Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

“ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts”.

When a reliable source reports this amendment being voted down, it needs adding to the para on the third reading. Atm, It Is only on Twitter and a minor London website. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Division 113 on 29 September; Hansard. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


United Kingdom Internal Market Bill → Internal Market Bill – Current title is unnecessary disambiguation. Internal Market Bill is a redirect to it. "Internal Market Bill" is the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no such known bill with this name in any country, and we don't just dab unnecessarily.
I requested a successful uncontroversial move at WP:RM, then it appears someone else moved it to United Kingdom Internal Market Bill which is even worse. Can't believe I have to make a 7 day RM for this. This title is unnecessarily long and silly. We don't prefix "United Kingdom" before every bill, it's again, unnecessary disambiguation. See eg Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sexual Offences Act 2003, Data Protection Act 2018, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms_as_disambiguators, the current title is honestly the worst, and I've no idea why it was moved here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, but the name of this bill is "United Kingdom Internal Market Bill" - see its entry on parliament.uk. Granted it is unusual for a UK bill to be prefixed this way, and looking at the list of 260 current bills it seems to be the only one with that prefix, but in this case it is, so it's quite reasonable to use its full name for the article title. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It is, of course, not relevant to the article title. The same reason we used Kiev for years. We don't use official names when they don't match up with our naming conventions, and this unnecessary disambiguation doesn't match up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, it is relevant in as much as it is the bill's official short name which does "match up with our naming conventions for legislation " - see WP:NCGAL#Legislation). To use anything else, we would need a consensus agreeing that the alternative is the "common name". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That's what the RM is for - consensus. Even if consensus is against me, at least it gives us a clear result - all these unilateral moves from people aren't good. Speaking of, why isn't this RM being listed? Think it's some formatting bug, but not really sure what's up with it. looks like it's listed now ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to add re your legislation point, COMMONNAME triumphs, that page says as much: Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, yes I know, but it needs to be accepted as such. I was responding to your We don't use official names when they don't match up with our naming conventions, showing that in this case the official name does match up with the naming conventions. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure. Data from Google, showing (worldwide) zero interest for the phrase until ~2 weeks ago, when "Internal Market Bill" peaked, even (and especially) in non-UK countries. For reliable sources, they generally all use "Internal Market Bill" FT, BBC, BBC 2, LawSociety, The Guardian, Politico.eu, exclusively using "Internal Market Bill" with no prefix. Exception, Sky News, where it uses "UK Internal Market Bill" for the first instance only. It is a clear COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that this is the commonname, with only few media outlets using the "United Kingdom"-prefix. Nevertheless, I disagree that the prefix is here as a disambiguator; is it here as a descriptor (similar for the official title). The goal, after all, is to create an internal market for the whole United Kingdom, with the prefix underlining this last part. ― Hebsen (talk)
  • Oppose Never seen so much nonsense of we're not using it as it doesn't match our conventions. Yes it does, it's the official name. Only issue is it is not commonly used as it is coming from the UK government and therefore is a redundant disambiguation in the press, but still would be correct in the title that we have now. Official name always trumps common name on things that are not high profile in the public's view. Games of the world (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's pretty high profile. We have Google results showing even searchers in other countries aren't prefixing "United Kingdom" to it. Re official name, WP:NCGAL says: Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. I've evidenced that with links above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Common Name as already stated. @Games of the world:, the long version of the name will continue to work in searches and links, but will redirect automatically to the new name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"United Kingdom’s Internal Market" article a cfork?

