Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New Article Proposal: UK Internal Market

I think it would worth creating a new page dedicated to the informal term of “UK Internal Market” that is used to describe the economic market within the United Kingdom. The term has been used widely, just like the Irish Sea border; so it would make sense. Any thoughts regarding this would be appreciated. DrJosephCowan (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems sensible as this page doesn't cover the economics really at all. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Its creation is blocked by consensus. It has been deleted once or twice and consensus found to merge it into here once before. I'd need to see academic sources suggesting the "UK Internal Market" is now actually 'a thing' before supporting such a proposal. From what I'm aware, it's still original research, but perhaps circumstances have changed since I last evaluated this matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"suggesting the "UK Internal Market" is now actually 'a thing'"?? Of course the UK Internal Market is a thing and this Act legislated for how that internal market functions after the UK had left the European Union Single Market, though it existed since the start of the United Kingdom itself. There is a lot of information to cover about the UK Internal Market including economic data, trade between regions and ongoing developments via the institutions and rules created by the Act itself that goes beyond the article about the Act. It is worthy of an article though getting this article cleaned up should be the first priority. CoiledAmp (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The UK government saying it does not make it so. Wikipedia works from reliable, independent secondary sources, not original research from government and thinktank whitepapers. Again, emphasis added, I'd need to see academic sources suggesting the "UK Internal Market" is now actually 'a thing' before supporting such a proposal. If you have no such sources, this is a moot proposal and the held consensus applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus change, Also from reading the consensus was that this article would including both but any efforts to expand the economics as with anything on this page requires the chugging sewage that is dealing with the chuckle brothers of Cambrial and FDW88 so disentangling that out seems sensible. The other alternative would be to add something to the UK Economy page. Also the UK internal market has always been a "thing" its simple economics all the academics even the ones like Michael Dougan would agree, any economic area with a single currency and a border encompasses one. So Canada, Australia, the US, India, The EU arguable had several layers of internal market. Generally in unitary states its taken for granted as internal divergence is next to impossible in federal states (or states with devolution like the UK and Spain) its more of an issue so thats why you have the Commerce clause in the US constitution, the Canadian internal free trade deal, the Australian internal market framework (which has grown to include NZ in some aspects) the Swiss internal market regs, and the Spanish have a similar act. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any links to academic sources in your reply. Even if this argument was sound, which is a separate discussion, by itself it sounds like original research to me. Yes, consensus can change, usually when the underlying concerns are addressed which they aren't here, but you can WP:RFC and test whether consensus has changed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PR you can just google it but here's a couple, you could also call it a domestic market etc, but its quite a common concept in trade and economics.

Canada; https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Finance/General%20Documents/201908_FINAL_Canadian_Internal_Market_Research.pdf https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/08/22/canadas-internal-market-is-long-overdue-but-serious-political-effort-is-required-to-achieve-reform/ https://ppforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Canadas-Evolving-Internal-Market-PPF-report.pdf https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2016/07/23/the-great-provincial-obstacle-course

Australia https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00372 https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/mutual-recognition/mutrec.pdf https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44529957.pdf https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/news/news/2019/high-court-decision-on-the-application-of-the-mutual-recognition-act-1992-cth

Spain; https://www.ft.com/content/5bd5a858-6615-11e2-bb67-00144feab49a https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/the-essence-of-the-law-on-the-guarantee-of-market-unity-has-been-declared-unconstitutional-by-the-spanish-constitutional-court/ https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/structural-reforms-spain

Swiss https://www.oecd.org/competition/36386974.pdf https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Finance/General%20Documents/20191021_FINAL_Switzerland_Research.pdf

Hope these help

PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean for the UK (or rather, the "UK Internal Market"). Plus, as an aside, some of those are law firm websites and Parliamentary reports. Those aren't independent reliable academic sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Law firms are often top legal scholars, and the parliamentary libraries produce neutral expert reports for members I would argue their output is often far superior to any academic. I'm reminded of the economist who estimated the world GDP at 1AD. He told one of his student that a source could be anything, even a painting, as it might sure what wealth a city at had the time. As mentioned Every country has a domestic market a simple effect of economics within a nation state. Thanks to the bill There are plenty of sources now. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-uk-internal-market https://www.fljs.org/content/how-uk%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98internal-market%E2%80%99-depends-eu-rules-%E2%80%93-and-jeopardizes-relations-within-uk PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already started constructing a U.K. Internal Market article and have been for a while, I have made previous attempts but up to now there has been no general consensus for having an article so I have let it be.

if there is now a consensus I would happily put forward what I have done for your analysis to allow more voices and people to improve it.

