Talk:Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016: editor, Brian Taylor Political; Scotl. "Could the Scottish Parliament stop the UK from leaving the EU?". Retrieved 28 June 2016. {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
• From The Guardian: Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd– abc.org.uk

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407064217/http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/nzacl/PDFS/SPECIAL%20ISSUES/HORS%20SERIE%20VOL%20VII/05-ziller.pdf to http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/nzacl/PDFS/SPECIAL%20ISSUES/HORS%20SERIE%20VOL%20VII/05-ziller.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citation: The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lisbon: a game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU (2011) in the lead could do with being prettied up more using the cite template. I don't have time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a block of text from the lead because it was entirely specific to the law of one member state and way more than the brief summary of the relevant subsection that is all that should go in the lead. My intention was to put it in the UK section but frankly it just looks like a wp:fork of other articles and the UK subsection is already comprehensive and well written. Can anyone see a useful place for it, suitably modified? This interpretation was accepted as legally correct by the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union^{[1][failed verification]} On the other hand, Lord Kerr who authored article 50, has stated that, in his opinion, once article 50 is triggered, the notification could be revoked at will before the 2 year time limit and "legally [the other member states] couldn't insist that you leave."^[2] Such an interpretation would require confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the UK, confirmation of who has the right to trigger article 50 is ultimately determined by the UK Supreme Court, or the UK Parliament through an Act. The High Court decided Parliament has the exclusive competence to trigger article 50 or not as a matter of UK constitutional law.^[3] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should say in Wikipedia's voice "The German text of Article 50 could be taken to mean that the structure of future relations between the UK and EU will already have been established at the point when withdrawal takes place, which could be taken as a difference from the English text". That could imply Wikipedia's belief that the official German text could validly be interpreted differently from the English and French texts (i.e it implies trust in hist translation). We need to attribute it, in the body, to Sir David Edward, since he may be wrong. This is not just academic; it looks as if his own translation may have used the false friend whereby for the German wobei. I don't know if it would be helpful or appropriate to quote the different versions in a footnote, but I have added a reference to the Treaty in three languages (which can be searched for 'Article 50'); the transcript (already referenced) contains Sir David's translation (search for 'German'). --Boson (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says, "If negotiations fail to reach agreement, the withdrawing state would then be required to follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.[2] This process is generally accepted to leave a seceding member with less bargaining power in negotiations, because the costs of having no trade treaty would be proportionally far greater to the seceding individual state than the remaining EU bloc.[3]"
Ref 3 is ^[1]
That language in the lede does not seem to be supported by any text within the body of the article. That absence of support is not best practice.
Reading the Lechner/Ohr source, the specific claim made by the Wikipedia text seems to be outright unrelated WP:OR. Wikipedia seems to merely attach a source that has broad thematic overlap; the source does not make or support the specific assertions. As such, the claim fails verification in my judgment. If I am missing something, please point to where Lechner/Ohr address or model the particular relevant point Wikipedia asserts. At this point, it seems to me that this is a good example of a Wikipedia fabrication. The source does not assert anything "generally" - neither within the maths framework it uses, nor the sources it quotes. The article is a scholarly, theoretic analysis of a number of aspects of how article 50 influences different decision processes in the EU, including the possibilty of leaving, but also the impact(s) of “clubs within the club” (this is what emerges in section 6, the summary conclusion and outlook). "World Trade Organisation", "tariffs", "far greater" do not appear at all (per electronic search of the document), nor do these themes emerge on considering the message of the article. In fact, what the article says is:

Indeed M1’s outside-option is realistic if UM1(−EU)>UM1(t=0)+dUM1(E),UM1(−EU)>UM1(t=0)+dUM1(E),11 which means that staying in the Union and accepting the decision is less beneficial compared to being a sovereign country again.12

In contrast to that, the EU is interested in keeping M1 from withdrawing as dUEU(−M1)<0.dUEU(−M1)<0.

