Jump to content

Talk:European Stability Mechanism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposals

[edit]

Considering that the European Stability Mechanism will require a change to the treaty basis of the European Union and thus this ESM must be approved by member states before 2013 in order to have effect; should we then consider tracking the approval of the ESM as part of this article? My thinking is that we followed the approval process of the Lisbon Treaty in the Lisbon Treaty article as it happened and I don't see any reason we should not do the same for this new treaty change. Already the EU Parliament has voted in favor of the ESM and the EU counsel of Financial Ministers has taken a decision that was supported by the European Central Bank and thus the EU has begun to go down the road of approval for the ESM by members states.

If there are no objections I'll begin editing the article to show the ESM is entering the approval process.

Also another way to improve the article may be to include a summery of the structure and function of the provisions of the ESM. I'll begin the work to add content, others please feel free to correct or add to the content. Thanks. OrangeCorner (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a spelling error in reference 14 ("Trea ty"), also the link is dead.212.85.89.247 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect date

[edit]

Is March 2003 (!) really the correct date when the treaty went through parliament? I have no idea when it happened - so I am not going to edit - but the text reads as if it should be March 2011.

MBP (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions - 2011 and 2012

[edit]

I think we should add more detailed description of the changes between the two versions. Japinderum (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions in USD?

[edit]

Why is the Nominal GDP in the 'Contribution' section written in US dollars? Surely as we're talking about the EU, it should be written in euro (as the rest of the section). The exchange rate fluctuates so the numbers would only be accurate as of the date of publication. Would it not be more accurate as well as more appropriate therefore to use the euro currency here? Aligater (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author

[edit]

Who has writen the treaty? 87.79.117.129 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification

[edit]

The treaty goes into force after countries representing 90% of votes have ratified it. This means that ratification in four countries (Germany, France, Italy, and Spain) is absolutely required. Two of these (France and Spain) have already ratified. Italy is about to start later this month, but the really crucial one is Germany. German parliament has approved it, but the presidential signature is being held up by the constitutional court. The president has postponed his signature until the court has ruled on the constitutionality of the ESM. The court has the power to hold up ratification and, since Germany's signature is required, to kill the treaty outright. To reflect this I had added the word "postponed" into the field of presidential assent for Germany. This was removed by another user. Before reverting this again, I am seeking opinions as to how this crucial court case in Germany should be handled here. Lukati (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because I didn't think that the table was the proper place for this info. Every blank in the table could be filled with "delayed", but I'm not sure that's helpful. However, I do think that it would be well worth adding a section after the table entitled "Entry into force" or something along those lines which explains the remaining obstacles to entry into force of the treaty in detail. TDL (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from this, could each countries share of the captal be added to ratification table? AndrewRT(Talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me; that's just the kind of information that's best displayed in table form. bobrayner (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already listed in the table here, but it's probably useful to list the capital percent again in the ratification table with a total of the ratified states. TDL (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - let me know what you think. TDL (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! By the way, does anyone have a reference on the Royal Assent of the Spanish king regarding the ratification of ESM? It's the only date missing of all countries that ratified. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When will ESM be legally established?

[edit]

I am asking this question after reading the "Treaty basis" chapter in the article, where it states that TFEU (article 136) is the legal basis to allow for eurozone countries to establish ESM, and thus this special treaty amendment also needs to be ratified. Reading about TFEU (article 136), you will find it was signed by all 27 EU member states and will: not come into force until it has been ratified by each member state according to their "respective constitutional requirements", and cannot come into force until 1 January 2013 at the earliest. This however directly collide with the ESM treaty actually being headed to establish ESM now in September 2012, being some months ahead of the legal basis TFEU (article 136) has been ratified and entered into force. Do anyone of you have any oppinion or knowledge about this "technical problem"? The 3 questions that Supreme Court (Ireland) recently filed to the European Court of Justice seems to deal with the same pussle. And perhaps the constitutional court ruling in Germany will also shed some light on it? Anyway it would be great if some of you already now can post more info about it, both here at the talk page and eventually also in the article.