United Kingdom internal market
Draft:United Kingdom internal market

ChefBear01 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There were two previous discussions about your articles on this subject. As I have noted on the draft, the first under the title UK Single Market for which there was a clear consensus for deletion, and then again as United Kingdom's Internal Market which led to a consensus to merge. The huge amount of overlap in the draft with this article gives the appearance of a WP:POVFORK. The brief and inconclusive discussion above comes nowhere close to overturning the clear consensus in the AfD process and again in the Merge discussion that the article is not appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The U.K Internal market Bill should concentrate on the Bill passage only, the rest should be removed and moved into a new article which would not have overlap where it is not necessary as one is Bill specific (fragment) and the other United Kingdom internal market covers the topic as a whole. It would reference relevant segments where necessary but would also cover the other aspects of the internal market that should be spectate from the Bill article such as the U.K. internal market history (as a whole) etc.

ChefBear01 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That....would be completely inappropriate, and contrary to WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. Cambial foliage❧ 12:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to have two article with clear and well defined structure of what they explain is against the guidelines?

ChefBear01 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The U.K Internal market [Act] should concentrate on the Bill passage only, the rest should be removed and moved into a new article. We cover all aspects of a topic in an article. So no, the rest should not be removed. Yes, doing so would be against multiple guidelines. Cambial foliage❧ 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not up to date on where the latest of this discussion is, but I remain opposed until people can demonstrate with independent, reliable sources (ideally scholarly ones) that this is actually 'a thing'. If it were 'a thing' then those sources should exist. Draft:United Kingdom internal market is filled with law firms' websites and government whitepapers, which are absolutely not appropriate secondary sources. It's textbook WP:OR, as it exists currently and the way it uses sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and Cambial Yellowing:, I would appreciate any help from anyone as this will help improve the draft article and fix the problems.

Ex:The Immigration Act 2014 covers the bill but doesn’t cover immigration as a whole and there are at least two separate articles covering the overall topics.

Visa policy of the United Kingdom

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Etc...

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is only an “update” to the existing United Kingdom internal market, but there are areas not covered by the bill but are part of the U.K internal market such as:

• United Kingdom common framework policies
  
• U.K shared prosperity fund
  
• internal market trade statistics
  
• Travel of people and trade within / between the U.K, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Republic of Ireland covered by a variety of agreements and understandings such as:
• Common Travel Area
  
• Northern Ireland Protocol
  
• Customs Union agreement signed by the U.K and the crown dependencies

None of the topics are connected to the bill and should be covered by a single unified article about the U.K. internal market.

ChefBear01 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Procrastinating. I don’t believe there are anywhere close to sufficient sources in the economics and political literature to justify an article on this topic. WP:GNG is not met; at present, as far as I am aware, no sources exist to meet the conditions it requires. Cambial foliage❧ 11:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

have one citation that specifically explains the United Kingdom Internal Market, from a professional legal view, it goes through step by step explaining every piece of legislation and every treaty and all the legal precedents that have created and updated and shaped the U.K. Internal market up to leaving the EU, there are then further sources that explained the Internal Market Bill and how it updated the U.K internal market.

ChefBear01 (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see source below:

Books

Academic

(1) Harlow, Carol (2) Rawlings, Richard (2021). Law and Administration, Law in Context (Fourth Edition), Google Books: Cambridge University Press. Referenced pages:124–131, ISBN:1107149843

Keating, Michael (2021), State and Nation in the United Kingdom: The Fractured Union. Google Books: Oxford University Press, Referenced pages: 144–5, ISBN:019884137X.

(1) Prof. Jo Hunt (2) Prof. Dan Wincott (2020). The Constitutional Implications of the UK Internal Market Proposals (PDF). Cardiff University.

(1) Michael Dougan (2) Katy Hayward (3) Jo Hunt (4) Nicola McEwen (5) Aileen McHarg (6) Daniel Wincott (2020). "UK Internal Market Bill, Devolution and the union" (PDF). Cardiff University.

Political (House of Lords Report)

The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence: 2nd Report of Session 2012-13 (2013), Google Books: The Stationery Office, Referenced pages 9–13, ISBN:0108550613.

Source: House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (cross party committee)

Misrepresenting sources

Editors are not to add unsourced material. As per WP:V the source cited needs to directly support what the article text says. Merely discussing the same topic but saying something completely different is not sufficient. This ought to be obvious, but if editors are unfamiliar with the purpose of references the verifiability core policy outlines it in detail. Cambial foliage❧ 09:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

