This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maastricht Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 7, 2005, February 7, 2006, February 7, 2007, February 7, 2008, and February 7, 2022. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bibliography should be added, both descriptive and critical. -- Jessika Folkerts ( talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be sorted, the right side bar overlaps with the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.37.114 ( talk • contribs)
"It led to the creation of the European Union" or it created it? Njál 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 mockery Twobells ( talk) 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Maastricht Treaty → Treaty of Maastricht — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Google hits:
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)
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)
"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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for move. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
Is there any research on it being a (slow) trigger for Brexit? 91.84.189.190 ( talk) 01:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maastricht Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 7, 2005, February 7, 2006, February 7, 2007, February 7, 2008, and February 7, 2022. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bibliography should be added, both descriptive and critical. -- Jessika Folkerts ( talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Should be sorted, the right side bar overlaps with the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.37.114 ( talk • contribs)
"It led to the creation of the European Union" or it created it? Njál 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 mockery Twobells ( talk) 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Maastricht Treaty → Treaty of Maastricht — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Google hits:
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)
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)
"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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for move. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 13:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
Is there any research on it being a (slow) trigger for Brexit? 91.84.189.190 ( talk) 01:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
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)