Talk:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Prologue
Please add more to the Notable provisions section. -- Kaihsu 15:26, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
[edit] Origin
I don't quite understand what the first paragraph "origin" is trying to say. OK, to summarise: ECJ decided that treaties establishing EC do not empower it to accede to the ECHR, (ok I'm with it so far) the above/afore mentioned 3 institutions of EU (should this be "of the EU"? I think I'll edit it in anyway feel free to edit it out if that's not what is meant) (which 3 institutions? I think you might mean European Parliament, Council, and Commission mentioned in the introductory paragraph, but at first it seemed to mean the 3 institutions mentioned in the "Origin" paragraph, i.e. ECJ, EC and ECHR. Being a typical European, I don't know very much about which things are EU institutions, European institutions, treaties, conventions, etc.) decided that this (what this, probably the CFREU?) is the appropriate format..of presenting (to whom?) the fundamental principles...for the Union (presenting principles for the Union just doesn't seem to make sense to me) OK maybe I understand it a bit better now but hat is after reading it 100 times. Sorry, I must be a real thicko!--Orelstrigo 00:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--Orelstrigo 00:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I made some clarifications. – Kaihsu 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Status
2nd section, "status", again makes little sense. To summarise: The origin of charter's power is unlikely to be beyond that of the proclaiming institutions (...) are going to contradict the charter. (errm, who exactly are going to contradict it, the origin of the power? the institutions?) Sorry to be picky here, I could change it grammatically, but I don't know what the meaning is. Is there a conflict between the Charter's provisions and the institutions' rights, or not?--Orelstrigo 00:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know why I was being so dense when I wrote this! I have clarified. Thanks again for pointing this out. – Kaihsu 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "As part of the proposed Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe"
I removed the section on "Outlook" since it was based on the passage of the European Constitution, which will now not happen. Given that there has yet to emerge any clear idea within the EU institutions of what to do next I don't feel that anything concrete regarding the passage of the Charter into law can be stated at this time.
(To be clear I was not logged in at the time so the edit is logged under 83.67.46.222) --Daduzi 10:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I restored and rephrased the section to make it up-to-date. Thanks for pointing this out. – Kaihsu 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind but I made a few minor changes to the new version, just to make it a little clearer. I think it works fine now. Daduzi 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality dispute?
You damn skippy. This isn't informative, it's nearly slanderous. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- How is it slanderous, so much so to justify your strong language? Please explain. For now, I have removed the POV notice. Cheers. – Kaihsu 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is something about the language, but I can't put my finger on what exactly. Stuff like 'ambiguous status' could be a POV statement, as it would reduce the document's relevance, whereas there are arguments that would say that it doesn't matter whether it is or not, so long as the document exists. Thoughts?