First you're not in charge, please start to realise you aren't superior to anyone, and don't own this article. It should also be obvious that we can't use a source verbatim without violating copyright. So I would suggest you stop being pedantic and focusing on semantics and start see if you can contribute anything useful PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The improperly referenced material has been removed again. And for the record on this article, as we do millions of others, we do not avoid copyright problems by making up claims that are not present in the reference(s). FDW777 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The material is supported by the reference. (Personal attack removed) PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've cited some additional sources to support the contributions made by PlainAndSimpleTailor. I sit in the middle of these two viewpoints. While it is important that facts are independently verified, it is also not permitted to just plagiarise the work. Sometimes sources don't appear to provide the precise wording to support factual claims without engaging reading comprehension and understanding of the subject matter; in some cases this is ideal as it allows the article to provide insights which would otherwise only be known by someone who has an afternoon to stroke their beard, pontificating over hundreds of pages on a topic. Anyway, my point is rather than remove useful and factual text from the article, it's better to add sources that remove arguments.146.198.108.204 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed personal attacks in that comment. Not acceptable content, neither is it acceptable to speculate on another editor's mental health, and it's not helpful either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@PlainAndSimpleTailor: Rather than being rude to multiple editors and making personal attacks against an editor both here and on multiple talk pages, perhaps you could spend your time more usefully by providing the quotes which you think support the text you have been edit warring to retain. Simply writing "it is supported" is not sufficient. What you have written is not a summary or precis of any part of the source which you reference. Cambial foliage❧ 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Are any other editors who have sought for inclusion of this content able to provide quotes from the cited source which directly support it? Cambial foliage❧ 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Also adding references that are completely and totally irrelevant is disruption, and I suggest editors do not continue to do it. FDW777 (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here, we have text which is a statement of fact; both of you raised objections to the original source, which when read and understood supports the text but you didn't like that there isn't a specific sentence to copy/paste; so a government policy paper, which spells out precisely how the act operates in this instance, was added and you have a problem with that too so instead I've added what are probably the only academic sources which specifically address the question of minimum alcohol pricing, how that is unaffected by the bill and is pretty much the same as how the EU restricted the DAs... and it's labelled as irrelevant? I guess we should address your issue, please explain whether you object to the content or the sources, why you object and what would satisfy these concerns? 146.198.108.204 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting all the references you added to that sentence explicitly reference that sentence? FDW777 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What I'd like you to do is answer my questions, I've explained the situation well enough.146.198.108.204 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The government paper is essentially a press release. Wikipedia is not a press release, and that document is not a neutral or reliable source. The academic sources do not say anything remotely close to what the text does, and no serious person can believe that they do. Sources must support the text. Writing something completely different to what the source says, and then referencing something which happens to briefly mention alcohol pricing in a single sentence, in order to give the false appearance of verifiability, is disruptive editing. Stop it. Either provide the relevant quote from a reliable source which supports it, or the text should be removed, as per WP:UNSOURCED. Cambial foliage❧ 18:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Section March 2021

@146.198.108.170:, you have changed to a version of the lead for which there is no consensus. Why? What are your reasons for changing one sentence in the lead? Your change misrepresents the sources. Cambial foliage❧ 21:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you respond here rather than edit warring, ip. I have linked here on your talk page, which you have seen. Cambial foliage❧ 23:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I saw, thanks. You claim disruption, it's an interesting take on what occurred. From what I witnessed, the three revert rule was broken, by yourself... to change the introductory paragraph to your preferred text. At no point did you dispute any points that it's inaccurate and misleading, which is the primary reason it should change. The sum total of your argument appears to be a reach for technicalities, to prevent a wikipedia article from informing its audience in an accurate manner.146.198.108.170 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't lie ip, civility is important here. 3rr was not broken, and I reverted only twice. You chose an arbitrary revision and pretended it was the status quo. What the most recent status quo ante revision is, has already been established by consensus in discussion above. Now, what is the basis for your proposed change away to a different version? It's been established that the sources support the status quo wording. You have not engaged with the extensive discussion before making your changes, and you've offerend no change in sourcing. Cambial foliage❧ 23:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