Why do we need United Kingdom’s Internal Market as well as this article (which, as of today, seems to be the primary topic)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This article solely concentrates on the passage of legislation (The UK Internal Market Bill), whereas the UK Internal Market article concentrates on the history, principles, functioning and governance of the UK Internal Market to name a few, so both are needed and important as they both provide crucial information into this topic. Both of these topics are being discussed jointly as they tie into each other. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest merging. The concept is a result of England’s “federation envy” if I can call it that. Kaihsu (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kaihsu:, can you start a formal wp:RTM, but you need to avoid POV reasons like that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The bill is notable in its own right, having received substantial media coverage and legal analysis. If it passes (and becomes an act) it'd obvious be notable. If it doesn't pass, and remains a bill, it'll still be notable and relevant. A merge to a general article on the UK's internal market does not make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree from the opposite direction. The Internal Market Bill (potentially, Act) is certainly notable. My challenge is to the article United Kingdom’s Internal Market. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I get you now, you mean merging that into this. Yeah, not sure what's going on with that article. Seems like a lot of it is OR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said over there: “This concept was created after Brexit and retrospectively applied to the economy of the United Kingdom to explain how things [would] work after [Brexit, with] devolution by comparing with the EU internal market (cf. Common Travel Area vs Schengen Agreement). The article does not even treat devolution in any detail. Much of the content is based on a Bill introduced in Parliament.” – Kaihsu (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kaihsu: I remind you that the U.K union predates the EU by 286 years
(U.K est.1707)(EU est.1993)
and the CTA predates the Schengen Area by 72 years
(CTA est.1923)(Schengen est.1995)
so if there is any mirroring it is by the EU not the U.K.
ChefBear01 (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The point is exactly that they are not the same kind of thing. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The CTA and Schengen are both open travel areas
The U.K and EU are both Unions, the difference is that the U.K further along in the integration process than the EU which should be no surprise giving that we have had 300+ years of progression.
ChefBear01 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The UK is not a federation, it is a unitary state.
  • The United States, a federation, has nearly 250 years practice so clearly Wikipedia has a major omission: United States' internal market. I wonder why no-one ever felt the need to write it? [!] Canada? Australia? Federal Republic of Germany? Switzerland? Not even one?
  • The EU is not a federation and has no defined path towards becoming one. ("Ever closer union" is an aspiration, not a strategy).
  • The CTA is an informal arrangement between Ireland and the United Kingdom (there is no treaty). It has no standing in international law and either side can close it without further ado.
Chalk/cheese. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have said and has been supported, the bill article is “noteworthy” in it’s own right and covers a very specific area, once the bill has passed and details are updated on how devolution will would operate in regard to the U.K. Internal Market then I will add this section.

It should be no surprise that the UK Internal Market article is based on the legislation, as this is what one of the pieces of legislation that underwrite this. The U.K. Internal Market article is the “main” article and can go into absolute detail, both articles cover topics not covered in the other and are equally important for providing context on this subject with both articles sitting in parallel, you cannot have one without the other.

ChefBear01 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree that a merge is a good idea. Most content in that article seems to be based on government policy papers, i.e. it predates the actual bill (language note: does table both means putting forth a bill and stop debating it? Confusing). Heck, the entire principles-section seems to be a verbatim copy of the cited policy paper (no copyright issues). While content from policy papers can be included, it is presented as if that is how it will be, which is just not so. The best way to solve this would be to merge into this article, so only keeping parts that are based on this bill or reporting/analysis thereof (this article, though, can benefit from a background-section about Brexit, the policy paper and the like, and also needs to have its provision-section expanded). Furthermore, I do not think the concept of an internal marked within a state is so unique a thing that the UK's instance of it warrants its own article, especially as it is no historical institution. It is better discussed within the context of the bill. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Hebsen: See Table (parliamentary procedure) – Kaihsu (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The U.K. is not a state like others where there is one state and “regions” unless you are implying England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are region of the “U.K”, which doesn’t hold up against the treaty of union or the definition of the U.K. which is that the U.K. consists of 2 countries, one principality and one province.