PS: Today I have also been reading through the great ESM/EFSF FAQ list, which clearly confirmed the official plan is to establish ESM in September 2012, but also informed me that financial aid to recapitalize Spanish banks initially will be paid by EFSF, and then transferred to ESM as soon as ESM has been established. During the transition period until July 2013 we will have both EFSF+ESM available to fund "new programmes" (where the plan however is first to use the avialable money from ESM, and only to use EFSF as a backup funding source if the ESM runs out of money). After 1 July 2013 only ESM will be avaliable for "New programmes", while EFSF will cease to offer any money for new programmes (but continue to operate as an organisation, until their granted loans have been fully repaid by its debitors). I think this piece of clarifying info, also needs to be added into the article. Danish Expert (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some additional search for an answer to my question in the first paragraph above, I today managed to dig it up. The answer and key detail to keep in mind, is that the ESM treaty is not an "EU Treaty", but instead it is just an "Inter-governmental Treaty" utilising elements of the EU framework without being a part of the "EU Treaty" itself. So that is why it is completely OK for the "Inter-governmental Treaty" to enter into force, some months ahead of the time where the ratified "EU Treaty" (TFEU article 136 amendment) at the earliest allow for a similar imaginary/futuristic treaty to possibly enter into force as part of the "EU Treaty" itself. So we have no collision/disagreement between the two treaties. The TFEU article 136 amendment only dictate, that 1.January 2013 is the earliest day it will be possible to convert/integrate the "Inter-governmental ESM Treaty" into an essential part of a similair "EU ESM Treaty". And I guess the reason why Eurozone countries decided to accelerate the date for the ESM establishment, is simply because it is several times better constructed as a lending mechanism compared to how the EFSF currently operates (ie when a eurozone country transfer capital funding to EFSF, the lending for this transfer will technically be registered as "new debt"; while a similar transfer of capital to fund ESM instead will be regarded as a finansial operation/investment -with the lending for this transfer not to be acounted for as "new debt"). As I am currently out of time, I will leave it up to other editors to find an appropriate source, that can back up my findings. Perhaps the upcomming ruling by the "German constitutional court" and/or the upcomming ruling by the European Court of Justice, can be used as an appropriate reference? Danish Expert (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the ruling from the European Court of Justice on 27 November 2012, confirmed my explanation above. With the only extension, that the intergovernmental ESM treaty in all circumstances would have been ruled as invalid to establish (at any point of time), if it had not been disigned to be fully compatible with EU law - without interference towards exisiting EU powers. As the intergovernmental ESM treaty only supplements EU law (without being an EU law), it is allowed to enter into force before the amendment of article 136 in TFEU. I have now updated the article, so that it accurately reflect this info. Danish Expert (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majority needed for ratification

[edit]

I just expanded the wikitables with an extra coloumn entitled: "Majority needed for ratification". Data was extracted from two EU reports that monitors the ratification process. But unfortunately the data from the two reports in a few cases disagreed or was incorrect. Most countries had the need for majority evaluated by a national "Legal council" or "Council of State" ahead of the parliamentary process, and those reports are of course recommended to check if you want to know for sure if the data in the wikitable is correct. Due to time constraints I have not looked up the evaluation made by all those reports. This note is just to highlight, that you should only consider the "majority needed" data in the wikitable (based mainly on the two EU reports), as being correct in 90% of the times. Danish Expert (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMT support from ECB

[edit]

The new OMT support from ECB was announced in ECB Press Release 6 September 2012. This press release mention as conditionality for support, that the country shall be involved in a ESM/EFSF related "macro-economic adjustment programme" or "precautionary programme (Enhanced Conditional Credit Line)", and OMT support will only arrive at a time when the country still have (or have regained) complete market access - and only for as long as ECB evaluates the country still continue to suffer from stressed (higher than normal) interest rates - and only if the country continue to comply with the conditions outlined in the signed Memorandum of Understanding written for the ESM/EFSF support package. As the OMT support in principle will be unlimited -when first initiated-, this is a very strong weapon for ECB to actively lower "Government bond interest rates" in those countries receiving the support; and that is why it has also been limited in first place only to cover bonds with a maturity of 1-3 years. Reason for this note at the talk-page, is to highlight/clarify that OMT was introduced 1 month ahead of establishment of ESM, and I wonder if this perhaps is why the ECB press realease only mentioned two of the five ESM instruments qualifying for OMT support? Danish Expert (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This afternoon I took time carefully to read the uploaded report from both the monthly ECB press meetings in September and October, and then also one more time was reading through the FAQ on ESM. My conclusion now is, that the September-wording from ECB shall be taken literally, so a possible OMT is basicly only if a country receive ESM instrument 1 (Sovereign Bailout Loan) or ESM instrument 3 (Precautionary programme with ECCL/PCCL). The reason why the "Bank recapitalisation package" does not qualify for OMT, is beacuse that it has no MoU attached with requirments related to reforms or fiscal consolidation of the soveign state (but only a MoU related to a restructure/reorganisation of the financial sector). ESM instrument 4 (Primary Market Support Facility) will already only be granted in combination with either instrument 1 or instrument 3, and thus is not a standalone option for ECB to consider. And finaly I guess ECB indeed found no need to help with OMTs for countries "only" receiving an ESM instrument 5 (Secondary Market Support Facility), as this package also is offered for fiscal sound States only suffering from extraordinary "liquidity" problems. So after a second thought, it kind of make sence if ECB indeed require a country to receive either ESM instrument 1/3, in order to qualify the country also to receive a potential OMT support. Only point I now think we still need a clarification from ECB on, is if their OMT to countries with a precautionary programme (ESM instrument 3) really only will be granted if the credit line is a ECCL and not if the credit line is a PCCL? I assume OMT can also be initiated for countries with PCCL's, but so far did not manage to dig up any reference to proof it. It would be great if Mr.Draghi could answer this extra little question on his next monthly press meeting in November. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speculation on presidential assent

[edit]