for the record, there were 4 occasions in the space of a few hours where you reverted to your preferred wording. I've given a very straightforward reason why the text should change, it is misleading and inaccurate. You continue to not address this issue and find inappropriate technicalities to argue instead. The very precise wording you insist belongs in the introduction makes it sound like there are separate restrictions imposed on the devolved administrations, aside from preventing internal trade barriers (i.e. the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition). There are sources which use the phrase restricted when assessing the act, they are not referring to some other aspects of the act. The very precise "and to restrict" needs changing.146.198.108.170 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Only two of those edits were reversions. Others used a different phrasing, the most recent the exact phrase suggested by moderator during the structured discussion. That wording is supported by the 8 academic sources listed above. Quotes both in the references themselves and in the discussion above, mentioned by me and by other editors, support that precise wording. Cambial foliage❧ 19:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you've not addressed the issue. The sources are not referring to another aspect of the act. You show me the source which justifies "and to restrict" as something separate from preventing internal trade barriers (principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition).146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources indicate that the non-discrimination and mutual recognition provisions are the means by which the act achieves what it seeks: restricting the devolved competences. Quotes or pg already in the references. Cambial foliage❧ 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So you agree then. There aren't additional restrictions, separate from preventing internal trade barriers (principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition). In that case, why are you making a concerted effort to prevent the article from reflecting this fact? 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is about what the legislation seeks to do. The sources support that it seeks to do both those things; there is no suggestion that there are separate restrictions. If you are talking about the sentence following it The law also prescribes mutual recognition of regulations between the governments. why are your edits only to the first one? Cambial foliage❧ 20:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording of that sentence either, it doesn't make a lot of sense to word it that way but there is a big distinction between some grammatical oversight and a misrepresentation of what a law does. I don't have time to fight tooth and nail with you on every issue on this article, very few people do but I will settle for not having the introduction being misleading. 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is about the aims of the legislation. There are two things that the act seeks to do described in the sources, not one. You have not shown any quotes from those or other sources suggesting otherwise. Cambial foliage❧ 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You've finally put it on the record that there are no additional restrictions beyond preventing internal trade barriers (principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition) and the sources don't say otherwise. Everything else is conjecture. On that basis your preferred wording is inaccurate and misleading. You can have the last word, it doesn't change facts.146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about with "additional restrictions"? The sentence is about what the act seeks to do. The sources state that it seeks to 1. prevent internal trade barriers and 2. restrict devolved competences. You seem to be trying to rephrase it so it does not reflect the sources, under the pretense of an unsupported claim to accuracy. Cambial foliage❧ 20:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to 146.198.108.170 that original research is prohibited, as per the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. Do not add your own interpretation of primary sources. Cambial foliage❧ 13:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The primary sources are not contradicted by the secondary sources and provide useful explanations for terms not widely understood. I want to improve the article, I add no interpretations, I am providing the (most concise possible) literal definitions of an act of parliament. You, however are repeatedly reverting (I've lost count, is it more than 100 times in total?) a misleading and inaccurate section of text which above you acknowledge above isn't justified.146.198.108.170 (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The one primary source which you have added does not mention the restriction of the DA legislative competence at all. The primary source (policy paper) which suggests the legislation is a "power surge" is absolutely contradicted by the secondary sources, in extensive detail. Please do not lie, repeatedly, about any other editor's actions. And see WP:BRD for why you are not to simply reinsert a radically altered text from the status quo repeatedly without discussion. There is no inaccurate section of the status quo text; they reflect the reliable secondary sources. Cambial foliage❧ 13:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So you've read the content of the linked sources? Where does it use the words "power surge"? Where have I lied? Your idea of a status quo is having more time to spend than anyone else to revert your preferred text for months on end. The only reason you've left the article alone for a few days is because your previous attempt [[1]] to keep the article misleading looked bad on you and as soon as it was archived you're back to break the very policies you use as excuses.

Does it matter to you, at all, that the very small correction I'm attempting to make is based on verifiable facts (which you are well aware of) and makes the article accurate and informative?

Do you have any suggestions for the wording, at all, which don't contain the words "and to restrict the way [the DAs] can operate in practice"

The only reason I'm spending any effort on this article is because the first time I read it I assumed there were other aspects of the act which might restrict the devolved administrations and found none, if you continue to insist on text which suggests such a mischaracterisaion of an act of parliament you will find me here to challenge it.146.198.108.170 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The reference to a power surge is in one of the primary sources referenced below it, the policy paper. The primary source you added does not mention the restriction on DA competence, so whether another source contradicts it or not is irrelevant.

What you claim is a "correction" is in fact not a correction at all. On WP we make references to what is reported in the reliable sources, not any editor's definition of "the truth". You say you assumed there were other aspects of the act. These additional aspects are "additional to" what exactly? I don't entirely follow why you made this assumption. The text is reporting on the same aspects of the act (the central provisions about market access principles). It reflects that the sources say that those principles seek to do two things. One of those things you are presumably content with. The second is that it restricts the devolved administrations. Why are you trying to deny this? The sources are explicit and unanimous on this point. Cambial foliage❧ 14:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So you object to sources I haven't added and base your reasoning for constant reverts on that. I've clearly explained the problem with the text and what it suggests, I will allow you one more re-hash: your preferred text leads the reader to believe there are additional restrictions beyond preventing internal trade barriers (principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition). There is nothing I've attempted to change which isn't based on objective fact. The only rational explanation I can find for an intelligent person to insist on the reverts you keep making, is that you wish for ambiguous text which makes quite an uninteresting aspect of legislation look more sinister.146.198.108.170 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't make up absurd straw men like So you object to sources I haven't added and base your reasoning for constant reverts on that. Absolutely not. You said the sources don't contradict the primary ones. The primary ones you added don't mention it, so whether they directly contradict it is not relevant.

