Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cambial Yellowing's request for page protection

For those not carefully following the behaviour of Cambial Yellowing, they have requested that this article be protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection

Presumably it's so they can continue to crop the latter half of the following opinion of one person and put it into the lead in such a way that it looks like something the government stated. "By imposing widespread obligations of non-discrimination and, more important, mutual recognition, the bill seeks to restrict the way that devolved competences operate in practice." Factmachine66 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There are five different expert citations for that sentence, for reader convenience they have been bundled into one. So it is not Cambrai's opinion. But if you can show that (a) the citations don't actually say that (template:not in citation given) or (b) it makes an inference beyond what they say, contrary to WP:SYNTH, then it would have to be deleted. But for the time being you must assume that CY is acting in good faith and not make wild assumptions about their motives. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this isn't Cambial Foilage's opinion which was just quoted, it is the opinion of Michael Dougan but Cambial Foilage wants to use only part of that single quote to misrepresent it. The main problem with Cambial Foilage's preferred lead is that the latter part of the quote is preceeded by "The Government of the United Kingdom says that" which is clearly false as they haven't said that. The lead for this article keeps being reverted for motives that can only be explained by political activism rather than rational or logical thought. Now Cambial Yellowing wants to revert again and protect the page for their own ends. Factmachine66 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, there are five citations, not one. The quote has already been discussed in detail above; all of which you ignore. The lead prior to IP deleting most of it, included the phrase "The government of the UK says that..." with a citation to the government's own policy paper giving their view on the purpose of the bill: the sentence summarising it was almost lifted verbatim from that paper. Have you read the five citations for the clause you particularly object to, and the policy paper which you claim "they haven't said that"? Cambial foliage❧ 20:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, I don’t know why I just read through that many linked sources; expecting to find somewhere where there’s anything resembling evidence that the UK Government said that the act seeks to restrict the way that devolved administrations can operate. Please can you cite the specific source which verifies it? 92.40.174.148 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you won't find it. The UK Government has never said that and, prior to recent vandalism, the article could not be read as suggesting that it did. I'm not going to try to fix it at this time of night but, put simply, the position is this: (1) the UK government says that the purpose of the Act is to have a single UK-wide market (2) the devolved administrations are saying that the purpose is to limit some of the freedoms that that the devolution settlement gave them. The sources are only for part 2. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is not quite correct. The UK government is not a neutral source for what the act seeks to do, given that its intent is disputed by multiple parties. Both the UK government view and the Scottish government views were given, attributed to each. UKG was taken from Alok Sharma's policy paper giving the government line. SG line was taken from the legislative consent memorandum deposited in response. The academic sources are not used for either of these. They represent at least nine scholars' analysis of the purpose and result of the act (scholars of international/trade/constitutional law and one of economics), and these were used to support the statement in WP voice on what the act seeks to achieve. Cambial foliage❧ 10:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that clarification. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of source, the grating aspect of the lead restored today is that it doesn’t say how administrations are restricted, leaving ambiguity and a wild selection of possible interpretations. This is supposed to be a neutral summary of what the act actually does. 92.40.174.169 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And so it is. Content is never determined irrespective of source; see WP:V and WP:NPOV. The claimed concern you express has been addressed here in this thread; if you have policy or source based objections feel free to make them known. Page protection will not prevent you from doing so. Cambial foliage❧ 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Which 9 scholars? I wouldn't recommend Michael Dougan he is a very arrogant man who doesn't really know what he' talking about. However Katy Hayward, Jo Hunt and particularly Nicola McEwen are very good. They evidence to the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee touched on UKIM quite alot as is worth watching or reading 80.42.39.51 (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On your point about the UK government not be neutral I agree with you in part. Ministers will always be biased towards their political objectives so something like the BEIS White Paper they consulted on will have an element of this in its preamble etc. However civil servants in both UKG and SG can't lie or mislead so they can generally be treated as neutral (its a key tenet of the UK Civil Service in fact). So the BEIS White Paper analysis is really no different than an academic paper hence its extensive citations. This would be even more the case with the Impact Assessment. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally I think this is quite petty to ask to protect the article simply because you don't like anyone else changing it. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection is sought because you want to edit unilaterally, including deleting almost all of a lead which was the status quo for ~12 weeks and which was refined by multiple editors. If you think the BEIS White Paper analysis is really no different than an academic paper then you need to read the content policies of WP. We recognise that policy; we don't follow your opinion. Apart from anything else, that document is not an "analysis" and doesn't claim to be. You don't get to simply impose your hot take. Whether you consider Michael Dougan or Emily Lydgate or David Bell "arrogant" is not relevant. Who you consider "very good" is not relevant. Their expertise is recognised by major universities and government, and their views published by major universities and by parliament. Cambial foliage❧ 10:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How is anything you just said not just your "own hot take". Isn't the quality of sources relevant? Can I ask have you read the white paper the act itself or the IA? or is it just a limited world of your own alternative facts? You claim an appeal to authority on the basis of the status quo yet by your own admission its only a status quo because you are constantly bashing down anyone who changes your work. That isn't a status quo, and status quos can change (obivously not the band though, if you know 3 power chords then you play 3 power chords!) 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I didn't say anything about Emily Lydgate she's very nice and know's her stuff well. The University of Sussex Trade Observatory has been doing cracking work for years. I've not come across David Bell so can't comment either way. I would note that Jo, Katy and Nicola were all invited to give evidence to parliament. So are recognised as experts. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome to propose text that is supported by reliable sources of equal stature. What you may not do is delete stuff thatis properly and adequately sourced but you just don't like it; and you may not just make assertions without supporting evidence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: they appear to have completely ignored this, and other posts of a similar nature. It appears clear to me the IP has no interest in consensus forming, and is intent on bulldozing changes through despite significant opposition to them. FDW777 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I think some of the points are getting through, their more recent contributions to the talk page show a bit more thought and a bit less knee-jerk. The material they contributed on the CBI etc was valid, useful and properly cited. I believe that they are a genuinely new editor who is writing in good faith but who is trying to do too much at once. I would hope that putting a temporary block on editing in main-space will slow the frenetic change/counter-change and lower the temperature a bit. If this is referred to WP:ANI, I would doubt strongly that a charge of WP:NOTHERE would be upheld. We can resolve this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Look at the edits in the last two hours.