(The term “country” is also used interchangeably used to describe all parts of the U.K. as well and it would be generally accepted to be a union of 4 countries as that is the term most). ChefBear01 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here, because I'm not always good at mincing my words, but this feels like an attempt to create a mini European Single Market. Feels like the topic is government PR more than something of legal, academic or other interest. Yes, sure, the UK considers itself a 'union' of 'countries' with devolved governments. But de facto the UK is a country with constituents, some of which 'merged' in the Acts of Union and some at other points. This is not exactly different to states in the US deciding to form the United States (one with a little more consent, I suppose). Heck, a Canadian province (or, indeed, a US state) has more power than a devolved administration of the UK -- taxation, immigration, commerce, [...]. These days, for any international purpose, it's considered as one country. There's not much special about a "UK internal market" post-Brexit, it's not akin to a complex European single market, and it's not exactly novel and interesting like the Common Travel Area.
There's probably a good reason why reliable sources haven't really described it as such yet, and I suspect that reason is because it's not really a novel concept to have goods flowing across the UK, a country, just like people, laws, jobs, and everything else has to date. The current iteration of the article is not well supported by reliable sources. Perhaps it will become an actual thing in time? But Wiki isn't a crystal ball, so we can't know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market, Talk:United_Kingdom’s_internal_market#Mess ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Distinction

There are two things that may be helpful to distinguish, @ProcrastinatingReader:

  1. The Government proposal to Parliament on how trade within the UK would be governed after Brexit: The Government considers it necessary because (I simplify) EU single market rules have governed such trade during the years when regulatory powers became devolved in the UK, but soon those rules will no longer apply fully to the UK. There are views for and against, but the fact is that it is the Government’s proposal. So the article United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is warranted.
  2. The narrative that I hazard to sketch out like this: “The UK has long been a self-conscious ‘internal market’ of equal and autonomous partners, with worldwide geopolitical reach rival to the EU; [then sotto voce:] the difference being that it’s dominated by England – via the sovereign! Westminster Parliament – instead of by Germany”: United Kingdom’s internal market. This is at best original research, at worst not based on facts, even though some in the governing party promote it.

– Kaihsu (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaihsu, I wholly agree with that assessment. Original research is an issue, the infobox alone shows this. A list of British overseas territories being part of this market (not sure that is even true?), the prime minister labelled solely as the "Minister for the Union" (a PR title that he, himself, created, with minimal RS-backed significance to the topic matter), "Establishment" creating constitutional significance of a bill akin to the Acts of Union?
Now, this begs the question of what to do about it? Yes, it's an improvement over what it once was, but I don't think it's there yet, and it fundamentally cannot be fixed until (and if) RS' start treating it with significance. Until then, it's misleading in wiki-voice. I've requested closure at WP:AN/RFC to close this discussion as I think we've reached a consensus across this discussion, the forked discussion on that article's talk, and also factoring in the points raised at the AfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that is questioned, everything that was labelled as unknown has been removed and only the facts backed by citations remain on the article so to say that it is based on original research is misleading and I ask that you politely withdraw that part of the comment.
As has been mentioned above, I am continually trying to improve the article and as it stands and from what I see passes general principles for publishing.
ChefBear01 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I would love to see the discussion here (and in the encyclopedic articles) get to a level where we are actually engaging with the provisions of the various governance models, instead of just grandstanding. Dare I mention for example the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine? Kaihsu (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Which was new to me. This and the Commerce Clause probably suggest that I was wrong above and that the US does indeed have (in this law and the constitutional provision) a formal Internal Market at least for goods. (But apparently not for services: it is not possible to set up even as (for example) a hair dresser no less, without a state license. That license is not good for the adjacent state, if you want to move across the state line, you need a different license.) So how does California exclude Floridan oranges (and vv)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the kind of engagement that we need to have if Wikipedia is ever going to be more than superficial. Thick law books going to thousands of pages have been written on these topics and we need to go through them and summarize here. For example, a press release for a government consultation about a potential agreement on financial services does not generalize to a statement that there has always been free circulation for goods everywhere. While we are on real-life examples, just think what laws apply if a person holding (say) a Nigerian passport tries to take a ferry from Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead, compared to that from Malmö to Copenhagen. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment
@Kaihsu:, I want to have constructive discussion on the topic, I have pointed out why there is a need for two articles:

The U.K. Internal Market Bill article
The U.K. Internal Market Bill article is suppose to cover:

  • Progression in Parliament(the

bill)

  • A list of provisions and a brief explainer
  • Reactions (to the bill)
  • See also
  • References

U.K. Internal Market article
The U.K. Internal Market is suppose to cover:

  • History (of the Internal Market)
  • Mutual recognition and non - discrimination covering:

- Goods - Services - Qualifications

  • Exclusions from Mutual Recognition abs Mutual Recognition
  • Independent monitoring
  • Northern Ireland Protocol
  • Financial Assistance

Merging the two articles would make them unnecessarily long and hard to read, whereas keeping them apart will ensure that both articles remain concise and easy to manoeuvre and avoids unnecessary confusion. ChefBear01 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment
@Kaihsu: with this information in mind, showing the path that both articles should take and how I would evolve and grow them, would you now support both these articles staying.
ChefBear01 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge complete

I have completed the merge now. There was an clear consensus for a merge, with only one editor advocating against it. Over the last couple of weeks, much content have been removed from the other article, because there were issues with it, so now only the history-section contained information worth keeping (after trimming), now the background-section of this article. ChefBear01 (or others) you are welcome to continue work on the other article (in draftspace or userspace), but be aware that you should not move it to mainspace unless there is a consensus for it, as that would undo this merge. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have archived that article's talk page into a history link: [1], so that it now redirect to this talk page. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Feel free to salvage from here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_Market_Bill&oldid=981105245 Kaihsu (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Jurist

DeFacto has rightly picked me up on using jurist in the American sense, where the term is used of senior judges and eminent lawyers. Does anyone have a pithy equivalent in 'proper' English? "A Retired Justice of the Supreme Court and Four QCs" is not a great headline. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

“Senior lawyers (barristers) and judges”? (I actually think “jurists” is also okay.) – Kaihsu (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of parliament/gvt statements

Given the nature of the subject, the use of the various gvt statements (Welsh gvt/GNI formal statements on this should be added at some point if relevant) is unavoidable and quite proper. But given the dispute over the bill they are all de facto primary sources (as parties to the dispute). Any views on whether statements taken from those sources should only be direct quotes? Obv need to avoid interpretation or synthesis and have used their wording with light editing, but they are quite lengthy. Cambial foliage❧ 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To my mind, if a source is partisan, yes, we must put in quotes so that it is clearly not wp:Wikipedia's voice and so exempt from NPOV. But we also have to be careful of wp:CHERRY-picking on our own part.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

UK Internal Market Draft

I am creating a Draft:United Kingdom internal market article, and it would help greatly to have as much assistance as possible to ensure it has a variety of input and meets WP:NPOV & WP:SIGCOV.

I am waiting to put the article forward for publishing until:

Please do not delete this section as it is provides a link to contribute to the article and links to the criteria that need to be met.

Reasons for the article:

1. To prevent the Internal Market Bill article been to overcrowded and difficult to read WP:LENGTH

2. The Internal Market Bill article is a summary page WP:Summary, and should link to the draft:United Kingdom Internal Market page which would be the main article that goes into detail WP:Main. ChefBear01 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

3. There are summary articles but no central hub article to cohesively cover the UK Internal Market as a whole, which this article would achieve.