146.198.108.170, I am not dismissing what you are saying. The wording you object to "and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations can operate in practice." was arrived at by multiple editors revising the original text that was added to reflect the sources. If it implies something other than - that this is a function of the act - I wish to address that. You seem to be saying that you believe it implies an additional and unmentioned section of the legislation. You claim it looks sinister. Could you explain how it implies that? Your changes seem to be trying to do something else (i.e. imply that this is not something that the act seeks to do.) The reliable sources show an unchallenged academic consensus that this is what it seeks to do, so that change could not be supported. Cambial foliage❧ 15:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to be further derailed or continue to make discussion unfollowable for others. I will simply repeat the unanswered question Do you have any suggestions for the wording, at all, which don't contain the words "and to restrict the way [the DAs] can operate in practice"?146.198.108.170 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There are an endless variety of ways to word the fact that one of the intended functions of the legislation is to restrict the way devolved competences can operate (i.e. "restrict the devolved authorities practical capacity to regulate"). I'm not going to start listing them all without knowing what it is *exactly* that you think the problem is. Is what I say above what you are getting at? You seem to be saying that you believe it implies an additional and unmentioned section of the legislation. Cambial foliage❧ 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've explained the issue *again* today and you don't appear to have a problem finding time to read anything relating to this article. Given that without exception, you've reverted any and all attempts to change this wording for months, 24/7, including countless examples which explicitly spell out what those "restrictions" are, in the most straightforward terms... As the de-facto owner of this article, through wearing down any who might challenge your preferred wording, you should come up with an alternative which doesn't mislead the audience. If you can't, I don't see the purpose for this discussion other than to waste my time in the hope I give up like all the others.146.198.108.170 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not ownership for an editor to revert the addition of original research by analysing legislation sources. The current text (or some variant thereof) appears to be the stable version for the time being, and is adequately sourced. That the government doesn't agree doesn't mean it isn't sourced. Wikipedia works from high quality secondary sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The version recently reverted "The act serves two main functions: 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 can operate in practice." Has two main issues:

1) Preventing internal trade barriers are the restrictions on the devolved administrations. The way this is worded in the quote above could easily be interpreted otherwise.

2) The Act serves more than these functions, most notably it provides financial assistance for economic development; information about this is prominent is in the article.

I am neutral on how this should be specifically worded.

However, I strongly believe that it would be far better to simply say what these restrictions are, than to provocatively just say there are restrictions. The term "restrict", in this context (and fairly standard in a trade deal) is a reference to the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition. I don't understand the hostility to this sentence being objective.

Given the obvious opposition to alternative wordings from Cambial Yellowing, perhaps they can find some neutral text to solve these issues and we can move on from all this time consuming nonsense.146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that your rewording also has issues (potentially even more issues, due to it being sourced to primary sources), and less so that the current sentence is adequate. It isn't adequate, but it's been disputed before and this is what we've ended up with for the time being. I think this is the same issue being mediated by CaptainEek above? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am neutral on the precise wording.

I also don't want to get bogged down on which sources are selected, these can be substituted but I don't see any verifiability issues with the sources which explain the provisions of financial assistance for economic developmentprincipals of non-discrimination and mutual recognition as this article is about about a legal act and those sources contain the legal text, which unsurprisingly is covered and not contradicted by secondary sources. I already have a tinge of spidey senses that we could end up debating sources well beyond the point of sense so please focus on the correcting the language as per two posts back, feel free to use alternative sources if they can be similarly informative and accurate.

Oh yeah, about the process above, I was hoping that would come to a conclusion before the section was edited again but I'm not the person to answer as to why that happened.146.198.108.170 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Preventing internal trade barriers are the restrictions on the devolved administrations. There is no evidence for this. It's a groundless assumption which has no basis in the sources or in reality. These are two things that the act seeks to do; trying to elide the distinction between them is an attempt to push an unsupported POV. Cambial foliage❧ 12:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No evidence? Aside from the sources, including the one that you lean on most heavily? I'll indulge this strange derailment for a short time only, I'm not going to have this become a case of who can keep this argument going the longest with baseless reasoning to stop consensus being formed... If preventing trade barriers (the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition) aren't the restrictions, what are? Let's take a look at your favourite quote (and the basis for the inclusion of the problematic text) from Michael Dougan:

"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."

The principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition are the restrictions and the means by which trade barriers are prevented are the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition. It is absurd to suggest otherwise and make accusations based on this falsehood to stall this process; now stop playing games and let's address the problematic sentence, if you have nothing valid to add to this discussion I suggest you stop preventing progress from others when they improve the article.146.198.108.170 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are unable to discuss your claimed concerns like an adult this will not be productive. Linking to diffs of other's comments, with a text saying something different to that comment, is lying and is uncivil, and will not help you. I'm not interested in a long discussion either; if the above facetious rubbish is the sum of your argument there is little to discuss. I don't lean on or have a favourite quote.

The sentence from the Dougan briefing paper which you quote says the non-discrimination and mutual recognition obligations are the means to restricting the devolved competences (not that one is the other). This is already stated in the current last sentence of the opening paragraph. In all of the five paragraphs of the section of evidence from which the sentence you quote is taken, neither trade barriers nor their prevention is mentioned.