• 16:12, 31 January 2021 significant unreferenced addition to "UK Government Rationale" section
• 16:13, 31 January 2021 misrepresentation of references in first sentence of the lead
• 16:25, 31 January 2021 edit wars to repeat previous two diffs
• 16:29, 31 January 2021 same again
• 16:49, 31 January 2021 and same again

That is not constructive editing, it's bulldozing. FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually I haven't and John even came to my talk page to thank me for some of the source additions I'd made. Perhaps if you tried be constructive we might actually get somewhere? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinsent Masons

Notability is established by its reference in a variety of reliable published sources. Alan Davies' views do not meet this criteria. Cambial foliage❧ 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So then Michael Dougan isn't notable either? since material cited from him is all from organisations he's a member of?

Also I don't think you can claim four is a majority of academic opinion particularly when 3 involved the same person. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Dougan is not cited for his opinion. His published academic work is cited alongside 8 other academics for statements of fact. If you know of other scholarly publications which contradict the views of those cited please bring them to our attention. We know of at least two other published sources from academics, quoted above, which further support the claim made. They will be added in due course. Cambial foliage❧ 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is Michael Dougan opinion a statement of fact? Particularly for legislation that hasn't really had real world impacts so we don't know what effects it will have on devolution, until such time its just Michael opinion of what it might do, worthy of note but not a statement of fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Dr Lydgate source doesn't support it, niether does the centre on constitutional change source so you don't know that. Perhaps you could point out where in Dr Lydgate source she supports what you are saying? As I may have missed it 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my comments, I don't think you have any right to control what, when and where I post on the talk page. It comes across as very controlling, and as trying to act superior 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comments have not been deleted, but moved to the section which discusses the topic you are writing about. I don't claim any right to control what you post, but I do control what new topics I create are titled. If you have anything further to say about Pinsent Masons and Alan Davies, feel free to post it here. Cambial foliage❧ 17:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Doctor Lydgate submission written before the UK Internal Market bill was published she explicitly states a mutual recognition principle enshrined in law as one appropriate option 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment above has now been copied to the appropriate section. Continue the discussion on that topic there if you wish. Cambial foliage❧ 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well don't do that we are discussing it here, you don't see how that is controlling behaviour? particularly burying it some thread without even saying you've moved it.80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also why did you take my proposed text out of quotes below? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't removed any proposed text below. You are discussing it here. But this section is about a Pinsent Mason's employee, and his (non-) notability. Cambial foliage❧ 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't remove the text just the {{quote bit, perhaps it was a mistake, but you should own up and accept your mistakes! Rather than pretending your infalible! 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed a complete mistake; I have no idea how that happened and I apologise. Moving your comments out of this section was in no way an attempt at burying your comments, and did not signify an intention not to respond to them. Keeping discussion about the same subject in the same thread means that other editors who join the discussion later can follow the whole of the discussion, instead of it being dispersed over several different threads with different titles. We now have two sections, one titled Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 2#Citations fail verification and another titled #2021_Sources_Discussion which are about the same thing. There is information about talk pages here; it will also be helpful if you indent your comments as described here. I hope it goes without saying that making multiple attempts to rename a section to make it about a different subject that you want to discuss ([1][2][3][4] is never acceptable.

