Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected edit request on 3 February 2021 - Disambiguation

Disambiguation needed x 4

• In the section"Academia"
  • Lord Hope should be changed to David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead
• In the scetion "Political Parties"
  • Labour -> Labour Party (UK)
  • Liberal Democrats -> Liberal Democrats (UK)
  • Alliance Party -> Alliance Party of Northern Ireland — Rod ^talk 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the article is unlocked I have made the 4 changes suggested thanks. CoiledAmp (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

its Act not act

Why do so many articles use Act not act? A simple look will show that. Where does it in say in MOS that Act should be lowercase? CoiledAmp (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It says plain as day at MOS:POLITICALUNITS that it is "act". Naturally this will be ignored like any other inconvenient facts. FDW777 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see this was already linked to in the edit summary (using a different shortcut). So the answer to your question is "Right in the linked section it says These principles also apply to terms for the output of institutions, companies, and other organizations (act, bill, law, regulation, product, service, report, guideline, etc.)." Words literally fail me. FDW777 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"These principles also apply"... Again, where does it say that it must be lower case? CoiledAmp (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you actually read the principles right above that sentence? Or the introductory line of the guideline? FDW777 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I read it. I dont see where it says that Act when talking about a specific Act, should be lowercase. Amazing how many articles out there are wrong if this is the case. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I respectfully suggest you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice personal abuse directed at me. thanks. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Scotland Act 1998 European Communities Act 1972 (UK) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 To name just 3 examples of many that all use Act throughout. Its amazing that it seems its just this article that has to have lower case. Its almost as though there is an intentional effort to delegitimise this Act. Which also links into how biased and negative in tone the entire article is. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have some sort of reading problem? We go by the Manual of Style, not the contents of other articles. FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess we will have to go around and correct a lot of UK Parliament Acts then because they have all got it so wrong. CoiledAmp (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CoiledAmp, I think it looks more appropriate at the very least at the beginning of the article. DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_28#Expand_MOS:INSTITUTIONS_to_cover_'act',_'bill',_'resolution'_and_other_items_of_legislation?. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources in articles about legislation

Since we have more senior eyes on this article and talk page at this moment, please could we have clarification on using primary sources when making statements of fact about legislation? for example, this diff. This essay/policy says yay, Cambial says nay, what do the learned wikipedians say? 146.198.108.204 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You misrepresent both this diff and the document you link to. According to that page, it is not a policy, and it deals primarily with the United States. The diff was a reversion of the interpretation of a primary source introduced by an editor. This is prohibited under Wp:OR. Whatever one's reading of the essay you link to, the prohibition on original research which necessitated that reversion remains. Cambial foliage❧ 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"...or more commonly, that because what they've written is *true*, the policies are of less consequence." Does it matter if it's true? You'd think it would. Anyway, Cambial, I could have guessed your opinion this by the sheer quantity of examples. Please, for the love of all that is holy could someone else chime in? I don't have the will to play the war of attrition game.146.198.108.204 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the relevant policy. Attempts to further explain that policy for those not getting it: WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:BUTITSTRUE. Cambial foliage❧ 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry so you are arguing you can reference an Act to say what an Act does? that is quite mad. What would you do for legislation that doesn't attract press interest? this is an act of parliament, it exists but we can't say what it does, is a mystery?! Even you realise that is idiotic, surely? I know you love policies so remember the most important one is WP:IAR PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not. It isn't the most important. But you just keep on attacking this fella → if that's what you're into, yeah? Cambial foliage❧ 16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A straw man for editors to shout at, if they wish

(Personal attack removed)

(Personal attack removed) PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How much longer do we have to tolerate every attempt to enforce content policy being reverted by SPAs?