You write preventing trade barriers (the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition) as though the two concepts are one and the same thing. They're not. No-one thinks they are. Again, "Preventing trade barriers" and the "principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition" are not the same thing. Pretending that they are, and using that pretence to try to justify claiming they are also the same as something else again, is not a serious form of argument. You seem to be struggling with the idea that the legislation can seek to do more than one thing. No "progress" is being prevented here; your pushing of an unsupported POV is simply unacceptable in a neutral encyclopaedia. Cambial foliage❧ 18:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I work entirely on the basis of facts. If you want to make the impossible argument that the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition are not how trade barriers are prevented; you should be able to state how trade barriers are otherwise prevented in the act. Otherwise, that's a lot of text and accusations based on hot air.146.198.108.170 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Two comments ago, you at long last outlined your argument. Let's examine it in logical form:

A is one of several things used to do B.

Therefore, A IS B. (!)

A is also used to do K.

Therefore, A IS K. (!)

Therefore, B is K.

Here's the problem: it's bullshit. No-one's buying it. Cambial foliage❧ 10:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's make this as clear as possible, the argument I can't believe you're continuing to make, is that mutual recognition and non-discrimination are not the means by which trade barriers are prevented. All I need to do is cite to the academic sources you refer to yourself. Now can you please finally address the problematic text?

"The UK Internal Market (UKIM) Act puts the ‘market access principles’ of mutual recognition and non-discrimination in law to ensure there are no new barriers for businesses trading across the UK."

"The Bill aims to promote the functioning of the UK internal market by establishing two ‘United Kingdom market access principles’: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Mutual recognition means that if goods or services produced in or imported into one part of the UK can be lawfully sold or supplied there, they can be lawfully sold or supplied in all other parts of the UK, even if they do not comply with local regulatory requirements. Non- discrimination means that goods or services regulated in one part of the UK and traded in another must not be treated less favourably than local goods. This principle covers both direct discrimination (i.e. rules that expressly treat incoming goods or services differently) and indirect discrimination (i.e. rules that appear neutral but, in practice, are more difficult for incoming goods or services to comply with)"

"In the absence of harmonisation, two major principles provide alternative solutions to the problem of cross-border trade. First, non-discrimination between domestic and imported goods / services... Non-discrimination is generally seen as a “baseline” requirement for cross-border trade: it eliminates blatant inequalities...

Mutual recognition is an extremely effective tool for promoting cross-border trade: after all, it successfully addresses many (non-discriminatory) barriers to trade; and does so without the need for regulatory harmonisation."146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not the argument I'm trying to make or that I made, and suggesting such a wildly inaccurate interpretation is WP:GASLIGHTING. Cut it out. The problem with your argument is the next step, as I make clear above – your suggestion that because <mutual recognition and non-discrimination> are (some of the) methods used in this case to <prevent internal trade barriers>, they are therefore one and the same concept. But you're not actually clear or confident enough in your argument to actually state this, instead you assume it to be true and imply it using brackets, as you do here, here, here, here, and here. That illogical pretence makes no sense; it's a ridiculously facetious argument, as outlined above. Enough with your sophistry and pointless straw men. Cambial foliage❧ 21:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just now: "That's not the argument I'm trying to make or that I made, and suggesting such a wildly inaccurate interpretation is WP:GASLIGHTING. Cut it out."

Two posts before:

"You write preventing trade barriers (the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition) as though the two concepts are one and the same thing. They're not. No-one thinks they are. Again, "Preventing trade barriers" and the "principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition" are not the same thing. Pretending that they are, and using that pretence to try to justify claiming they are also the same as something else again, is not a serious form of argument." 146.198.108.170 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If I allow you to pretend you didn't just totally contradict yourself, back to the question: how then, are trade barriers otherwise prevented in the act?146.198.108.170 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote: "Preventing trade barriers" and the "principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition" are not the same thing

What you wrote: the argument I can't believe you're continuing to make, is that mutual recognition and non-discrimination are not the means by which trade barriers are prevented.

Concept A being used as one of the means to achieve Concept B, is not the same as Concept A being Concept B. Most small children grasp this. If you wish you can make your case for a change from the current consensus. As has been pointed out by editors and admins, the onus is on you to convince others to change the consensus. It's not on me to answer your questions. As other editors have pointed out, at a bare minimum your argument needs to be coherent and logical, unlike what you've written so far. As long as that is still lacking, there is little to discuss. Cambial foliage❧ 00:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "The act serves two main functions: 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 can operate in practice."

We have you acknowledging that the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition are the restrictions and (aside from reality) evidence that trade barriers are prevented by the principles by non-discrimination and mutual recognition. Other than assertions and an unrealistic expectation for someone to prove a negative, do you have any evidence to support your claims that these terms aren't effectively interchangeable in the context of the act? Perhaps you could cite some other aspect of the act where trade barriers are prevented by other means.146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Cambial Foliage's version is superior, and suggest y'all stop beating a dead horse and move on. If you really want, hold an RfC about which version is better. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Infobox

