Jump to content

Talk:Maastricht Treaty

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

Bibliography

[edit]

Bibliography should be added, both descriptive and critical. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout

[edit]

Should be sorted, the right side bar overlaps with the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.37.114 (talk • contribs)

"led to the creation of the European Union"

[edit]

"It led to the creation of the European Union" or it created it? Njál 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty

[edit]

A dispute had been raised relating to the territorial application of the Maastricht Treaty on the Talk:Saint Pierre and Miquelon page. It relates to whether or not a territory could be part of the European Union without being part of the European Community.

Please post any comments you may have on the talk page. Caveat lector 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Legality?

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section on the legality of the treaty under British law? Both Maude and Hurd broke their privy council oaths of office when Dame Barbara Mill's expert examination of law called for charges of treason to be levied against them.

Also as a Head Of State the Queen cannot be both a subject and a citizen under article 8 so makes the treaty a mockeryTwobells (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Miller et al. v. Government case appears to have agreed this point. Government cannot give away rights granted by Parliament without consent of aforesaid Parliament. In this case, due to constitution change, it must also include ratification by the Crown (Law), mandate or referendum (the people). As above, the sovereign cannot act under constitution as both a citizen and Crown, and cannot give away Crown powers to another state without committing treason to the Crown themselves. 

- 3 May 2017.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3842:4900:9051:2BAC:DC30:CB2F (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 question mark

[edit]

I like the EU, but I think "2009?" is a bit hopeful looking and not very neutral to have as the date for lisbon on the streams diagram. Perhaps "Date unclear" or "Putative" would be better labels to put on the diagram for Lisbon. --90.214.36.98 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Yuting9[reply]

Missing article?

[edit]

In many (if not all) other official languages, the name of the Treaty is (translated literally) ‘Treaty on the European Union’. Why is the grammatical article in the English language missing? – Kaihsu (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty is named Treaty on European Union. Looks weird though, but it's official—Totie (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the title of the original document, but I've added both because the variant with "the" appears in a ton of sources, including EU's own website, and a ton of books. Pcap ping 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official English title is also at odds with the French and German ones in this respect, both of which use the definite article: fr:Traité_sur_l'Union_européenne, de:Vertrag über die Europäische Union. Pcap ping 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht Treaty → Treaty of Maastricht — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the commmon naming convention for treaties on Wikipedia. Moreover, "Treaty of Maastricht" has more google hits than "Maastricht Treaty". SSJ t 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Treaty of Maastricht" in only in 3rd place, after the current title and the official one. Pcap ping 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking article names in order to avoid disambiguation is unencyclopedic and completely misleading. It shouldn't be necessary. I don't accept that normal google hit counts are more unreliable. And as you say, we have a common scheme for EU treaties, and I don't see why we this treaty shouldn't be in line with it. What has the Treaty on EU name got to do with this discussion?

Google hits:

Treaty of Maastricht => 378 000
Maastricht Treaty => 322 000 - SSJ t 22:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are only approximations, and they can be off by large values from the actual count—go to the last page in each query to see what I mean. Even if the counts were correct, the random web page is not a WP:RS, and it's easily subjected to SEO manipulations, unlike the random google books or scholar hit, which usually is a reliable source, and the overall body of data much harder to subvert. Pcap ping 02:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyway, the "of" form is generally common when it comes to treaties. And I don't see why this treaty should be an exception. Since the treaty strictly speaking is named just "Treaty on European Union", the Maastricht name is not and will never be official. Thus, no EU document will be able to decide whether it's "Maastricht Treaty" or "Treaty of Maastricht". Therefore, I think we should stick to the tradition of naming treaties in the "of" form. - SSJ t 03:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
European NAvigator is the most reliable website on EU history that I know of, and here it says "Treaty of Maastricht". This shows that there is no reason why this treaty should be a rare exception from the general rule. - SSJ t 03:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The English language media invariably say "Maastricht Treaty" and not "Treaty of Maastricht". And "Maastricht Treaty" received almost six time as many hits on Google book search than the "Maastricht Treaty". There is no convention over using "Treaty of" names, there is just a no consensus over which variant to use. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Europa.eu: "Treaty of Maastricht on European Union". There clearly is a solid tradition of using "of" when a treaty is named after a city. And this quotation from an official EU website shows that this treaty is not somehow an exception. I don't think citing WP:COMMONNAME is relevant in this case, since whether or not to include "of" doesn't change the length of the title much, compared to the "encyclopedic formality" you achieve by staying in line with the tradition. The Treaty of Versailles is often called "Versailles Treaty", but the only title that is "encyclopedicly right" is "Treaty of Versailles". - SSJ t 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The common name policy has nothing to do with the length of the title, its just that more people say "Maastricht Treaty" than say "Treaty of Maastricht". This is a classic situation of editors (SSY etc...) who dislike wp:commonname and who try to ignore it as best they can. The official name of the treaty is the "Treaty on European Union", the common name is "Maastricht Treaty". The "Treaty of Maastricht" doesn't enter the equation! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Well I should perhaps add that the EU's own encyclopedia refers to it as Treaty of Maastricht. - SSJ t 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, that glossary page redirects to Treaty on European Union. I fully agree with renaming this article thuswise. Wakari07 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No signatories listed in article.

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a list of the original signatories of the treaty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a collapsed list of the 12 signatories to the infobox (top right). Click on 'show' to display. --Boson (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification

[edit]

"In accordance with British constitutional convention, specifically that of parliamentary sovereignty, ratification in the UK was not subject to approval by referendum."

This is not wholly correct. Parliamentary sovereignty was not authorised for this purpose under constitution as expressed in the Miller v. Government case. Substantial changes in the constitution are subject to consent by the Crown (law), and by mandate, neither of which had occurred in the signing of the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3842:4900:9051:2BAC:DC30:CB2F (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maastricht Treaty. 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) 08:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 12 September 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for move. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht Treaty → Treaty on European Union – Maastricht Treaty is a constituent part of this Treaty on European Union, as written in the article lead itself and by the Eurostat glossary here. Treaty on European Union is the official name, current since 2007 Wakari07 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Move to official as opposed to common names does not follow Wikipedia policy. We previously had two articles (now restored) of on each TEU and TFEU. One on the historic treaty and another on the current version. Maastrict Treaty and Treaty of Rome are meant to deal with the original documents, while Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are meant to deal the very different version now in force. I think that's the preferable setup. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact I agree with your view now. However this Treaty of Maastricht article (on the 1992 version) then needs a good rewrite, and the other too. Wakari07 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:COMMONNAME says "the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is" - the treaty is not about Maastricht, but about the European Union. The Google test shows about 1,980,000 results for the current title and about 39,700,000 results for the proposed move. Wakari07 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC) But I see now that the redirect, dating from May 2018, from Treaty on European Union to Maastricht Treaty was undone today. I think I'm still a bit confused. Wakari07 (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the largest English-speaking country in Europe it is always known in common parlance as the Maastricht Treaty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, we need to draw a line somewhere. For me, the move request may be closed, provided that we agree to call the current treaty by its current name and use Maastricht for the 1992 thing. Wakari07 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did it set in train Brexit?

[edit]

Is there any research on it being a (slow) trigger for Brexit? 91.84.189.190 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pen used for signing

[edit]

I'm not sure how relevant it is to the article but in case anyone needs to know: The fountain pen they used to sign the treaty with seems to be a Montblanc Meisterstück. A model 149 in gold, the cap is engraved lengthwise with some text I can't make out and underneath it the date: 7-2-1992. Source: my eyes, so I'm not 100% sure about the model number, but it's definitely a Montblanc (you can see the logo on the cap) and I'd put my life savings on it being a Meisterstück as well. Ellekazam (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maastricht_Treaty&oldid=1240195971"