Simple question. FDW777 (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would invite FDW777 to reconsider their airing of assumptions of bad faith on this page and present any arguments and evidence they may have in the correct forum. Given the lack of anything other than wild accusation, I can only assume they object to PlainAndSimpleTailor, who appears to forget to log in (@PlainAndSimpleTailor, FDW777 will eventually get action taken for this, worth nipping in the bud). If FDW777's objections are limited to this (and just generally anyone looking to add content) I would appeal to you for reasonableness and cooperation.146.198.108.204 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would invite you to retract your comment of "Undid revision 1006584720 by Cambial Yellowing (talk). User is skirting the 3RRR to vandalise the article throughout with NPOV violations", before making any suggestions about what other editors should do. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll answer the whataboutism only as far as linking to the preceding edits here, here, here and here which are NPOV violations and breaking the 3RRR; you may have noticed I haven't gone out of my way to try and get anyone banned as a result. The floor is open for you to respond to the original point.146.198.108.204 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Structured lead moderation

Howdy hello folks! I am going to attempt to moderate this. This will require a fair amount of discipline and good faith on those involved, but if successful will solve this dispute without enormous difficulty. If you do not wish to participate, please say so, but that will impede the success of this moderation.

The parties are:

• User:CoiledAmp
• User:PlainAndSimpleTailor
• User:FDW777
• User:DrJosephCowan
• User:Cambial_Yellowing

If I have forgotten a party, feel free to add yourself.

What happens now is that each of you will put out a statement, not more than 250 words, that briefly and concisely states your stance on the lead of this article. There will be numerous rounds of discussion, so don't worry if you can't get all of your points out now, just get out the most important. After everyone has put out their initial statement, I will then put out a neutral moderation statement to direct the next round of statements.

Ground rules:

• Talk only in your section
• 250 words per section, MAX!
• Do not engage in threaded discussion
• Focus on content, not the contributor. I expect unerring civility here.

Good tidings, and smooth sailing, AdmiralEek (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by CoiledAmp

The sentence I had most concern about has been removed so isn’t in the current version. That sentence which I oppose being reintroduced gave undue weight and prominence to the opinion of one academic.

The problem with the current introduction is that most of the focus is on peoples and conflicting governments opinions rather than on what the actual legislation says and does. Until the current version was changed before being locked it failed to even mention “Mutual Recognition” + “Non Discrimination” yet that is the primary purpose and effect of the legislation. The introduction focus has been all wrong with it instead being about what UK Government, Scottish Government, Devolved Admins, Michael Gove, and academics have said rather than what the legislation does. Yes there should be 1 paragraph on views/notable criticism but its almost every other sentence of the introduction currently and the entire article is overtly negative and not neutral. No other legislation article has this sort of hostile tone, negativity and bias.

Others have suggested some of this before but my preference would be to rearrange the introductions paragraphs to:

First: Mentions its primary purposes and effects and why leaving EU meant it was needed (without opinions).

Second: Mentions secondary purposes (subsidy control, spending powers, Office of Internal Market etc) (without opinions).

Third: Mentions the Northern Ireland issue, what was proposed, international criticism, and it being removed.

Fourth: Mentions the legislation got royal assent, and the UK Government and Devolved Administrations view of the completed Act.

CoiledAmp (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by PlainAndSimpleTailor

The old lead was written when the Act was a bill and as such is out of date. It is overly long and confused, focused more on what criticism of the bill were than what the Act does. So there is to much on how the sausage was made, not on what it is.

There are several major elements of the Act, the establishment of the Office of the Internal Market a new advisory body, the reservation of State aid/subsidy control, a duty to provide unfettered access to Northern Ireland, new spending powers for central government to spend in parallel to DAs in areas of devolved competence that should be covered. The concepts of mutual recognition and non discrimination should be explained. Similar the UK's constitutional background should be set out. Overall for a major piece of economic legislation information on the economics is entirely absent.

Further the old lead wasn't neutral instead it reflects nationalists viewpoints rather than being a neutral description.

Overall the drafting needs to improve as it is only C quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It needs clearer structure and though there should be references to its criticism particularly the international criticism the original parts of the bill caused with the plan to break international law this shouldn't overwhelm the lead and short be short and succinct. There doesn't need to be the he said, she said quotes from UK ministers and critics.