There is no reason to use honorifics in the infobox. The person's name which is on their article is appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...that wasn't your reason given in your reversion messages. "Lord" in this context is not an honorific, it's part of the person's name (so far as the Lords are concerned). Here's a selection of article of notable Acts that have the introduced_lords parameter filled using the person's title: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, European Communities Act 1972 (UK), Scotland Act 2016, Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. --Inops (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It is what I said in the edit summary. Your groundless assertion that "Lord" is not an honorific is inaccurate. As per MOS:HON, styles and honorifics in front of a name — in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included. The exception is subject biographies, which this article is obviously not. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it was about unnecessary pipes and then that the subject's article title was just "Martin Callanan" (which it isn't). Whatever the MOS says isn't true on the ground for this particular parameter, as I've shown in the links above. Having a non-"Lord" introduce legislation doesn't match the others. But have it your way -- I'll defer to the time you've spent on your article, amply shown above. --Inops (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

defer however you like. The fact is we follow MOS, not a non-existent standard which you made up by looking at a couple of bad articles. Cambial foliage❧ 08:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a de facto standard, it's how the other articles use the infobox argument, not one I "made up". If we're talking about standards and policy, you should read WP:OWNER, as you guard this article from virtually every change by other editors: from tiny stylistic changes like this to bring it inline with other articles, to protecting the article's patently NPOV skew (which I gather is your ultimate reason for "article ownership"). It's fairly obvious from your several (unrelated) reasons given to revert me, you just wished to enforce your ownership. --Inops (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We go by consensus policy, not a "de facto standard". I don't "guard against" anything. I do revert attempts to avoid following established consensus policy. If you believe there is a new consensus on policy raise it at the MOS:HON talk page. There is no NPOV skew. If you think the article is skewed towards the academic view, you're right, and it should be. See WP:SOURCES, WP:SOURCETYPES, or for an good explanation of why it arises see WP:ABIAS. Cambial foliage❧ 20:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

By definition, "consensus" doesn't exist if the policy it tries to enforce is not followed on substantial numbers of articles (virtually all of them on the issue of "Lord X", "Baroness Y" btw). "Consensus" on Wikipedia is a mushy thing -- it tends to be the clump of loudest people with the most time to spend that get their way, especially on controversial issues. Hence, the reason for your ownership (or your do reverting if you wish). It shows the worth of the article's synthesis of the "academic view" if it does not distinguish between what the act "seeks" to do, and its collateral effect, as displayed in the third sentence. It's a bit like the EU article containing the text, in WP:WIKIVOICE and unqualified or unattributed, that the EU "seeks to diminish national sovereignty". It's nonsense to argue that isn't a perversion of WP:NPOV. --Inops (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

virtually all of them on the issue of "Lord X" It states in the policy that biographical article subjects are the exception. Manual of Style is representative of the consensus. If you feel consensus has changed feel free to make your case on MOS talk. This is not the place to argue to ignore style policy because you found some other articles that ignored it. Your false equivalence to a sentence in another article is not interesting or relevant. Cambial foliage❧ 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Updates?

So are there any updates that need to be done? If a certain person's first edit wasn't continuing the same disruption this article has seen for months, there might actually have been some chance of the article being updated. Is there anything in their other edits worth salvaging? FDW777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked at it the first time I removed it and could see one source, not a reliable one, that actually related to the act. The content was:

However some senior nationalist politicians have disputed this Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars said that “Nicola Sturgeon has been dancing up and down on the ball saying, you know you’re stealing powers from us. The irony is that if she gets these powers, she wants to hand them all back to Brussels. That’s a massive contradiction in her policy position.”

theyworkforyou's replication of Hansard is likely accurate. Whether Andrew Bowie accurately quotes Sillars is another question, given his party's current attitude towards truth and accuracy. Opinions are of course only included if reliable sources indicate that the individual is noteworthy for their views on the subject. I would seriously question whether the views of 83-year-old Jim Sillars, out of politics for 29 years, have so much as a passing reference in reliable sources.

Apart from more unsourced content, and the editor's own interpretation of the primary source, the rest of what looked like a large addition (measured by bytes) was largely a poorly-written slight WP:POVFORK of Economy of the United Kingdom. I see no reason to replicate content from that page on this one. Cambial foliage❧ 16:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the content copied from the lead of the economy article, and the claimed Sillars quote. A speech only referenced to a primary copy of said speech, claiming a third party said something didn't seem worth including either. I should have mentioned I'd already discounted those parts of the changes. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

On the larger question of updates, the judgement in this section was overturned by a higher court. Interestingly, I cannot find a single English newspaper or medium that reported on this fact, despite their reporting on the lower court's ruling. It should be added at some point if you have time.Cambial foliage❧ 17:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The case is currently pending an appeal on the decision to decline permission for the judicial review to even take place. The Court of Appeal have agreed to hear that argument on that preliminary issue, but as things stand no permission has been granted - so the section is probably as factually accurate as it can be without becoming unwieldy. At most perhaps the page could note that the Welsh Government are appealing that refusal. HeathernUK (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

OIM error

I'm not an established user but could someone correct the minor error whereby the Office for the Internal Market is misdescribed as the "Office *of* the Internal Market"? HeathernUK (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References seem equally divided as to whther it's "of" or "for", unclear which is correct. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have started to create a dedicated (draft) article to cover the office for the internal market. (see Draft:Office for the Internal Market ChefBear01 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC).

