For or against the EU Treaty of Lisbon? It does not matter, but facts on the ratification processes do.
One of the best sources is the Ratification section of the Wikipedia web page Treaty of Lisbon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ratification
Quickly updated, with brief but sufficient remarks and exact parliamentary votes, Wikipedia serves an important information need.
Although parliamentary ratification is the essential requirement in political EU discourse, formally many member states provide for presidential signature, and the ratification instrument has to be deposited in Rome with the Italian government.
A short while ago the tally was: ratified 19 member states, not ratified 7 member states, rejected 1 member state. – The ratification instrument had been deposited by ten members.
***
Readers interested in EU politics may care to study the outcomes of the parliamentary votes. If the national heads of state or government or even the national governments can somehow be contrived to be a mysterious ‘EU elite’, what can be said about the national parliamentarians, who in almost devastating numbers have voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty?
Do the perceptions tally with the facts?
Ralf Grahn
Update 19 June 2008: European Union Law Blog is an excellent source of Lisbon Treaty ratification news and commentary in German. Plus there is a handy ratification list in chronological order at:
http://www.law-europe.eu/ratifikationsstand/
Especially during the last days I have noticed that EUbusiness.com has been very alert with news stories on the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in English. Go to:
http://www.eubusiness.com/
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
My list ist sometimes even faster:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.law-europe.eu/ratifikationsstand/
I am going to make an update.
ReplyDeleteinteresting then again an Irish parliment vote would have secured 98% yes
ReplyDeleteVery useful remark, thanks Ralf: merits of Wikipedia have to be underlined, whenever they are real.
ReplyDeleteThe updating speed is one of W's strongest arguments today. The accuracy was also suprisingly high, when compared to the Britannica or to the Brockhaus, in empirical tests.
I am not suprised that on European subjects, W is doint pretty well. The "free encyclopedia" provides a rather balanced account on European questions, as far as I could notice.
I made a cultural analysis of W., in French) :
http://recherche.fnac.com/ia570555/Marc-Foglia
Best,
Marc Foglia
Mfog,
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is a good resource, which I like to remind people of, from time to time.
The amount of language versions is an important factor in Europe, although the contents vary enormously between the language versions.
Thank you, Ralf.
ReplyDeleteI'm just a little disappointed with the German version of Wikipedia, because many do not like to cooperate with the English version, even though the English version is often faster and more accurate. That's why I've given up on participating completely.