Most definitely it shouldn't protray opinions as facts. Opinions when they do appear should be attributed and clearly flagged as opinions of the bill as introduced, it should also reflect that these opinions impacted the development of the bill which was heavily amended in the Lords to answer concerns such as those. So several of the points the criticisms claimed the bill was lacking it now incorporates as an Act, such as an exemption regime built on common frameworks.

ultimately it wasn't useful some just reading that wouldn't really understand the key points of the Law. It needs to be factual, succinct and reflect the Law as enacted not the bill as introduced PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC) (sorry forgot to log in!}

First statement by FDW777

The consensus lead said The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales can operate in practice. This is a perfectly neutral, factual statement. If, as asserted elsewhere, provisions are a matter of fact within the legislation then it is a factual statement. It is a factual statement per multiple academics, or are they just making things up? That it is a factual statement is confirmed by the fact that the first seven words of the sentence haven't been removed or amended and remain in the article to this day. What does The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers mean? Well, internal trade barriers are by definition internal. Those would be ones created by the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, since the UK government clearly has no intention of creating them. So the first seven words of the consensus lead confirm the rest of the consensus lead is factual, since it says quite clearly the Act is designed to restrict the power of the devolved administration to create any trade barrier. There has been a dearth of references provided to dispute any of this.

Content policy, and in particular what references say, determine the content of articles, not saying "this should be like another Act article". Once that is done the lead summarises the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by DrJosephCowan

The lead paragraph should be kept as is, it currently states the provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles which are not matters of opinion, those provisions are a matter of fact within the legislation. Yellowing and FDw777 argue that the opinion of the academics should be in the lead paragraph as a statement of fact, there is no other UK legislative article on Wikipedia that holds the opinion of an individual academic within the lead paragraph. It is the opinion of an academic that those provisions restrict the devolved administrations powers, however, that isn’t fact; it is opinion. To reach comprise and consensus; I’ve argued that the opinion of the academics, UK Government and Devolved Administrations can all be highlighted elsewhere within the article but they should not be within the lead paragraph with the intention to push a particular viewpoint on this article. I also think there are far too many viewpoints within the entirety of the lead and it does not explain enough of what the legislation actually does. If a readers wants to find out the different opinions of the legislation it should be in a dedicated section which states various opinions not within the entirety of the lead.DrJosephCowan (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First statement by Cambial Yellowing

The legislation is a matter of dispute IRL between Welsh/Scottish governments and the UK government. As parties to that dispute, their views are primary sources and should be attributed. For NPOV, they should have equal prominence in the lead.

The dispute on this article hangs on whether a function of the legislation sourced to these should be included in the lead (I’d add ). Editors seeking inclusion of "seeks to prevent internal trade barriers" (which isn’t in the legislation), implicitly accept the principle that facts about the legislation’s purpose can be drawn from reliable sources other than the text of the legislation itself. I support that principle. The sources cited in the status quo state that the legislation seeks to prevent trade barriers, create market access principles, and restrict the ability of the devolved administrations to legislate in certain ways. They’re not giving an opinion or making a value judgement; they're presenting legislative analysis, and they all agree on this point. Editors are seeking to present this as though it’s an opinion. Yet despite numerous requests, they have produced no scholarship, nor any source at all, where experts say differently. In fact PlainAndSimple has added a source to the article which supports those above.

The bill had a minor amendment about common frameworks before enactment, this made no substantive changes to the aspects affecting devolution, as discussed by the ScottishParliamentInformationCentre and in UK parliamentary expert evidence by various legal scholars and experts. Editors have said that the statement about restricting devolved administrations is inherently negative, or a criticism, or “nationalist viewpoints”. There’s no evidence for this. It’s a statement about what the legislation does. Some people might see it as negative, others as positive. The fact that some might see it as negative is neither a reason to pretend it’s only an opinion, nor to remove it from the lead.

I agree that other parts of the lead should be expanded. There is no reason to remove a major and widely accepted aspect of the legislation's function. Cambial foliage❧ 22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)😊😊

References

First statement by moderator

Thank you all for your timely responses. In reading through, I see a few different issues emerge, which is perhaps why this discussion has been so complicated. If I read correctly, CoiledAmp and Tailor both want the lead entirely reworked; whereas Dr, FDW, and Cambial have issues with specific sentences that are/aren't included. While I am sympathetic to the desire to entirely redo the lead, having done so myself various times, it is easier to do alone. But here we have five different editors, so if Coiled and Tailor will accept, I propose we tackle this lead piece wise instead of all at once. It is much easier to get consensus to change one sentence at a time than paragraphs at a time. So lets start with what seems the most contentious sentence, which currently reads: The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom with provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles. In your next response, please say if you support or oppose this wording, and why. If you like it but think it should be tweaked, please propose a modified version. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by CoiledAmp

I agree its a good idea to go sentence by sentence of this introduction to try to find agreement. But significant changes throughout the introduction will be needed not minor changes.