Section 32 of the Act: Office for the Internal Market. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There is now a dedicated article for the Office for the Internal Market. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not just Dougan

Please see the quotes provided in footnotes #1-#9. FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I’d also encourage new editors at the page to read the report from six academics, mostly senior professors at their respective institutions, that is currently citation [2], as well as the peer-reviewed papers, two of which are open access in case you do not have an institutional login. The paper by Wincott, Murray and Davies is particularly relevant. Lastly, recent changes have offered nothing whatsoever to contradict the current sourcing. It will need pretty extensive support given the voluminous available sourcing , some of which has been removed from the citations because it was excessive, as per Wp:OVERCITE. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

My issue is only with the words "seeks to". As far as I can see from the cited sources, this point of view is only iterated in a single source, that being Michael Dougan during a call for evidence of the Scottish Parliament. The wording implies the author of the bill / the UK Government brought the bill forward in order to restrict the practice of devolved competences, rather than their stated aims, rather than it being an effect of the provisions of the act. It's therefore quite a large claim in the context of the article and should be made clear it is the perspective of one analyst, not the consensus among scholars. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

the UK Government brought the bill forward in order to restrict the practice of devolved competences, well that's the nail hit right on the head. The devolved governments are the only people that have the potential to create internal trade barriers in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is that claim in any of the sources other than Dougan? The current wording attributes the "seek to" to 4 sources, including 2 peer-reviewed articles, while the claim being made is only backed up by one, which is not peer-reviewed and is a statement from a single analyst. Hence why I re-worded the sentence to clarify this. Is your problem with the way I worded my edit - if so could you suggest a better wording? Jèrriais janne (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly that’s the wrong question. Your attempt to frame the crux of this debate, by trying to put the onus on other editors to establish where sources other than Dougan state this, does not advance your position. Dougan occupies a senior law chair at a Russell Group University. To counter that analysis, so far you’ve offered… nothing.

The relevant question is, what evidence is there that this widely accepted function of the bill is somehow an accidental or unintended consequence? I know lawyers who work in BEIS personally. The process that a bill goes through even before they instruct the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is extensive and extremely rigorous. There is further intensive examination of the effect of every word at the OPC stage. The notion that this was unintentional or accidental is frankly ludicrous. Not only that , but the BEIS expressly recognises that this is something the legislation does even before publication, in the Impact Assessment document.

Lastly, your assertion that this is only backed up by one suggests you have not bothered to read the articles linked in the citations. For example, Wincott et al, in discussing the white paper:

Although it deliberately emphasized the binding effect of EU law on the devolved institutions until the end of the Withdrawal Agreement’s transition/implementation period (BEIS, 2020, para. 64), it left the outline nature of many EU directives and the public interest exceptions to the operation of core Single Market rules wholly unexplained. This transparent effort to underplay the considerable autonomy EU law gave to devolved institutions, enabling measures such as Scotland’s minimum alcohol pricing legislation, unsurprisingly provoked the ire of the Scottish Government

Later, discussing the enacted version:

The devolved governments are justifiably wary that the UK’s internal market legislation has been enacted to prevent them from pursuing the sort of distinct policies once facilitated by EU law.

Now, do you have any evidence for your "unintended consequence" theory, which thus far looks like original research? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The EU took the UK to court over scottish minimum pricing, and it was barely allowed. Under UKIM as long as they didn't discriminate between say Scottish and Irish whisk(e)y for example then the regulation would face no issue. so in that regard the UKIM regulation is less restrictive than the EU acquis. I think if you knew Lawyers at BEIS they would of pointed that out to you. Out of interest who is it you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.228.233.154 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition can I suggest rather than quoting academics from before the legislation came into force quoting something like this from the Welsh Assembly researchers which was published this year;

"Parts 1 and 2 of the Act do not create any new reservations in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and do not legally restrict the Welsh Government or Senedd from legislating in areas that are currently devolved. The key effect of this part of the Act is its impact on the practical effect of Senedd legislation that comes within its scope"

https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/uk-internal-market-act-2020-act-summary/

https://research.senedd.wales/media/wjpps43f/21-12-internal-market-act.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.10.201 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What else do you think the act does? Pretty much its sole purpose is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK, which can only be done by restricting the power of the devolved administrations. FDW777 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@Cambial Yellowing: Instead of:

to restrict the exercise of legislative powers of the devolved administrations in economic matters

Would you agree to a compromise

to avoid legislative and policy diversion by the devolved nation in economic areas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is a neutral summary of the available scholarship and of the article body. Your proposal is less representative of the available scholarship than the status quo – not sure how that would be a compromise (?). Cambial — foliar❧ 08:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't see how that's a compromise, just seems to take less account. TheBritinator (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)