Your changes didn't have a consensus, so I reverted them.

If you'd like to seek clarification on this matter from an admin, feel free. Though unless you're going to request that I be blocked or something, I fail to see what you hope to accomplish from this. Arguing over who was right and who was wrong doesn't help improve the article. I suggest we move on to more productive things. TDL (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

TDL, thanks for clarifying that you were absent from wikipedia from 30 November until 20 December. This fact however did not change, that you 00:18 29 November 2012 (at least on that point of time) had agreed to my adjusted consensus proposal for structure + content criteria for the subchapter entitled "Late ratifiers" (which I descriped in full by 2 comments on 28 November). Perhaps you did not write it explicit, but reading my comments on 28 November and your reply on 29 November leaves absolutely no doubt that you gave your consent at that point of time to my consensus proposal. Again I had no problem that you subsequently return and challenge specific content in the subchapter by removing certain lines, but I had a problem with your removal of the entire section for the two green countries Finland+Estonia and your change of the agreed consensus structure for the subchapter (by your change of title + removal of the "late ratifiers" listing criteria). I still think such bold removals should not have been made at a point of time, where Heracletus you and I had started on a renewed consensus debate for the structure + content criteria. Again you are allowed to do so as per Wikipedia Policy one time whenever you like (if you think it improves the article), so I can accept that you changed it the first time for a trial (despite of being an enforced POV change of our previous consensus). But that you do it two times in a row -both times citing WP:BRD-, and with the second removal even taking place after you read my friendly request on the talkpage: Temporarily to keep status quo of content+structure according to the last undisputed version from 04:11 22 December 2012 - for as long as we have an open consensus debate about the disputed content - per the argument that it is easier to debate visible content rather than invisible content, was not appropriate. By doing so on 24 December, you clearly ignored my friendly request on 22 December for a "temporary status quo of structure + content criteria". Moreover your claim that my add of new structure + content criteria had been made without prior consensus is not correct. I have to remind you, that my "new chapter structure" was introduced already on 19 October and then per our consensus debate it was further refined on 29 November (where the list inclusion criteria was reformulated from "9 slowest ratifiers" to "ratifiers in Q4-2012 or later"). What you did on 22+24 December was to change the subchapter structure + content criteria as per your own personal preference, from something that had been in place for more than two months in a row (thus implicitly also being accepted by many other editors contributing to the section). You enforced your own POV, and ignored my request we should temporarily keep it until reaching a new consensus. In all of my previous replies you can see that I admitted my own mistakes/shortcommings whenever someone pointed them out. Can you ever admit when you accidently have done something, that when looking back in the mirror can not be described as being 100% according to the Wikipedia policy? I do not want to launch any WP:DR against you, I only want you to admit that you could have handled things better back on 22+24 December. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a language comprehension issue or what, but you're drastically missunderstanding or missrepresenting my comments from November. Nowhere doesn't the comment you link to show that I "agreed to my adjusted consensus proposal for structure + content criteria". I specifically stated that "if there are sources which explain why a particular state took longer to ratify the treaty (ie France's election) this is notable." (the cases I objected to were unsourced) and "I still don't think we should include the redundant info". I still had serious concerns, which I made clear in this comment. Your attempts to find hidden meanings in my comments which imply support for your structure and put words in my mouth aren't helpful to the discussion.

You keep returing to Finland and Estonia, confusing two distinct issues. My objection is only to your restoration of the new unsourced or non-notable content added after November 29 (ie on Romania and Belgium), not to the restoration of the content on estonia/Finland. I've been telling you for weeks now that you should go ahead and restore this content if you object to it's removal and I won't re-remove it. Please either retore this material as I've been suggesting or stop complaining about it.