I don't understand why you would want to do that at this stage. Most of this talk page is about merging down a previous article with what seems to be the same content. We don't know yet whether the Bill will pass and if it does, in what form. If you are only using Government sources, you fall foul of WP:PRIMARY, you need to wait for reliable sources to assess the implications. So you are seriously jumping the gun per WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: At the moment the page is still in progress awaiting the outcome and consensus before moving it as I explained above, you are making assumptions without evidence as I am merely explaining why this article would be necessary once the outcome is know, but maybe I should have made that clearer.
Anyone including yourself that wants to edit the article is welcome to do so, I am openly encouraging input from as many people as possible to ensure the article is open, transparent and varied in content.
I have sources from very respected external sources
there is also content that I have previously removed that doesn’t belong in Internal Market Bill and should be in a specific article that covers the entire topic not just a piece of it, and that is what the Draft:United Kingdom Internal Market is been created to achieve by making central hub to all the different WP:Summary articles that now or previously helped in creating and governing the internal market
ChefBear01 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The list of Summary articles WP:Summary which cross into this topic with minor references so far would include.
(The two founding articles.
That created the U.K. Internal Market and customs union, but only briefly go into the topic)
(In terms of governance that will make minor reference, but where this internal market article will go into detail about how it fits into the U.K. Internal Market.
(These are sector specific, and complement the U.K Internal Market.)
  • Fisheries Bill 2019 - 2021
(Which covers how fishing operates within the U.K in terms of governance but not cross border trade of fish, which is covered in the internal Market article through mutual recognition and non - discrimination.
  • Agriculture Bill 2019 - 2021
(Same reason as above for fisheries)
ChefBear01 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Part 5 provisions

These descriptions need to be checked against the enacted version. Kaihsu (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Tangentially, Some provisions in Part 5 of the Bill, clauses 40 to 45, caused much controversy. as far as I can see this isn't verified by the given source, and at least in the enacted version sections 40-45 aren't part of Part 5. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The clauses in the (original) bill were renumbered when they became sections in the Act. Compare the bill and the Act and see the difference. I did only a rough check. Kaihsu (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

New article: Irish Sea border

A new article has been created, Irish Sea border, that probably could do with more eyes and a broader perspective. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of editor John Maynard Friedman

I think perhaps this editor should consider taking a break from this article. Having noticed his behaveiour on the article and read through his contributions I am very concerned at their behaviour. It appears they may be acting as if they own the article and bring a considerable amount of their own biases to it. I am particularly concerned that they seem to hold themselves as the arbitor as sources and suggest things need to stand up to their scrutiny this would perhaps veer onto to original research. I would suggest the easiest first step is for this editor to take a step back, treat other editors with respect as equals and come back to this article in a couple of months. If issues continue perhaps some form of informal meditation might be appropriate.

Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.34.195 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Or in other words, anyone who disagrees with you should stop editing the article. Yeah, right.... FDW777 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


@79.66.34.195: I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:bold, revert, discuss, wp:status quo, WP:edit war and finally WP:boomerang.
I haven't been active on this article for a while, I guess what got your knickers in a twist was that I reverted a bold edit that you made without having engaged in any prior discussion or attempt to secure consensus for it. My interest in this article is only that it have a WP:neutral point of view and to do that, it needs to reflect various points of view and not just trot out the party line. For the record, I am not a Scottish Nationalist or indeed any kind of nationalist, which is what probably makes me ideologically suspect in your book. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
User:John Maynard Friedman has always been perfectly courteous, but this is not the place to discuss editor behaviour. I draw the attention of the ip user to WP:AOBF. Use the individual's talk page or ANI if you think it's serious. Do bear in mind that other editors will likely weigh in, and your own behaviour will be under scrutiny. I am on board for some informal meditation though; it sounds lovely. OMMM.... Cambial foliage❧ 11:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I thought this might be a useful source, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/12/18/kenneth-armstrong-governing-with-or-without-consent-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-act-2020/ I'll add more here for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lack of images

The article currently lacks images. Are there ones from the debates in the various legislatures we could include? trade flow maps or graphs of the UK from UKG and academic publications?

I thought the graphs here were quite good https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-uk-internal-market

How do you go about upload an image to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just adding this from ProcrastinatingReader so I don't lose it or forget The syntax for doing it is like this: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|right|Caption here]], but it has to be uploaded first. There's a simple 4 small page tutorial at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget that any images must be free and open to anyone to use anywhere for any purpose. (For policy, see wp:copyright.) Which is quite a big ask unless the artist/photographer is died before 1951 or you took the picture yourself. This may be why the article has no pictures? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that tone really needed, why does everything have to be so aggressive and confrontational? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

More Economics

Given the article is primarily about law regarding the UK Economy, I suggest that perhaps it be useful to have more inclusion around the economics? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tidying up

I don't think the article has been touched much since it fell out of the news, and became an act so alot of the tenses are still present when refering to the passage of the bill etc. I have started changes these to past tense when refering to the bill as it is now an act.