On the sentence mentioned I think its the right place for that sentence and very important mention of mutual recognition and non discrimination. This is something that was previously missing from the introduction and its absence was a big problem so it shouldn’t be removed. It is essential for the introduction. My only suggestion on this sentence is maybe a slight rewording at the end to “…with provisions on mutual recognition and non-discrimination.” I don’t think its necessary to include "principles" at the end, and "on" rather than "of" sounds more correct. Also just a small point but throughout the article "act" is said in lowercase when other articles always say "Act". I think it should be capitalised. But those are the only changes I would make to this sentence.

If we are going through the introduction sentence by sentence in each paragraph I do just want to say now that I do think the second sentence could be improved. The first sentence is fine. The second sentence is right in mentioning about no longer being subject to EU regulations but I think it could be better worded as I do not think “It is concerned with...” sounds right. But this can be discussed in a later stage so we can focus on just one sentence at a time. CoiledAmp (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for making a further comment at this stage, but following some of the statements i do feel i really need to make clear my position on something that i did not mention in either of my original statements so far in this process. I do not accept that there is a different "status quo" version of the article. Nor do i accept that the previous version had consensus. I strongly oppose the article introduction being reverted to a previous version which was far worse. There should be no further alterations to the wording of the introduction until it is resolved here in this process. Also just to follow on from what i said in my previous comment i have changed all mentions of "act" to "Act" earlier this morning and i made a couple of unrelated changes to other parts of the article but not the introduction. Just wanted to make that clear and sorry for posting again but as two editors seem to be demanding a previous version of the article be restored i felt i needed to make it clear i dont support that at all. CoiledAmp (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by PlainAndSimpleTailor

Hello

So I really think it is quite bad that it needs a complete overhaul, in particular because it was written about the bill and not Act. More generally I'd point out that in the discussion Cambrial recently archived it was agreed this article would cover both the act and the UK internal market itself, yet the economics, details on trade flows etc is absent, this just speaks to the general overhaul the article was in need of when I started. Take this para below;

The lead is misleading throughout and engages in this sloppy he said, she said style of drafting for example

• The UK Government states that the act's intended purpose is to guarantee the continued seamless functioning of the UK's internal market, and to enshrine in law principles to ensure regulations from one part of the UK are recognised across the country.[13] The Scottish Government states that the act is additionally intended to authorise financial assistance by UK government ministers on devolved matters, and reserve devolved powers relating to subsidy control. They have said that the intent of the act is a "power grab"

"enshrine in law principles to ensure regulations from one part of the UK are recognised across the country" That is just explaining what mutual recognition is as a concept.

"The Scottish Government states that the act is additionally intended to authorise financial assistance by UK government ministers on devolved matters, and reserve devolved powers relating to subsidy control."

This makes it appears that the new spending powers or the resolution of the debate over subsidy control are things the Scottish govt is accusing the UKG of doing and that UKG isn't admitting to. However that isn't the case spending powers, and the reservation of subsidy control are clearly on the face of the bill they aren't a matter of opinion like the belief the bill will in practice restrict devolved competence. Similar mention of the Office of the Internal Market, MRPQ and unfettered access for NI are entirely absent yet these are all major part os of the Act.

Then the para goes further and sets out SG opinion "Power Grab without the balance of UKG's argument that it represents a "power surge" due to the new powers the DAs will get that were previous held by the EU.

The lead needs a root and branch overall to make it fit for purpose.

On the specific about the sentence. I think what the Act does should be set out. Then in a following paragraph you can have criticisms of the bill as introduced, which lacked the substantial amendments which is where the Nationalist views of academics, DA ministers etc belong. with appropriate weight against those views in favour.

Sorry Admiral if that is less helpful but I really think focusing on it piecemeal is the wrong way to go about this. which is why it needs to be something like this

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 the regulation of trade within the UK, as the UK is no longer subject to EU regulations.