You boldly added unsourced speculation on Romania and Belgium. I reverted these changes. However, you immediately boldly restored this material. As you point out, one bold edit is perfectly acceptable but you ignored my objections and made a second bold edit in an attempt to force this disputed material in the article. This is what I objected to and why I reverted. The very thing you're accusing me of doing, is precisely what you yourself did. The difference, of course, is that I've repeatedly told you that I don't object you you restoring the Estonia/Finland material I boldly removed. My second revert was only ment to remove the Romania/Belgium speculation you restored, and had you only undid my bold edit, as opposed to all of my edits, I would have never made the second revert. However, you keep claiming that your boldly added speclation on Romania and Belgium should remain in the article until there is a consensus for its removal, with the bogus rational that your revision with the newly added unsourced speculation was the "temporary status quo" and "it is easier to debate visible content rather than invisible content". You can't have it both ways. As I've said all along, there's not yet a consensus to remove the Estonia/Finland details so you can restore this material. However, there is also not a consensus to add the Romania/Belgium speculation, so you should not restore this material. TDL (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From your last reply above, I see absolutely no reason to continue this debate any further. It is now obvious, that confusion did exist as Heracletus suggested, and that this polluted the atmosphere of our debate at the talkpage. My point is, that when I propose a "new chapter structure + content criteria" at the talkpage on Nov.28, and when you reply Nov.29 to this only by specificly raising your concerns about a single line for Romania (and afterwords are three weeks absent from the debate), then it is fully legitimite for me to assume you have implicitly given your consent to the "new chapter structure + content criteria". If things were otherwise (as you now say they were), then you would normally expect an editor to explicitly raise his consern about it as part of his reply on the talkpage. I think our long debate about the correct/best procedure for removals or consensus indeed by itself is a proof, that things did not run perfectly smooth in this particular case. My point still remain unchanged, that the way you acted on 24 December, where you ignored my request for a "temporary status quo while debating" and undid my previous restoration of the chapters "structure + content criteria + content" to the 04:11 22 December version, was not the best way forward in the light of our ongoing attempt to reach a new consensus about the disputed content. The respond by Heracletus to add the {{content}} template on the other hand was a far better choise. If you on 24 December instead of your complete revert of my restored content (for the second time by citing WP:BRD), had added the {{content}} template and only had undid my reverts of "your removal of speculative comments for Belgium+Romania" (and not insisted also to undo my restoration of the two-months old structure+content criteria), then we could entirely have avoided this tense debate at the talkpage, as such a move in my eyes would have been a friendly respond to my friendly request. Hopefully you do not belong to the group of stubborn persons having a hard time to admit whenever you could have handled something in a slightly better way? On my part, I am ready to admit my action on 11:37 22 December to entirely undo both your "content change" 05:29 22 December and your "structure+content criteria" change 05:59 22 December, should have been limited only to the latter. The fact that I undid both, hower do not permit you subsequently to implement a complete revert of my attempt to restore the subchapter into its last undisputed "structural state". I simply got offended by your move on 24 December (mainly because it unilateraly destroyed a two months old "structure+content criteria" - at a point of time where it was being debated for a new consensus and where I explicitly at the talkpage had requested a status quo for as long as we debated it for a new consensus). Our debate has subsequently moved on in a more positive direction, and I do not complain about any of your actions after 24 December. Moreover, there is no longer any need to restore the structure into the previous one, as we have now partly developed a changed new consensus for "structure + content criteria". Only thing to regret is, that because of the way things were handled on 22+24 December an unfriendly atmosphere pulleted the debate, resulting in a pile of unproductive time used by both of us to sort things out about who did what when and why - here at the talkpage. The outcome of this current sub-debate should be a reminder and an eye-opener, that we both could have handled the debate better back on 22+24 December. Things were not black/white as you previously argued. If you are ready to admit that, I will subsequently close this sub-debate as being a settled issue. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't raise "concerns about a single line for Romania". At that point in time, no line about Romania had ever existed in the article. I raised the general concern that you were adding unsourced speculation and non-notable content to the article. You subsequently ignored these concerns and continued adding more, which is what I reverted. While you may have mistakenly assumed that I gave "implicit consent" to the addition of more of this material, I did not. Its removal until a consensus for its addition is the standard procedure on wikipedia.