Against this background, two cases must be distinguished:

Scenario a: dUEU(E)>|dUEU(−M1)|.dUEU(E)>|dUEU(−M1)|.

The decision is so favourable to the remaining EU member states that its accompanying benefits are considered higher than the loss they would experience if M1 were to leave.

Scenario b: dUEU(E)<|dUEU(−M1)|.dUEU(E)<|dUEU(−M1)|.

The decision is less favourable to the remaining EU member states as its accompanying benefits do not compensate for the loss they would experience if M1 were to leave.

The only sentence I see coming close to supporting the Wikipedia text is:

When group demands are possible, member states can achieve higher compensation in a group than individually, especially when strategic alliances are formed.

However, the intended meaning when considering the preceding and subsequent paragraphs of the conclusion section does not "support" the Wikipedia language. I think it's justified to tag Ref 3 as "not in reference". If another source isn't forthcoming, perhaps Wikipedia editors would want to collectively remove this possibly-unsupported possibly-political conclusion.
Because Wikipedia says that this is the "generally accepted" situation regarding a leaving country, which is a major political position to take unless it is indeed "generally accepted", I am also tagging the article as a whole as NPOV.

Colin McTroll (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asked byQexigator (see ES: rmv n pov tag. If you see a problem is it "for" or "against"? please identify at Talk, and we can discuss about removing unpov) to state opinion as to whether the unsupported text is "for" or "against". Wikipedia is factually wrong in stating this is "generally accepted", at least in terms of its own pillars including verifiable sourcing. It is not hard at all in the light of "As Eerola and Määttänen (2004) find out, citizens rather prefer the status quo than leaving the EU. This will especially reduce the bargaining power of euro sceptic politicians as their threat of withdrawal loses credibility due to the necessary referendum." (which is, unlike the Wikipedia assertion, within the article that was sourced) to see how the unverifiable/untruthful assertion by Wikipedia further adds to the persuasion burden that "euro sceptic politician"s would encounter if the population is "informed by Wikipedia" that their country is in a poor negotiating position. It's pretty much flagrantly obvious that the Wikipedia language is improperly and unverifiably pushing and promoting yet another "mental barrier" into public consciousness. It is very concerning indeed that an article about game-theory modeling, which talks about many aspects including a preset population bias against leaving, is used to justify asserting that leaving is necessarily a weak negotiating position, when the modeling in the article says no such thing at all. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to bolster biases. Colin McTroll (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but it's not easy to follow what you are saying here, and if any statement is contrary to its purported source, then let it be removed or corrected in the usual way. Please let us know if you have a positive proposal of that sort. Qexigator (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator Understood: I do have a positive proposal. I would like to remove the entire unsupported sentence unless there is a transparent explanation of its verifiability. I am open of course open to being pursuaded that I have misunderstood the reference, and that the present text actually is justified. But if no explanation of how this referencing supports the present text is forthcoming, I will remove it as both unverified and as NPOV. Colin McTroll (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article will probably be improved without it, and I agree it should not go back without good reason explained here. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending text and the unsupporting reference. The reference itself is quite interesting - in a nice, dry, theoretical abstract way that basically tries to substitute elements and factors with algebreic symbology. I don't think most readers would appreciate sweating themselves through it only to find that it's "just a model and discussion" of hypotheticals, and that within itself it says that the real world situation is not being reflected by the model (because negotiators and populations aren't obligingly following this model of stated elements and factors, but seem to have other elements and factors they also care about as well or instead - whatever they are - in their head). Thank you. Colin McTroll (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains this sentence: «If negotiations do not result in a ratified agreement, the seceding country and EU would follow World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs.».

I wonder how it might be right or wrong for two reasons:

Firstly, it might be unsure, for instance because some might claims that there might be some legal flow which would permit the UK to keep some kind of access to the single market without WTO, through Ireland or the EEA, for instance.