The Act 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 established 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, empowers the UK Government to spend in areas of devolved competence. It also places duties on UK and devolved administration (DA) ministers to facilitate Northern Ireland's unfettered access to the UK Internal Market given its unique position following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Mutual recognition means that goods produced in and to the standards of one part of the UK will be recognised as equivalent and thus fit for sale in any other part of the UK. non discrimination means a regulator or other pulbic body in one part of the UK can't treat local goods or services preferably to those produced in other parts of the UK. These rules apply to all regulatory authorities in the UK, including councils, devolved administrations, professional and trade bodies and government departments. Exemptions from these rules exist to allow local divergence most notably through the common frameworks policies.

The Bill received support from business organisations. However, it received national and international criticism due to elements that would have empowered the UK government to break the Northern Ireland Protocol of its withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Legislation also continues to face national criticism for its impact on devolution. Many of these criticism were addressed through amendments in the Lords with the controversial clauses on the NI protocol being removed entirely. The Welsh and Scottish Government in particular strongly opposed the bill and the former has announced its intention to challenge the legislation in court.

We clearly have two editors with an agenda against the act, perhaps they are nationalists, and want to paint the legislation in a certain light before anyone can evaluation its impacts. They claim some consensus but in actual fact they obsessive gatekeeping has prevented change, and the knee jerk reaction of established editors against newbies creates a bias, there clearly was no consensus or they wouldn't have had to revert changes so frequently, and threaten, harass and report anyone who's edits they didn't like. All their arguments ultimately rest on this fallacy of appeal to authority. They cite academics claiming their statements are facts when the academics themselves would make no such claim, as they couch their words in "coulds", "mays", "mights", "potentials" and "risks" If we look at the quote from one of the sources from Michael Dougan who of the academics is perhaps the strongest critic;

• So on paper, devolution might continue to look the same. Indeed, it might even look more extensive (as the UK Government has repeatedly promised after Brexit). But in practice, the operation of the UKIM has real potential to limit the capacity of the devolved institutions to pursue different economic or social choices from those made in London.

He caveats his view with the term potential. it is not in anyway stated as fact. Irregardless his views are of the bill as introduced not the act. There was a claim that there has been consensus since 21st of October but this protrays the very heart of the issue, the lead is outdated as in the 21st of October the act wasn't an act, it was a bill.

I think ultimately the best guide to would be the article on the UK exit from the EU, the lead states the facts it doesn't cite academic opinion that leaving the EU would be economically disastrous and weakening the UK's international standing or that the vote was interferred with or such as Michael Dougan youtube video that propelled him to notability that the electorate didn't understand and were lied to by the leave campaign. All of that is left for the body of the text and the lead focuses on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by FDW777

Just for clarity, I have yet to take any position on what needs to happen with the rest of the lead. I absolutely oppose the current sentence, it was never even discussed. It was introduced on 22:22, 2 February 2021 without any formal proposal beforehand despite the ongoing RFC, and the page was subsequently protected on this version shortly after. To even suggest this version should be discussed makes a mockery of consensus. The consensus version is the 10:12, 29 January 2021 version and reads The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales can operate in practice. The key issue, never refuted, is that when people say the lead should say what the act does they completely ignore that is something that is determined by reliable references. If many reliable academics say the act does something, you can't then turn round and say "that's just their opinion" (or, more accurately they keep repeating the same incorrect line of "that's just one person's opinion" despite that being repeatedly refuted as being totally incorrect) when simultaneously saying it should simply say what the act does. FDW777 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by DrJosephCowan

My stance is that the current sentence of the lead paragraph should be kept exactly how it is with a minor grammatical change if required. It is important that the sentence specifically spells out what the legislation does and central to that are the provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination not an opinion of an academic. These provisions are the entire basis of the legislation and its purpose to prevent internal trade barriers within the United Kingdom. The prior sentence was completely biased and pushed the viewpoint of an academic that the legislation was equally about restricting the devolved administrations, which is not a factual portrayal of the Act but an opinion. It is disingenuous to add the opinion of an academic within the lead sentence because it is simply an “opinion”, which was placed there to be read as a matter of fact by the editor Cambial Yellowing. Furthermore, the previous sentence had been disputed for months and it was only until a day or so ago that Cambial Yellowing had to roll back on the sentence in regards to “restricting the devolved administrations” because it was accepted that this was an opinion of the academic before it even became law. I do not support the opinions of any within the lead of this article and certainly not academics, as it goes against every precedent that has been set on the leads of other major UK legislative articles. Therefore, I agree with the consensus of CoiledAmp and Tailor that the sentence should remain as is and thereafter the lead should expand on the provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination not on the opinion of others.DrJosephCowan (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by Cambial yellowing