I would argue that the way you acted, ignoring my request to keep the "long-term status quo while debating" and instead unilaterally restoring the speculative content for which there was no consensus, was not the best way forward. Had you of reverted only my second edit and added the {{content}}, this dispute would have been avoided. Notice that I made my changes in two distinct steps: first a revert, followed by a bold edit, giving you the option of undoing only the second edit if you objected to. Also, in my revert I was careful to go through your edits in detail for the past 3 weeks and only reverted the content which I objected to, as opposed to doing a full revert to November 29. You chose to revert all of my edits in one step, so I had little choice but to undo your single edit. Yes, I could have tried to disentangle the components of the edit, but given that you'd done a full revert it hardly seemed worth going through that process again. I probably shouldn't have made my second bold edit in the first place, since discussion was ongoing on the issue, however you're making a huge deal about a single revert. You seem to be more interested in proving that I was wrong than addressing the problem. I told you one day after my revert that I didn't object to you restoring Estonia/Finland. Instead, you've chosen to spend 3 weeks trying to prove I was wrong instead of solving the problem. TDL (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So now you respond by offending me again??? Thanks a lot!!! Your accusation that I did not help to move the consensus debate and article content forward during the past 3 weeks is ridiculous and unfair. You now clearly owe my an appoligy. Just look at all my positive edits and replies both in the article and here at the talkpage (where I positively engaged in the debate), and please also note that I helped to structure a very unstructured debate by adding several subchapters. I have already proofed my point in this sub-debate, about which things you should have handled better (beside of admitting my own shortcommings). If you are not willing to learn from your past actions (which were not perfect in the given situation) it is really your own problem, and say a lot more about you than it does about me. All the time I have attempted to be friendly and point out why I got offended by your move on 22+24 December. In my past 3 years, I have never experienced any similar clash with other editors! You are the first! To be frank, I think the problem is because you will never admit you could have handled things just a slightly better. For the sake of cleaning up the talkpage from this fruitless sub-debate, I think we should archive it and entirely remove it from the page after 30 days. If you want to continue your launch of herassments against me in this debate you are more than welcome. The choise is yours. Personally I will however not add anymore replies into this sub-debate. Danish Expert (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. I never said that you didn't help move the the debate forward. I said that you decision to hound me for 3 weeks about a single revert, instead of simply resolving the issue by restoring the content that you objected to me removing as I suggested, wasn't helpful to the discussion. Yes you've made other positive comments, but this thread has done nothing to improve the article. You're obsessed with blaming me for the situation and forcing me to apologize or admit I was wrong. As for all of your other WP:PERSONAL attacks, I'll take the high road and keep my integrity instead of sinking to your level. I've tried to be polite with you, WP:AGF, explain to you why your edits don't follow policy, and focus on the content, but you seem unable to get beyond your dislike of me and improving the article.

Finally, as Heracletus previously informed you, your attempts to "help" structure the debate really was quite inappropriate. I didn't complain about it at the time, since tensions were already high, but WP:TPO clearly explains why you shouldn't refactor other editors comments without their permission. Yes it was probably done in good faith, but it really wasn't that helpful. If you'd like to archive the discussion, that's fine but please don't delete it. TDL (talk)

@Heracletus: WP:OR doesn't apply to hidden content. As for my merging of the eurozone and non-eurozone states, that was a WP:BOLD edit. If you disagre with it, feel free to revert me and I'll start a discussion on the issue on the talk page. As for the personalizing of this debate, I really don't think this is a major dispute. I've dealt with many "difficult" editors on wikipedia over my 8 years or so on the project, but Danish Expert certainly isn't one of them. While we disagree on things, I firmly believe that DE is always making good faith efforts to improve the project and our debates have been mainly civil. Obviously we share an interest, and so DE edits many pages on my watchlist, generating a substantial amount of valuable content. However, I often see text that I find is either overly verbose, awkward, or gramatically incorect which I try to improve. This is all just part of the collaborative editing process, and something that I regularly do to many edits to pages on my watchlist. It has nothing to do with specifically wanting to change DE's edits. TDL (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. Just want to add, that the reason why I often also opt to return to rephrase your rewording of my content, never was related to something personal, but simply because that some of my intended points are by accident often cut away when you reduce my content. After a series of rephrases, we however always end up with a better end result compared to how it was initially phrased. Everything is good. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for any offence taken. I did not mean to imply that you are not civil or that you are acting really out of line. Just some edits seemed to me like rephrasing small sections over a few times by using equivalently correct words. All's settled. Heracletus (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ireland

Neither of the presidential assents previously listed under Ireland referred to him signing the treaty. I don't know if the president ever signs instruments of ratification. The first assent was his signing of the referendum bill. The amendment is only effective when it is signed.