Also the article was bit messy with material all over the place so I have tried to put stuff more in its proper place. Not trying to criticise anyone as I imagine any article written about something in the news is drafted with more haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, your personal interpretation of the primary source of the legislation itself is not acceptable as wp content. Cambial foliage❧ 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Well that is a bit rude. What interpretation exactly? Also this is a work in progress so I am adding as I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If you find statement of fact about the policy regarding interpretation of primary sources rude there is nothing I can do about that. Furthermore, you have deleted 80% of the lead. That's not adding as you go. The fact that the act is now in force does not negate the relevance of the history of its passage through parliament. Secondary academic sources are the most reliable sources for statements of fact. There is no reason to remove them from the lead, even if there is scope to expand their inclusion in the devolution section of the body. Cambial foliage❧ 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't deleted the lead I have moved it to more appropriate areas. It was very long, poorly written and repetitive. Openings are best when there are short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead must reflect the most salient points of the discussion, per WP:LEAD. The change you want to make would present only the perspective of the UK government, which is clearly not a shared perspective. Yes, you may wp:be bold and just make changes, but be prepared for your changes to be reverted pending discussion, per WP:bold, revert, discuss. It is more productive to propose changes here and secure consensus first. This is not about left/right/up/down bias: per wp:neutral point of view, the article should reflect all mainstream perspectives provided that they are supported by citation from a wp:reliable source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I was just setting out what the Act is does, as other articles on piece of UK legislation. As I said in the edit history your (Mr Keynes) addition about the Scottish and Welsh Govs views seemed perfectly fair to me, and it was short. I just think the old lead was flabby and jumped about from idea to idea without much reason or rhyme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
So your response was to delete almost all of it? It's already been pointed out to you that the lead needs to summarise all the main points about the article. You can't simply remove the bits you don't like.Cambial foliage❧ 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The lead has to be succinct too. There is a generic problem with controversial topics where people just add yet another item to the lead without any underlying body content, so 'flabbiness' may be a valid charge - but as with people, we can lose weight by cutting out the fat or by chopping a leg off. Just outright removing material that summarises body content is chopping a leg off. But taking out material that is not a major topic is cutting the fat. So, user:80.42.39.51, would you care to propose a new lead section? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but succinct is not "one paragraph", particularly where that fails to represent large parts of the article, and removes the relevant secondary academic sources which discuss what the act does. The history of its passage to enactment (and contemporary controversies) is relevant to the act itself. Cambial foliage❧ 15:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

First nothing was removed only moved to a more appropriate place in the body of the text. As to JMF point I think the current lead is fine. If it was generally decided it should be longer I would suggest two key consideration going forward

  • What are the key facts of the Act now and in the Future
  • It should mirror the structure of the Article

So to the first point - the most important issue when it was a bill were the provisions empowering the NISoS to break with the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement's Northern Ireland Protocol (I won't get into the debate here if international law is a thing or not) but that had wide ranging criticism and diplomatic impacts however the offending clauses were withdrawn. So its interesting to its history but not relevant to its effects going foward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of what was the most important issue. Before you deleted almost all of the lead, it contained exactly one sentence about the section on the NI protocol, which was a major controversy in the UK during its passage to enactment. The fact it is now enacted does not render its history unimportant or mean it does not require summary in the lead. Cambial foliage❧ 10:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you always need to be so confrontational? is this how you treat everyone in life, Cambial? As has been noted many times I didn't delete anything.