Firstly I mirror what FDW777 says about the consensus and status quo version. Something very similar to that sentence has been in the lead since at least 17 December and the exact phrase since at least 4 January (save for -"NI"); the statement was introduced 21 October and remained as status quo for two months. There has been occasional disruptive wiping of part or all of it recently, but this has been reverted by at least six different editors and has been stable for most of the time.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

I oppose the current wording. The status quo covers the main aspects of the legislation's purpose that have been reported in reliable sources. The phrase with provisions of mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles is, first of all, very poor English. Secondly, while I am not opposed to including a clause or sentence about these principles, using jargon which will be baffling to readers unfamiliar with the topic, in the first paragraph, is not appropriate. I have previously suggested "market access principles", but am open to other suggestions which will make this aspect clear instead of simply repeating the phraseology of trade economics and trade law. The former term is less of an issue because it can be wikilinked here (albeit to a stub), but I believe more explanatory terms would better serve readers in the opening paragraph.

The legislation's relation to devolved competences has been the subject of very widespread reportage – specifically devoted to that aspect – across the media spectrum and in every major newspaper in the UK, from the Spectator and extensive coverage in the Times to the BBC, the Guardian and Prospect etc. It has been discussed in articles on the legislation in the international press. Its notability as a major aspect of the legislation is beyond question.

Though it was deleted entirely by an editor who then deleted major parts with no attempt at justification, there is a section about this aspect in the body, though in need of expansion. This aspect is also discussed in other areas of the body which touch upon it. This needs to be covered as per LEAD.

To determine the facts about what the legislation does we look to reliable sources. As per WP:SOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES, academic publications, journal articles and monographs are usually the most reliable (alongside the legislation itself, with the caveat of prohibiting interpretation). Some may be in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. We should try to cite current scholarly consensus.

The academic publications and formal published evidence of the sources listed above show a consensus that supports the status quo wording. None of those sources suggest their analysis is an opinion, or a value judgement, or a claim that this function is good or bad. They state what the academics know from their expertise in how trade law operates.

There was a small amendment about common frameworks introduced by Lord Hope prior to enactment. This was not accepted and is not in the legislation. The government made a different amendment. According to the current expert evidence available, this made no substantive change to the effect of the legislation on devolved competences.

Despite being asked repeatedly by more than six editors over a period of two months, none of those opposing the inclusion of this phrase have provided any kind of expert source which deviates from saying that this is what the legislation does. On two occasions, its opponents have brought other sources to the attention of editors to try to refute it. Those sources also support the status quo wording and have been added to the citations with quotes. So, even when actively looking for sources which say otherwise, editors find sources which support the widespread academic consensus. There is not a shred of evidence that it's in competition with alternative theories or controversial within the relevant field. The consensus includes all the experts who gave formal parliamentary evidence on the subject to the House of Lords Select Committee, and all those who gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament Constitution Committee which examined the issue.

I apologise to the moderator for the length, which though I forgive them for thinking otherwise, I have kept minimal. For the reasons above and to maintain NPOV & V, the phrase should be included as in the status quo wording. Cambial foliage❧ 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Second response by moderator

• User:CoiledAmpUser:PlainAndSimpleTailorUser:FDW777User:DrJosephCowanUser:Cambial_Yellowing

Thank you folks for your patience, it is a busy time IRL. Looking through, I propose a compromise wording, as from reading your statements it doesn't seem like they have to be mutually exclusive. Thus I have combined the status quo ante version with a modified version of the current version, as both have support. The act seeks to prevent internal trade barriers among the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can operate in practice. The law also prescribes mutual recognition of regulations between the governments. I have left off "and non-discrimination", as I could not find a source for what that actually means in plain English, although if someone can enlighten me, we can consider re-adding it.