Secondly, because the sentence might make one believe there is a relationship between the WA and the trade agreement, while it might be not so closely linked. Thus confusing.

I suggest rewrite the sentence as follow: «The single Market being part of the EU, invoking article 50 might also raise the question of trade relationship. This mean that the rules of the single market might be replaced by rules of any ratified agreement or any other kind of rules such as the World Trade Organization rules on tariffs, if applicable. Anyway, in the case of Brexit, the negotiation of the WA does not necessarily encompass (include) a direct negotiation of a trade agreement, as EU considers it is not possible to negotiate a trade agreement between EU and a member state.»

Any advice?

The article contains three sentences slightly similar but also slightly dissimilar:

• (a) «taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.»
• (b) «a leaving agreement is negotiated setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal and outlining the country's future relationship with the Union.»
• (c) «The leaving agreement is negotiated on behalf of the EU by the Council of the European Union and must set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the member state's future relationship with the EU.»

This raises at least two question:

• Does those three sentence mean the same thing, and if so why write it three times?
• Does those three sentence mean different things, and so what is the difference which should be understood?

If we could understood the answer to those two questions, we could improve wikipedia.

To help clarify the answer, those two question might be subdivided:

• Should the word framework be understood as «framework agreement», in (a) and (b)?
• Why the framework is not in sentence (b)?
• Is this the same to taking account of the framework and to include the framework?

I would add a point regarding the third sentence -- say sentence (c) . It might be confusing by the use of the expression member state's. First, remember that the British say European citizen vs british citizen and Thereza May considers that “Throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union“^[1]. But the issues is that the say member state before Brexit and third state after Brexit, would no more be member state after Brexit, as per definition, Brexit being Brexit, such a quality would be lost. This means that this sentence is at least confusing before the Brexit day, and might look Wrong after the Brexit day.

Perhaps the problem is not the wording of the article. If there is concern about the way the article is written, this could be a consequence of the way the Treaties are written and understood in the versions in each of the official languages. Given that the English language version of Article 50 states "That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union", the EU Council and its appointed negotiator and the EU Parliament will proceed and operate as Article 218 prescribes, including the Council addressing "negotiating directives" to the EU negotiator, while Article 218 also permits (or allows or authorises) any of the Member States, or the European Parliament, or the Council, or the Commission, to obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties, and stating that where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised. If all that may appear to Wikipedia readers to allow the possibility of practical or other problems in respect of the EU reaching a position when it can conclude an agreement with the UK that will actually enter into force, this is not something which can be resolved by rewriting Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs do not make one right.

• Article 218 looks like a constitutional requirement which defines the respective role of Un État membre, le Parlement européen, le Conseil or la Commission and la Cour de justice. But wikipedia article 50 does not deal in any way with article 218. Some might consider it would have been possible to insert in this article 50 wikipedia article a sentence such as «In the purpose of the negotiation with a third (non member) state, European treaty defines the respective role of Un État membre, le Parlement européen, le Conseil or la Commission and la Cour de justice in article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union».
• The initial question was more about what (taking account, framework, future relationship) than who (État membre, le Parlement européen, le Conseil or la Commission and la Cour de justice).

Regards ≅≅≅≅

It seems a little over the top to have two articles on withdrawal, not counting all the Brexit specific stuff. I propose this is merged into Withdrawal from the European Union;

• They both discuss the exact same thing
• Process/procedure sections exist in both
• pre-lisbon sections exist in both
• Brexit sections exist in both
• Neither are particularly long

As for which is kept;

• "Withdrawal from the European Union" is clearer as to its topic than "Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union"
• The title is broader, not everything on Withdrawal could be comfortable on Article 50 but it would the other way around.
• There are no other EU articles titled after specific treaty articles, where as there are loads about specific concepts, so for consistency, Withdrawal wins.

Any objections? (please reply Talk:Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Merge_Article_50_into_this_article) - _J.Logan`^t: 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I think this is logical. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]