JMF suggested that I propose a new personally I think the current one is good and doesn't get bogged in any he said she said that is better saved for the criticism section. Look at article like the BBC (a heavily criticised organisation) its lead is just matter of fact what the organisation is (still on the long side though). Despite the mansplainy tone I am going to take JMF suggestion and put a starter for ten below

"The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in December 2020. It is concerned with trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations. The Government of the United Kingdom says that the act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

It creates principles of Mutual recognition and non discrimination to prevent non tariff barriers emerging in the trade in goods and provision of services between the internal jurisdictions of the UK. It establish an Office of the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor the UK Internal Market. The legislation also reserves the regulation of government subsidy to business, provides the UK Government powers to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its UK position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

The legislation was controversial during it's passage as it originally contained clauses that would allow the Northern Ireland Secretary of State to unilateral override the Northern Ireland Protocol These drew criticism from UK politicians, The Church of England, The EU, and US Democrats. The clauses were removed. The legislation was also criticised for its impacts on devolution. It faced multiple defeats in the Lords until the Government agreed Lord Hope's amendment creating a exemption regime based on the Common Frameworks programme.

UK Ministers have said the legislation was vital for the integrity of the union and the functioning of the Economy of the United Kingdom following the UK's withdrawal from the economic governance architecture of the European Union. As part of the UK's withdrawal many powers including those in devolved competence will transfer from the EU to UK and devolved governments. The UK government has categorised this and the UK Internal Market Act as a "Power surge" for devolutiion. Ministers in Scotland and Wales have disputed this calling it a "Power Grab" by Westminister and suggesting that the legislation will curtail the powers of devolved legislatures and potential create a regulatory race to the bottom."

Just to note I'm dyslexic so if there are spelling or grammar mistakes I will fix these over the course of drafts or do feel free to go ahead and correct I'm not precious about it. So what are people's thoughts? I thought on the NI criticism mentioning Joe Biden weighed in but wasn't sure how to frame the tense without it becoming unwieldy? President (Then candidate} Biden, perhaps? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, repeatedly doing so can lead to a block. Your proposed lead ignores WP:NPOV from the off. Stating the goverment PR line on its own in the first paragraph is not appropriate. Your proposed second paragraph introduces jargon which is not appropriate for the lead. It does contain some content which could be added to the lead, subject to some refinement. The third paragraph makes several inaccurate and WP:UNSOURCED claims which are not supported by any known scholarship or journalism, e.g. "The clauses were removed" which in context suggests that all the controversial sections are no longer extant. Your final paragraph is highly partial language, contextualising one party's view as dominant and other views as a dispute. Throughout you also make multiple claims which are not supported by appropriate sources, as fact. The substantive changes do not adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:V and cannot be supported. Cambial foliage❧ 11:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no need to be defensive, its not an attack. I am simply setting out how your behaviour is making me feel, your tone is very aggressive, confrontational and now threatening, which is all upsetting. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the clauses that would of broken the NIP are in the act still? I thought things that were patently true like the sky is blue didn't need sources? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
mansplaining is a personal attack. The perceived aggression is imagined. Falsely claiming editors are being threatening is a personal attack.
No-one is making that claim, nor could a reasonable person have drawn that conclusion. But the NI issues were not and are not the only controversial sections in the act. Cambial foliage❧ 11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the comprehensive lead. One small paragraph is clearly inappropriate for an article of this size. FDW777 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So just completely ignoring the suggestion we come to a consensus here? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I restored the consensus version. If you want to significantly reduce the lead, you get consensus for the change. FDW777 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Who's consensus? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That of everyone who has legitimate concerns based in policy, sources, and common sense. Cambial foliage❧ 13:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So you essentially say not consensus but some exclusinary group you define? as for policy someone advice me that the most important one is ignore all the rules! 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear that the current lead doesn't have consensus, I equally accept my one paragraph version doesn't either. I have tried to propose a compromise but didn't make any suggested changes. So perhaps you can suggest a new lead instead? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It has pretty strong consensus from those interested in following policy, which is what matters. My suggested lead is, roughly, the one that at least 5 different editors have reverted to over several weeks, and which was produced by the usual editing refinement process of several more editors. Cambial foliage❧ 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_Internal_Market_Act_2020/Archive_1&oldid=1020981709"