Talk:European Fiscal Compact/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New colours for the Fiscal Compact map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor tweaks done. I am finally understanding this file.

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

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

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

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

Euro

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

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

Polish ratification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook for Spain

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

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

Why was the Malta EDP abrogated in December 2012?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winter 2013 forecast of Fiscal Compact compliance in 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTOs for all EU member states

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great news (MTO formula revealed)

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

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

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

History chapter disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eurobonds

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is a bad addition that puts it in a context which is not "the" context but just "a" context and as such gives undue weight to 1 way of thinking. The paragraph below it balances it a bit (with the statements regarding the position of Germany etc), so maybe we should combine those. If you would manage to do that with less words than are used now, I'd agree to keep it in; if not; then it is too much for me. L.tak (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Declaration note for "Ratification completed" overview table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"© European Union, 2004-2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, L.tak is correct. He saved his edit before me, causing an "edit conflict". Clicking on the link will explain. TDL (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Parties or members?

Danish Expert, your edit summary here suggests that you missed the point of my edit (though I see now that my edit summary wasn't sufficiently clear). I wasn't "Inventing my own word" for the eurozone member states. The adjectives aren't describing their status within the eurzone, as you claim, but their status within the fiscal compact. The blue legend obviously doesn't represent the "Euro area member states". If it did, then the map would be wrong. What it represents is the "eurozone member states which are party to the fiscal compact." I shortened this to "eurozone parties" instead of "eurozone members" because the fiscal compact doesn't have members. Your revision labels the blue states "eurozone members" without any qualification, which is misleading since it isn't ALL the "eurozone members". (Yes I know that there is the box with a title which shows their status within the fiscal compact, but for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons the legends themselves should clearly explain what they represent.) TDL (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Danish Expert's edit. However, if you feel so, you can add a non-parties title for the second box or use more extensive wording in the descriptions. Heracletus (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you support the current revision? TDL (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The earlier wording was indeed possibly misleading, while the new wording was a bit …. akward… I have rephrased to something addressing the problems I hope; feel free to further improve… L.tak (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with L.tak's edit. Heracletus (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks L.tak! That's a lot clearer, though I still find it a bit awkward. I don't have any better ideas though... TDL (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Belgium

The entry on the Brussels United Assembly needs an addition in the "required majority" field: In addition to 50% overall, they need at least a third in each language group (French and Dutch); the only reasonable way to do that seems to be a footnote, but I don't know how to do it. (To be precise, they need 50% in each language group at the first vote, but if that fails, a third in each group and half overall is enough.) Sigur (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a footnote is probably the way to go. I can code it up, but do you have a source we can use for this? TDL (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The source would be Article 72, 4th paragraph, 2nd to 4th sentence of this statute[1]: "Toutefois, toute résolution de l'assemblée réunie est prise à la majorité absolue des suffrages dans chaque groupe linguistique. Si cette majorité n'est pas réunie dans un groupe linguistique, il est procédé à un second vote. Dans ce cas, la résolution est prise à la majorité absolue des suffrages de l'Assemblée réunie et par au moins un tiers des suffrages dans chaque groupe linguistique." (Sorry, I don't have it in a more userfriendly format...) Sigur (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a pretty good description of the process here. I've gone ahead and added a footnote to the table. Feel free to adjust it if you think it needs it. TDL (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice (both the find and the footnote). Sigur (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)