Template talk:Stabilisation and Association Process

Ratification Bosnia and Herzegovina's SSA by Luxembourg.

Information concerning ratification of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Stabilisation and Association by France is false. Ratification bill was passed by the National Assembly and awaits for ratification by the Senate. See [1] [2] Ron 1987 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Edits by 89.110.244.16 were reverted. Dates according to [3] Source is already cited in article. User:Ron 1987 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Only states which have yet to notify the EU of ratification need additional sources. I reverted a few stray things (back to here) you missed. TDL (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those ratifcations are done deal, there is no need to put unnecessary references and polute a template, either way they will be deleted, when parliament ratifies agreement than it is ratified, why should we wait for them to notify EU, this is bureaucracy in its best... 178.148.32.160 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

States which have yet to notify the EU of ratification need additional sources. Until notification it should stay. Ron 1987 14:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

i can do this forever or until they notify...do not be stuborn i am deleting your references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.32.160 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether the ratifications are a done deal or not. The fact is they still need to be referenced. Until the EU lists them on the main reference used, then each individual ratification needs a separate source. TDL (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why DO they NEED TO BE REFERENCED? what wp rule says that this has to be referenced? what rule is that? there is duplicate references in page about serbia and i am deleting it. FACT IS SAA WITH SERBIA IN GREECE IS RATIFIED AND THAT IS FACT. there is no WP rule that supports your reverts 178.148.32.160 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um...WP:V? Only the MOST important WP rule. This is a template that is used on several articles, not just the Serbian page. If you remove the reference from the template, then the references won't show up on other pages where that the template is used on such as Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the European Union or Stabilisation and Association Process. TDL (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

problem is that this guy copied reference from Serbia page and put it in this template not vice versa. so he must find another one. i am deleting this duplicate reference because there is no WP rule that supports you reverts. and i will win this war because in the end this reference of yours WILL BE DELETED sooner than later. do you even know serbian? are you aware of the content of that reference in question? how do you now that it is about matter discused? can you tell me what this article says? maybe it is about child pornography or internet piracy? you are reveting this by heart not thinking about it at all. 178.148.32.160 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to eliminate the double references, then remove it from the Serbian page, not here. This template is used on several pages, and the references need to be visible on all of them.

I don't know how to speak Serbian, but I'm not stupid. I do know how to use the internet: [4]

The only thing you've won is a seat in the penalty box. You've been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. TDL (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well i speak serbian...so i referenced that article on serbia page and someone copied that refrence into template and you are telling me that i have to remove reference from serbia page? is that right? 178.148.32.160 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is resolved. [5][6]. Ron 1987 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubly so because of this: [7]. TDL (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is not resolved. i am asking you to explain to me why is there a refrence in that template in the first place. Why is it necesary to be there when it will be deleted. if there is a need for a reference after those dates that means that dates should not be there!!! i question your logic... so there will be only dates or no dates at all, you can not have dates and references together because that menas that something is wrong with that dates. so we should wait for EU to be officialy notified or delete dates itself. 178.148.32.160 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The references are needed to support the claim. TDL (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the template. While the IP editor(s) may have good points to discuss, consensus is clearly that the references need to remain in the absence of better ones. If the IP editors here wish to discuss the matter, they may continue to do so - but no more edit warring. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanian parliament has ratified the SAA with Serbia

The ratification has been questioned by some users. The statements from the official sources, Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia proves them wrong.

The Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Serbia ratified

18 June 2013

Acting on the basis of the Constitution and in view of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Lithuania of 7 March 2012, the Seimas has ratified the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part, which was signed in Luxembourg on 29 April 2008.

The Law on the Ratification of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (Draft No. XIP-4162(2)) was supported by 73 MPs to zero, with 4 abstentions.

The Seimas also adopted by common agreement a protocol decision, which expresses support for Serbia in its endeavours to implement political, economic and institutional reforms consistently and to take over the core values of the EU, including democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. The Lithuanian parliament emphasizes the need for Serbia to continue with its substantial efforts in improving the economic and business environment in Serbia through the rule of law and protection of foreign direct investment. The protocol decision notes that investors from Lithuania have suffered massive material losses as a consequence of the actions taken by the Serbian national authorities, and that the issue of compensation for the losses has not been settled yet.

http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=4028&p_d=137646&p_k=2 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania

Vilnius – Lithuanian Parliament ratified today the Stabilization and Association Agreement with Serbia. Lithuania was the last EU Member State which has not ratified the SAA, and with today's ratification the SAA will automatically become effective.

http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/12134-lithuania-ratifies-saa Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia

Gaston28 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the ratification procedure has been completed in Lithuania, the ratification instrument still has to be deposited before the whole procedure has been completed. The dates in this article correspond to when the last step, the deposition, has been completed. --Glentamara (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has questioned whether the Seimas has ratified the SAA. However, all of the dates in our table are the dates of deposition, NOT parliamentary approval. There is often a weeks, if not months, delay between the two. For consistency, we need to wait until they deposit their instruments of ratification. It doesn't make sense to give one date of parliamentary approval and the rest dates of deposition. TDL (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia

An IP keeps removing Croatia from this table with the argument that it's "not in force for croatia". Of courses, this ignores the fact that currently there is no SAA in force with Serbia, Bosnia or Kosovo either, but they aren't being removed. The template is used for Stabilisation and Association Process, among other articles, and thus should give a summary of all SAA's, not just those currently in force. As such, it should continue to show Croatia even now that their agreement is no longer in force. TDL (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo ratification

Kosovo's agreement only needs to be ratified by the EU, not by the member states [8] Quote "At the same time, while other countries were obliged to negotiate on the SAA and wait for its ratification by all the member states, this process is not needed for Kosovo since the EU will co-sign it as legal entity, allowing the earlier enforcement of the SAA." I will mark the country boxes N/A (not applicable) unless someone can show why not. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the line - represents this, but N/A is clearer. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've made the change. TDL (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed things a bit. It is not the fact that the EU has legal personality (the EC had it as well, and could sign on its own in many treaties), but that with entry into force of Lisbon, competences were transferred to EU from the member states. I am not sure if it is relevant here, but I am not 100% sure this the position regarding exclusive competence of the EU will stand. In the Free trade agreement between Singapore and EU also the member states didn't sign, and an Opinion procedure about that is pending for the CJEU (this one)... L.tak (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L.tak: It looks like I wrote that based on what the Commission said here: "Following the Lisbon Treaty, which conferred legal personality to the European Union, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement will be concluded in the form of an EU-only agreement." Based on what I've read (there's an interesting article here), I think the point is that while the EC did have a legal personality and could conclude agreements within its competences, the EU as a whole did not (or at least it was unclear whether it did). Since the Common Foreign and Security Policy was not an EC competence, but was a separate EU pillar, the EU could not conclude agreements itself within this policy area. Lisbon gave the EU as a whole a consolidated legal personality, so it can now conclude agreements based on anything within its competences, not just within the policy areas within the EC's competence. TDL (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]