Talk:Opt-outs in 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
A fact from Opt-outs in the European Union appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 October 2007. |
 |
 |
Opt-outs in the European Union was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: October 22, 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Sweden
I think Sweden shouldn't be marked on the map, it is misleading. They have defacto yes but shouldn't be listed the same as the others. Also perhaps as the map is very simple, it could incicate more clearly the types of opt outs or numbers? - J Logan t: 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll indicate Sweden differently; however, I don't think we need to convey much more information as regards the numbers. —Nightstallion 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Although I'm actually having second thoughts about Sweden as a whole, it isn't actualy an opt out, its just a political situation. An opt out would have to be formal legally speaking? - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, their refusal to join the euro de facto constitutes an opt-out from ERM III -- and both the European Council and the ECB have stated they will accept this behaviour for now, thus legalising this opt-out de facto... —Nightstallion 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Although I'm actually having second thoughts about Sweden as a whole, it isn't actualy an opt out, its just a political situation. An opt out would have to be formal legally speaking? - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Edinburgh Agreement could easily be merged in here, it would help indivudal sections develop to include this detail. - J Logan t: 08:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mh, I'm not sure I agree. The Agreement is an actual document and should have its own article. —Nightstallion 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a small agreement, and if you want to be technical the text ought to be on Wikisource. - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it's worth its own article (BTW, the article doesn't contain the whole text...) —Nightstallion 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a small agreement, and if you want to be technical the text ought to be on Wikisource. - J Logan t: 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reform Treaty
This section is currently POV. This is obviously a controversial issue. Jim Murphy, the British minister, has stated in a letter to European Scrutiny Commission that: "The UK-specific Protocol which the Government secured is not an “opt-out” from the Charter. Rather, the Protocol clarifies the effect the Charter will have in the UK. The UK Protocol confirms that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. In particular, the social and economic provisions of Title IV of the Charter give people no greater rights than are given in UK law. Any Charter rights referring to national law and practice will have the same limitations as those rights in national law. The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied upon before the courts, it does not change the status quo." (Letter from Mr Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Chairman of the Committee, 31 July 2007) Intangible2.0 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Show me a single media reference which does *not* treat it as an opt-out. Denmark's fourth opt-out does nothing in practice, as well -- if you insist, we can mark the opt-out for the UK from the Charter as "i" in the table. —Nightstallion 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just read your comment at Talk:Reform_Treaty#Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights; fair enough, I'll add the Guardian source that this opt-out may not do anything in practice. —Nightstallion 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- There you go. Is this addition good enough for you? —Nightstallion 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on with Poland? The Charter was already becoming legally binding there. That does not change the opt-out Poland got via Protocol No. 7, does it? Intangible2.0 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tusk has stated that his government will rescind the protocol and that it will fully apply the Charter in Poland. Good news for Europe, the Polish election. ;) —Nightstallion 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on with Poland? The Charter was already becoming legally binding there. That does not change the opt-out Poland got via Protocol No. 7, does it? Intangible2.0 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
This article has quite a lot of problems:
- Lead does not comply with WP:LEAD. It is one sentence, doesnt explain what the article is and it is hard to understand for a person outside of the EU because there is not a lot of general info. Also having dot points and flag icons in the lead is inappropriate.
- Dot points in the Danish section should be prosified
- Subheadings should not be linked in blue and bolded.
- Comprehensiveness. The dealing and conditions for the countries in question led to quite a deal of debate among the member countries, among their domestic consituency and the relations with other countries. The background of these negotiations and horsetrading should be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner. There also needs to be more background to the EU joint ventures and so forth so that it is easier to understand.
Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! I'll work on it. —Nightstallion 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes to the first three. As for the fourth one, probably an EU resident would be able to evaluate the end product. I tend to not do repeated GA assessments anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! —Nightstallion 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes to the first three. As for the fourth one, probably an EU resident would be able to evaluate the end product. I tend to not do repeated GA assessments anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Table
 |
This image may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please see our picture tutorial, Image help, and image use policy for further information, or check the talk page. For assistance, refer to the Graphics Lab. |
The table is not accessible to people with red-green color blindness. -- Beland (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mh, you're right. Any suggestions as to what we should do with it, then? —Nightstallion 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replace it with one we can have the green to blue? It would also fit with the map then. Or can we change the yes no code used?- J Logan t: 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, per JLogan's suggestion I've changed it to blue. —Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replace it with one we can have the green to blue? It would also fit with the map then. Or can we change the yes no code used?- J Logan t: 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Structure
What exactly do you dislike about the way it's currently organised? I think it's okay... —Nightstallion 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, most of them are current and it won't be long until the few future ones are also current. "Additional" Danish deals with all of them - also as a theme, not just the others, with EMU mainly talking about the UK situation with only a side mention of Denmark. The other changes were in response to those. Poinbt is, there is way too much overlap, it doesn't seem clear. It should be listed by country or opt-out, right now it is both.- J Logan t: 13:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mh. You've got a point there. Is it okay if I rework it along the lines of your proposed changes, but the way I'd prefer to word it? —Nightstallion 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think of the changes I made? Good enough? —Nightstallion 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, still doesn't seem overly clear who has what at a glance, but hopefully they'll be more than glancing. Good now though, and the table looks nice too.- J Logan t: 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for your input! —Nightstallion 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, still doesn't seem overly clear who has what at a glance, but hopefully they'll be more than glancing. Good now though, and the table looks nice too.- J Logan t: 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What defines an opt-out?
Sweden has an opt-out from the snus ban. Should Sweden be listed as having an opt-out because of this? (212.247.11.155 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
- That's not really an opt-out. —Nightstallion 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says: "However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not participate in the common structure in these fields", which seems to fit with the snus ban: Sweden doesn't participate in the "common structure" of "this field", i.e. the Swedish police and government don't prevent factories from manufacturing snus, or shops to sell it. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
- That's not a common structure, that's simply a minor footnote to an unimportant directive. If you find more of these minor things, we could introduce a small section on minor opt-outs like that, but on its own, the snus exemption is irrelevant. —Nightstallion 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we make the division as legislative and treaty? Legislation is full of opt-outs, that is its nature. These are important as they are major parts of the EU's structure and functioning - the decision making process. So lets just say treaty opt-outs (or related to them to cover Sweden on the euro)- J Logan t: 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Mh. Fair enough, so if we find enough info, we could make a section on legislative opt-outs. —Nightstallion 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we make the division as legislative and treaty? Legislation is full of opt-outs, that is its nature. These are important as they are major parts of the EU's structure and functioning - the decision making process. So lets just say treaty opt-outs (or related to them to cover Sweden on the euro)- J Logan t: 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a common structure, that's simply a minor footnote to an unimportant directive. If you find more of these minor things, we could introduce a small section on minor opt-outs like that, but on its own, the snus exemption is irrelevant. —Nightstallion 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- It says: "However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not participate in the common structure in these fields", which seems to fit with the snus ban: Sweden doesn't participate in the "common structure" of "this field", i.e. the Swedish police and government don't prevent factories from manufacturing snus, or shops to sell it. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