In your next response, please indicate if you would accept this compromise version, or if you have changes to it you would like to see. And please, do keep it short, part of the reason it took me over a week to get back to y'all was that folks went way over the word count :) We will get to the other issues in time. There is no WP:DEADLINE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Third response by CoiledAmp

CaptainEek, Thanks for your time and efforts trying to reach a compromise but the events of the past few weeks have shown there is zero prospect of real progress being made to improve the article. I joined this discussion because i thought there was a chance of reaching agreement to improve the article. I was wrong.

With one editor now banned following understandable frustration with the approach being taken by some editors, and the fact certain editors continue to refuse to even recognise the big problems with the article there seems little point continuing. It seems impossible to get beyond the fact some refuse to accept what the legislation actually says and does in law and instead still prefer to focus on peoples opinions about the legislation. There even seems to be some who refuse to even recognise the existence of the UK internal market itself and that really does illustrate what an impossible task getting agreement to improve the article will be.

I am no longer prepared to waste a moment longer on this terrible article. Good luck to those who actually want to try and improve the article because they certainly need it. I am withdrawing from this process and will not be joining in any further debate on this article. Goodbye. CoiledAmp (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Third response by FDW777

Neutral on the proposal, or perhaps better expressed as in favour. I have no objections to the inclusion/exclusion (delete as applicable) of "mutual recognition" or "non-discrimination" in the lead, and I'm not prepared to argue either way about whether one, both or neither should be in the lead. FDW777 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Third response by Cambial_Yellowing

I largely accept the proposal; if we are looking to finalise it, I propose two small changes. I would remove the phrase of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: those three are the only devolved administrations in the UK, so its inclusion makes a tautology. If we opt to include the last sentence, I would replace two words. For the word law I would put legislation (more common in this context in BE). For the word prescribes: this is an entirely correct usage of the word, but it happens to have two other distinct and technical meanings in both English and Scots law, so in an article on that topic I suggest we change it to stipulates, or another appropriate synonym. Cambial foliage❧ 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Since of the three moderate voices, there is no meaningful contribution to this process at present. Please could I suggest that to have a semblence of accuracy, please remove the separation between what are seen to be restrictions (non-discrimination and mutual recognition) and the phrase "and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations ... can operate in practice" which more than suggests that there are separate parts of the Act which are restricting the devolved administrations. The principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition which are the retrictions. I can see the arugments for saying there are restrictions on the DAs as a result of the act; however, that opening phrasing is rather grating and paints an inaccurate picture. 146.198.108.204 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite - emphasis

The article's emphasis is out of date. When the Act was new, the political fuss around it was the big story. However the Act has law now for four years. The principle aspect of the Act is what it is what it does as law. The political rancour in the past is relevant to the history of the Act and its passage - however the point of the article, in the lede, now should be what the Act is, as a law. That is what we do with other articles on Acts of Parliament. LG02 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a law textbook. The purpose of the Wp:LEAD is to provide a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Your proposed edit of a couple of weeks ago did not do this. It also removed content sourced from constitutional law textbooks – the most reliable type of source available – with no reason given. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The content is not the issue - but the placement, emphasis and duplication. The political fuss is relevant but was a moment in time. In the febrile post-Brexit atmosphere, anything would be full of controversy. Now though the Act is in place as a law.

The opening is meant to be a summary of what the subject of the article is - but here we have long essay, not on what it is about, but about a political argument, which is then repeated in the 'History' section.

It would be better to set out in brief summary (which I tried to do) what the law does, as law, and then note briefly that it was controversial when being passed and why. The detail then goes in the History section. When laid alongside the existing content in that section, we can remove duplication without removing substantive content and citations. LG02 (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not "repeated". The point of the lead is to summarise the article, including the history section that describes the debates that took place prior to enactment. If you think sections can be better summarised then do so. But don't remove the summary of the Background, History, Effect on devolution, Reponses in the UK, and International responses sections based on your personal preference for the Provisions section. And don't remove content sourced from academic textbooks for no reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I will try to look at that. LG02 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)