I have removed again the text that presidential assent of Czech republic has been delayid as it "has been speculated" that it is waiting for the signing of the Czech protocol. In view of the time-sensitiveness of this information (it will possibly be outdated in a few weeks/months) I think it is not good to keep it as a "citation needed" statement and have removed it. Feel free to re-add once the speculation (mind you: I don't think it is necessary to know for sure; just to know that the sources speculate about this) is sourced in a reliable source. L.tak (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We don't need definitive sources saying that he is stalling, but we at least need sources to do the speculation for us. Otherwise it's WP:OR. TDL (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. But the info about "a possible intentionally delayed assent" is backed by the source Ratification requirements and present situation in the member states (page 13 of the report = page 15 of the document), which is considered to be reliable, as this report is written by the Policy Department of the European Parliament. I however admit we have no source to backup the speculation about the exact reason why the president decided to delay assent. So I accept your removal of that part. But insist to include the part explaining "a possible intentionally delayed assent". The section is now updated according to that. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I didn't realize that the document you linked to speculated that Klaus was intentionally delaying ratification. I'm fine with the content you've restored.
On another note, the text you added seems to be a WP:COPYVIO from the document you linked to. You can't copy word-for-word text from external sources into wikipedia. I'll attempt to reword this passage, but if there is other content that you've copied from sources, you'll need to reword it. I've left some information on how to avoid copyvios on your talk page. TDL (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During the 2 years of all my contributions to Wikipedia, I never copied word-for-word text into articles, unless it was a line being properly quoted. The claimed "word-for-word copied line" you refer to now, and rephrased, contained for the first part my complete own formulation, and only for the second 50% it was an identical copy of words. IMHO it did not violate the wikipedia policy as only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy. As it doesnt really matter to me how the sentence is phrased, I of course accept your new formulation. Just want to emphasize, that I did never upload any word-for-word copies to wikipedia. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the TFEU amendment ratification need to be before January 2013? (In January, a new President will be elected, and Klaus is barred by term limits) Ambi Valent (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately it is okay for the last country to ratify the "amendment treaty" after January 2013. If/when we cross the target date, the amendment treaty will instead enter into force on the 1st of the month following the deposit of the last of the Member States. Apparently Klaus indeed has refused to ratify it, so I agree with your oppinion that nothing is likely to happen before after the Czech presidential election, 2013, where Klaus will be replaced. Currently it is Jan Fischer leading the polls. I dont know anything about his European sentiments, though. Danish Expert (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polish court case

[edit]

Please stop claiming that the constitutional court has come to their verdict, as you are seriously misunderstanding what the sources say. I don't speak Polish, but Google tells me the document is a "clarification on the application" "on behalf of the Polish Sejm" "asking a declaration that the Act" "is not incompatible" and is signed by Ewa Kopacz the Marshal of the Sejm. It's NOT a decision of the court, it's a request by the Sejm that the court reject the arguments against the act ratifying the treaty. Just look at the Sejm's website: [1]. The document is listed under the heading: "Stanowisko Sejmu" - Position of the Sejm. The document is titled "stanowisko" - position. There is also a "Uchwała Komisji Ustawodawczej" (Resolution of the Legislative Committee) from February 6 which expresses a similar sentiment: [2]. Here it's called an "Uchwalone opinie" (adopted opinion) of the "Komisja Ustawodawcza" (Legislative Committee): [3]. You can read more details of the debate which lead to the creation of this document here: [4]. TDL (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for "mixing up the author of the 11 feb document" that I uploaded yesterday. Thanks for your help to clarify the matter. My time was limited yesterday to read the document in details, and the article line having linked to the Sejm website accidently caused me to think they would upload court decisions on that website and not the "parliament positions". I now realise the latter however is the case, and instead today have found and added the website link to the Polish constitutional court, where the final sentence of the case according to Polish law will be published within 6 months after they received the parliaments position. Danish Expert (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that the court must publish their ruling "within 6 months after they received the parliaments position"? I don't see that in the linked source. TDL (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about a "6 months deadline for the sentence to arrive" was made by a Polish newspaper. However, when I today checked the FAQ of the courts website they clearly note that according to the Polish constitution, they only have a 2 months "sentence deadline" for constitutional complaints related to "budget laws" or "interim budget laws", and in fact no "sentence deadline" for all other cases. My theory goes, that what the Polish newspaper really meant (or attempted to say), was that the court has a policy/ambition that case rulings shall always arrive within 6 months in any constitutional complaint case where the parliamentary law making process is involved. As we however have no reliable source for this part of the story, I support that we keep this detail out of our article. FYI, last time when the court had a similar case with a constitutional law complaint, the parliaments position was submitted mid December 2012 and the court made its sentence already in mid January 2013. For the moment, I however now prefer not to write anything about the expected time durations before the sentence will arrive. But I insist it is a good idea to keep the link for the courts website visible (and not hidden). So I will now display it again behind this short note: As of 19 February, the court is still considering the next step in the case. Danish Expert (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem linking to the Court's site, just so long as we don't make unsupported claims. TDL (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European Stability Mechanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Stability_Mechanism&oldid=1223753422"