To get back to this section, do you have any reliable sources which establish Alan Davies' notability for his opinion? A law firm is not generally considered a reliable source itself, but if he is considered notable by several reliable sources for his views on constitutional law/trade law, that might merit including his view with attribution. Cambial foliage❧ 21:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for claims about legislative disputes

Sources need to directly support what WP text states. Drawing your own conclusion from specific sources which make other statements is not appropriate content. Cambial foliage❧ 16:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes pleased do add them. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What? You add the claim in this edit that The legislation also resolved the dispute between the UK government and Scottish and Welsh Governments over whether the regulation of State Aid (also called Subsidy control) was a reserved or devolved matter but setting it out in primary as reserved. This didn't impact the provision of state aid by Devolved Adminstrations only that the rulebook would be set by Westminister rather than Brussels going forward. This is both lacking a source and is also total nonsense. When you added this you did not provide a source for it. You re-added this after it was removed because of the lack of sourcing, contrary to WP:UNSOURCED. You have still not provided a source for it. You cannot simply make things up which you think sound good. Cambial foliage❧ 19:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need a source it a clear fact, its in the legislation. A Scottish government lawyer would tell you the same thing. Do you understand how UK legislation works? 80.42.39.51 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in the act does it claim to have resolved the dispute about state aid. You need to provide WP:secondary reliable sources which directly support your text, not make naked unsourced claims. That's called original research; we never include it in an article. Cambial foliage❧ 21:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you are being pedantic about a semantic point. The dispute has been put beyond doubt because the UKG has definitely reserved State Aid, so there is no longer an argument if its reserved or not. I think again this perhaps speaks to your ignorance of how British law works. 79.66.51.226 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Sources Discussion

Notability is established by its reference in a variety of reliable published sources. Alan Davies' views do not meet this criteria. Cambial foliage❧ 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So then Michael Dougan isn't notable either? since material cited from him is all from organisations he's a member of?

