![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
I think we should add more detailed description of the changes between the two versions. Japinderum ( talk) 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
Who has writen the treaty? 87.79.117.129 ( talk) 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
I think we should add more detailed description of the changes between the two versions. Japinderum ( talk) 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
Who has writen the treaty? 87.79.117.129 ( talk) 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)