The second would be when the president signs the statute implementing the treaty, the Fiscal Responsibility Bill. Arguably the government could ratify the Fiscal Compact now and enact the bill later.

Maybe the better route would be to exclude details of the Bill but included the Dail resolution required to approve treaties involving a charge on public funds required by Article 29.5.2°. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Most countries -if not all- have chosen a 2-step route. First the Parliament system and constitutional system only ratifies the Treaty itself, by confirming the assent made by their Prime Minister at 2 March was fully valid. Second the Parliament system will start the work to enact the national law implementing the Treaty, whith a final deadline for the implementation regulated by the Treaty to be: 1 year after the Treaty enters into force. Danish Expert (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to listing the presidential assent of the constitutional amendment, my only concerns is with consistency and clarity. It doesn't make much sense to list the presidential assent but not the Dáil and Seanad approval of the constitutional amendment.[2] Also, it should be clearer that this is what was approved. TDL (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I share the concern of TDL. Thus I just updated the table with a compromise, with the words "of referendum" noted in a small parenthesis behind the first presidential assent. As far as I know, Ireland will now soon start an ordinary ratification procedure of the Treaty, after the constituion has been changed to allow for the ratification process to start. So I expect both Dail+Seanad+President now to soon ratify the Treaty itself, and hope they will not bundle the ratification together with the bill implementing the treaty, as that would considerably slow the ratification speed. Danish Expert (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bailout?

The article refers to the emergency loans by the EU as a bailout, and links to the "bailout" wikipage. Which is pretty one-sided in declaring bailouts are evil, that Ron Galt said they're evil, and did I mention they are evil? Most important though, what's talked about there is business bailouts. State bailouts (whatever they're called) are different, since when a business goes insolvent and is not saved, it will disappear, and its workforce have to find work elsewhere, and then (as proponents say) the situation improves again. Meanwhile, unless you advocate territorial annexation or mass migration, a state may go insolvent, but still remains in place - there's only the alternative between having to go through reform either when insolvent or earlier during a bailout.

So I think either the EU emergency loans should be referred to by a name other than "bailout" or the links should go to a different page, or nowhere at all. Ambi Valent (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Be bold. --spitzl (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just removed the link. I agree it would be appropriate for wikipedia to have two seperate articles explaining the concepts of a "business bailout" and "bailout of souverign states", respectively. Danish Expert (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal compliance

This is just to bump a short note and share my current thoughts and ideas, in regards of the recently added "Fiscal compliance" table. Beside of informing readers about "Fiscal compliance" for the first Fiscal Compact year in 2013 (supplemented by info on "EDP adjustment deadlines" and the initiated "aid/correction from bailout programs"), I also currently have an idea eventually to add a subchapter named: "Old data and the corrective EDP mechanism". My thought and idea is, that it could be interesting to preserve the table and its fiscal data as of August 2012. So when the European Commission publish its next Economic forecast report on 15 November 2012 (with data reflecting the result of the final fiscal budget laws for 2013), we shall plot this data into a new comparable table in the main chapter, and place the table with the old data in a subchapter named "Old data and the Corrective EDP mechanism". My idea is, that this could provide the basis of a "first hand" impression, in regards of how well the "corrective EDP mechanism" worked in 2012; measured by how many red lines it succeeded to convert to green lines going from the "forecasted 2013-data as of May 2012" into the "forecasted 2013-data as of November 2012" (being revised mainly by the newly signed 2013 fiscal budget laws in each country). Danish Expert (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also be interesting finally to repeat this way of posting the 2014-data, at the time when the European Commission publish their fresh forecast in May+November 2013. This would then provide another "first hand" impression, in regards of how well the "NEW corrective EDP mechanism" (introduced by the Fiscal Compact) worked in 2013; measured by how many red lines it succeeded to convert to green lines going from the "forecasted 2014-data as of May 2013" into the "forecasted 2014-data as of November 2013" (being revised mainly by the newly implemented 2014 fiscal budget laws in each country). Danish Expert (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