Also I don't think you can claim four is a majority of academic opinion particularly when 3 involved the same person. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Dougan is not cited for his opinion. His published academic work is cited alongside 8 other academics for statements of fact. If you know of other scholarly publications which contradict the views of those cited please bring them to our attention. We know of at least two other published sources from academics, quoted above, which further support the claim made. They will be added in due course. Cambial foliage❧ 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is Michael Dougan opinion a statement of fact? Particularly for legislation that hasn't really had real world impacts so we don't know what effects it will have on devolution, until such time its just Michael opinion of what it might do, worthy of note but not a statement of fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.39.51 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Dr Lydgate source doesn't support it, niether does the centre on constitutional change source so you don't know that. Perhaps you could point out where in Dr Lydgate source she supports what you are saying? As I may have missed it 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Doctor Lydgate submission written before the UK Internal Market bill was published she explicitly states a mutual recognition principle enshrined in law as one appropriate option 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC) ) Also on Pinsent Mason they are well regarded source of legal opinion. I appreciate UK constitutional law and law generally is a little niche so you might not of been aware 80.42.39.51 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The submission you mention from the University of Sussex was written in response to the bill after it was published. It's difficult to discern whether you're merely poorly informed on this point or simply a liar. Cambial foliage❧ 23:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you are calling be a liar? I would look to the plank in your own eye first. It was written in response to a Scottish Parliament Finance and Constitution Committee call for evidence on UKIM that closed on the 28th Feburary 2020, before event the BEIS white paper was published. You can see it here, its the second on the list! https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/113987.aspx 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok fair, the submission cited was written in response to the understanding of intent to publish legislation (following the Johnson manifesto and electoral success), not to the white paper itself. I apologise for the error. The evidence supplied from Emily Lydgate in direct response to the published bill is here; the most pertinent sections are on pages 12 and 15. Emily Lydgate, like Michael Dougan, stresses that the restrictions are what occurs in practice, i.e. because of the economic reality of the size of the jurisdictions, which is why it is phrased this way in the text. I am open to expanding this phrase "in practice" to explain what that means in further detail within the lead. But attempts to frame it as an unfortunate side effect unforeseen by the bill's authors have no basis in the sources or in common sense. Similarly, trying to frame the work of multiple academics in at least 5 publications as the opinion of one or two people, when no academic sourcing has been produced to suggest otherwise, does not adhere to content policy, particularly npov. Cambial foliage❧ 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that “in practice”, like I’ve stated from the beginning is opinionated and vague; it should not be in the lead of this article. I think it should be taken out and you can expand on what “in practice” means further on. This article is the only major legislative article that has an opinion of an academic within the lead, with an agenda to force a particular viewpoint on the article favoured by the editor. Multiple editors have raised concerns about this and Cambial Yellowing has refused to engage and accept that it isn’t the way forward. Therefore, I would now like to seek consensus to remove the “in practice” as it is opinion of someone else and not fact and goes against precedent set on every other major legislative article on Wikipedia. DrJosephCowan (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing the phrase "in practice" would render the sentence as "restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales can operate". This is not supported by the references. They emphasise that this restriction is of the devolved govs "practical capacity to regulate" (or similar phrases), because of the real-world circumstances in which the act will operate, which its drafters were aware of. I've reworded to better emphasise this. The notion that this is the only major legislative article that has the analysis of legal scholars used in the lead is firstly, simply not the case, and secondly, not the basis for determining the type of sources which should be used. These are the relevant sections of the core policies. This article doesn't have an opinion, with an agenda to force a particular viewpoint in the lead, but cites reports written by legal scholars of trade law, politics, and related fields. What you are in effect trying to argue is that rather than giving their honest academic analysis based on their extensive expertise, they are simply trying to push an agenda for reasons you don't attempt to explain. That's a facetious and absurd charge of intellectual and professional dishonesty against nine individuals, published in various fora, all curiously skewing their analysis in the same direction. In other words it's ridiculous and verges on conspiracy theory. Once again DrJosephCowan, if you know of academic publications which put a different analysis across, post them here or simply add them directly to the article. The ones I could find on devolution and the act all agree on this point, as do the ones that another editor found while trying to disprove the consensus exists. Cambial foliage❧ 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Cowan. I would also add the following points;

• None of the academics are UK constitutional lawyers, some have expertise in EU but this is dramatically different.
• None of the sources I've read, are definitive. They all couch their language in "coulds", "mays" and "mights" to hedge their bets effectively so they are not trying to present their opinions as definitive facts and Dr McEwen for example heavily caveats all the work I've seen with we can't really tell what the act will do until its in operation"
• The sources are out of date, they refer to the bill as introduced or when it was speculative. The final act was heavily amended. for example Michael Dougan suggested there should be a pre legislative consultation mechanism, this was one of the amendments that the government made as a concession to the lords. Similarly all the academics cited called for a more permissive exemptions regime particularly one built on the common frameworks programme (Dr McEwen in her evidence to the lords Frameworks committee said she would whole heartily support Lord Hope's amendment) Again the government amended the bill in line with Lord Hope's suggestion so it does now have a exemptions regime based on mutual agreement. As such using responses to the bill as if they are responses to the final act is misleading at best. 79.66.51.226 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• They are trade lawyers giving their analysis of trade law, or professors of politics or economics.
• In some places the sources use the term "could" or may. In many others they are clear and unequivocal, particularly for academic language.
• The Lords amendments were real and should be covered properly in the lead, but did not alter the market access principles or their reach, which is what this section covers.
• Please indent your comments as per WP:THREAD. Cambial foliage❧ 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So we have established none of them are constitutional lawyers, even a constitutional lawyer would only give you a assessment, and would tell you couldn't say what it will do in practice until has been tested in court.

Which places are they unequivocial and which of the Academics? Drs McEwen, Lydgate and Hayward aren't.

The Lords amendments change it drastically as you can see from the academics you citing, they all say an exemption regime would massively change the effect of the bill, in fact Dr McEwen says one built on the frameworks would improve the bill.

So these points belong in the background or reactions as a reaction to the bill not to the act

PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out that all the academics cited are from the DAs, some have even worked as advisors for the DA governments such as Dr McEwen has for the Scottish Government. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)