After a second thought, I start to get less hot on my idea above. Problem is, that we unfortunately in many cases have too many factors having an impact on the forecasted structural deficits. The first and biggest problem is, that the Nov.2012 forecast does not include the improvements by those drafted "fiscal budget laws for 2013", that havent yet been approved by Parliaments upon the time of conducting the forecast. So we have a bit of a mess, and if we attempt to do an "improvement comparison" we should also note which country forecasts are based upon "old policy" and which country forecasts are based upon a "newly approved fiscal budget for 2013". I am afraid this will spoil my idea to conduct the "improvement comparison" for all countries. Another caveat for some countries, is that even the figure for "structural deficits" contain some volatile components. In example, it is well-known that Denmark in 2010+2011 delivered an unexpected improvement of its structural deficit, due to some big increases of the 2 very volatile revenue items: "Pension yield tax" and "North Sea oil revenues". So while our Danish EDP program deliver deficit impovements on 1.5% of GDP walking from 2011 to 2013, it should be noted our actual structural deficit at the same time also got further improved by an unexpected/unforecasted 2.4% of GDP in 2010 and again 2.2% of GDP in 2011. To be honest, I wonder if this could happen again for Denmark in both 2012+2013, as it seems like the EC forecasts continue to underestimate those two revenue components. Another source of error is, that a part of the improvements on structural deficits during the course of the year, are not always related to some new and immedeately implemented fiscal policy changes, but can also be caused by earlier succesfull reform decisions made a couple of years earlier, with a "hidden" positive impact now occuring a bit ahead of time or at a bigger scale, compared to the initial forecast/expectation. So fiscal improvements in one year, could in many times also be due to good reform decisions made some further years back, and this further complicates our attempt to figure out in what specific year the "corrective EDP mechanism" started to work perfect. To say it short: It will in most cases provide some misleading info, if we directly link any visible "improved compliance of the recently forecasted figures for the upcomming year", together with a judgement of how good we think the "corrective mechanism" actually worked at that particulair point of time. So after a second concideration, I now think it is better to drop the idea of showing both the "May forecast" and "Nov forecast" for 2013, and I will also drop the ambitious idea to evaluate the "corrective mechanism" by doing a direct comparison of the improvements gained. I now feel more like, that we instead just should limit ourself only to include one table in the article with the most recently forecasted figures for 2013. Danish Expert (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think another whole table would be too much, I'd limit it to one column comparing structural deficit numbers (current and pre-compact). I'd also like a third color (yellow probably) for the countries that satisfy the conditions of the SGP but not the fiscal compact. That would be Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic and maybe Hungary (its debt is over 60% but declining, Germany and Italy with higher declining debts were counted as complying). Addendum: Maybe blue for the Czech Republic because it's SGP-compliant and hasn't signed the compact. Ambi Valent (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed the table so that states that comply to the Stability and Growth Pact are shown in yellow. I assumed compliance is given if deficit ratio is at most 3.0% and debt ratio is either at most 60% or, if higher, falling. Ambi Valent (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Belgian ratification

All of the 7 legislative Belgian parliaments need to pass the bill with simple majority. When looking at the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this might however result in more than 7 votes. The additional possible votes is comprised of 2 supplemental votes in the Wallonian and Flemish parliament for the regulation of "community matters" (that if needed will be cast at the same time when the parliament votes for the "regional matters"), and 3 sub-community votes in the Brussels region (Brussels United Assembly, COCOF Assembly, VGC Assembly). For the moment I expect the 5 additional votes will not be needed to ratify the Fiscal Compact, so that is why I removed them from the wikitable. If I am wrong, you can copy the old lines from this archived article page. Danish Expert (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wide tables

Some tables on that page were quite wide. I made them more compact to avoid need for scrolling. The page now renders fine on a 980 screen. ChemTerm (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (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)

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)

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 ^t 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 ^t 21:51, 28 December 2012 (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)

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)